ScottBF2 3,540 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 27 minutes ago, Valance1690 said: Dont think we really know what the rules are anymore, they change them that much! However going by recent years, the push seems to be towards 'intent', if a tackle looks like it's meant to do damage to a player then they usually get punished retrospectively Roofe's looked worse in real time, its a bad tackle but you can clearly see he's going to shield the ball and catches the guy, there's zero malice in it. As I said I could've had no complaints if he'd been sent off in the match, it looked terrible in real time but if a panel of so called 'experts' can sit down with all the footage and say he deserves a 3 game ban for it then they don't know football. Intent isn’t a factor, it’s endangering an opponent. He did that, could have easily broken Davidson’s leg had things went wrong. I will add to this discussion though, that Lego should have been sent off v Kilmarnock. Again, the intent is irrelevant, he’s endangered an opponent by swinging an arm out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valance1690 3,826 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 1 minute ago, ScottBF2 said: Intent isn’t a factor, it’s endangering an opponent. He did that, could have easily broken Davidson’s leg had things went wrong. I will add to this discussion though, that Lego should have been sent off v Kilmarnock. Again, the intent is irrelevant, he’s endangered an opponent by swinging an arm out. If that is the official rule then Roofe will likely be charged However by that interpretation it could literally mean anything...you endanger an opponent with a clash of heads...its not intentional but can cause serious damage...case in point was Jiminez a few months ago for Wolves If its getting to the point where any tackle that could've caused an injury, whether it does or doesnt, is resulting in a 3 match ban then we're as well chucking it. As for Brown, haven't see it, read it was a swinging elbow though, surprisingly it hasnt been given much coverage... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Jela 20,361 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 Is he getting banned then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,722 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 4 hours ago, King Jela said: Is he getting banned then? If so, it'll be confirmed tomorrow. I'm pretty certain he will be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howsitgoing 4,281 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 11 minutes ago, Valance1690 said: If that is the official rule then Roofe will likely be charged However by that interpretation it could literally mean anything...you endanger an opponent with a clash of heads...its not intentional but can cause serious damage...case in point was Jiminez a few months ago for Wolves If its getting to the point where any tackle that could've caused an injury, whether it does or doesnt, is resulting in a 3 match ban then we're as well chucking it. As for Brown, haven't see it, read it was a swinging elbow though, surprisingly it hasnt been given much coverage... He did lunge for the ball and if they want to use the rule book to go after the Rangers players they can. The ref normally is giving a bit of leeway to evaluate intent and act on that. They are fucking up Scottish football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robmc1 4,741 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 18 minutes ago, Valance1690 said: However by that interpretation it could literally mean anything...you endanger an opponent with a clash of heads...its not intentional but can cause serious damage...case in point was Jiminez a few months ago for Wolves If the tackle from the Dundee Utd player who gashed Morelos leg is considered as not ’endangering an opponent’ (on that rational) it’s difficult to honestly say Roofe’s is. It was undoubtedly clumsy and mistimed but no worse than the above incident and did not cause injury... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billscott 2,463 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 1 minute ago, Robmc1 said: If the tackle from the Dundee Utd player who gashed Morelos leg is considered as not ’endangering an opponent’ (on that rational) it’s difficult to honestly say Roofe’s is. It was undoubtedly clumsy and mistimed but no worse than the above incident and did not cause injury... if davis had not saw the challange coming from kane and jumped out of it that would have been every bit as bad as roofes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie0202 12,272 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 11 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said: If so, I'll be confirmed tomorrow. I'm pretty certain he will be. Are you on the panel mate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
They Gnu 11,553 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 1 minute ago, Jamie0202 said: Are you on the panel mate? Fuckin hope not Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_4 34,521 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 It could have / should have been a red. It’s not ‘violent conduct’ and the challenge wasn’t missed by the ref. Based on past incidents it shouldn’t be retrospectively upgraded, but this is Scottish football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_4 34,521 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 1 hour ago, Valance1690 said: Couldn't have any complaints if it was a red during the match Can certainly have complaints if it's been seen clearly by the ref (it was), was dealt with at the time (it was) & has since been downplayed by the opposition manager. This. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,722 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 1 minute ago, Jamie0202 said: Are you on the panel mate? Couldn't tell you even if I was. 2 minutes ago, They Gnu said: Fuckin hope not Wouldn't tell you even if I was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
They Gnu 11,553 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said: Couldn't tell you even if I was. Wouldn't tell you even if I was. I’m connected so I’d fuckinknow anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,722 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 3 minutes ago, They Gnu said: I’m connected so I’d fuckinknow anyway. You can't join up fucking dots ya maniac never mind get yourself connected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
They Gnu 11,553 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said: You can't join up fucking dots ya maniac never mind get yourself connected. True but that wouldn’t prevent me getting a senior position in Scottish Football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,722 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 24 minutes ago, They Gnu said: True but that wouldn’t prevent me getting a senior position in Scottish Football. Supporting Rangers would. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMax399 3,704 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 20 hours ago, Virtuoso said: Whit? I've read your post a few times and have no idea about what you're talking about He’s tried to get his body in the way, and block him. People talk all the time now about intent, which I find strange unless you can read minds but let’s go along with it for now. Yes he gave him a sore one, but there was zero intent to injure him and simply therefore it’s not a Red. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMax399 3,704 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 20 hours ago, ForeverAndEver said: Mate, everyone has their opinion. It’s just not a Red in mine. Zero intent was shown to injure him, and every effort was made to back in and block him. Yes the boy took a hit, but no way did Roofe set out to do him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,252 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 Intent nothing to do with it, whether or not you mean to endanger an opponent is irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenoz 30,836 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 29 minutes ago, Big Al II said: Intent nothing to do with it, whether or not you mean to endanger an opponent is irrelevant. You are correct in what you say but based on that logic, brown should have been suspended then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,722 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 1 hour ago, DMax399 said: Mate, everyone has their opinion. It’s just not a Red in mine. Zero intent was shown to injure him, and every effort was made to back in and block him. Yes the boy took a hit, but no way did Roofe set out to do him. Mate why is it you think intention plays such a part in what the outcome should/ will be? If intention wasn't relevant to outcome but the potential to hurt an opponent was, would it be a red card? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brackley Bluenose 4,479 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 1 hour ago, DMax399 said: Mate, everyone has their opinion. It’s just not a Red in mine. Zero intent was shown to injure him, and every effort was made to back in and block him. Yes the boy took a hit, but no way did Roofe set out to do him. He’s endangered the safety of an opponent by the letter of the law, hence why we wouldn’t have argued with a red card IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenoz 30,836 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 All of this sudden secondary refereeing is a direct result of the Morelos witch-hunt. You could basically cite players from every game for misdemeanours. The ref dealt with the Roofe foul by branding him a yellow card so move on! They are making a mockery of the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottyscott1963 18,328 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 There are cases of "endangering an opponent" at least twice against one player by two cunts who got off with it this season,reckless fouls by that clown porteous when he elbowed Alfie and that cunt Edwards at D/Utd and left him with aleg full of stitches. Quite sure McGregor recklessly endangered Kamara when he grabbed him bodily,stuck his elbow into the back of his head while throwing him to the ground,then tramped on his leg.It was blatant "endangering an opponent" and me personally felt it was intentional,not sure what the 3 person fuckin panel were watching when they said no case to answer. This is not whataboutery,it's just that we want all cases to be called with parity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottyscott1963 18,328 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 Been cited by 4 day old var Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.