This Weekends Matches 2017/18 - Page 60 - Football related - Discussion of non TA football - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

This Weekends Matches 2017/18


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Bobster said:

Just seen the table and I was surprised to see if Rangers had won those two games (games they were expected to win) they’d be just 1 point behind Celtic.

Aah the old 'if your Auntie had baws she'd be your uncle' argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, slasher said:

Aah the old 'if your Auntie had baws she'd be your uncle' argument.

He's right, though.

And if Celtic hadn't gone through the season so far undefeated, they'd be well behind Rangers now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Parklife said:

"Others" are thick fvcks like Bill Leckie. If that's the calibre of the folk you have backing your argument then i'd reconsider your position :lol: 

May pulled out of the tackles as he decided he wouldn't win the ball. It was as blatant a foul and red card as you'll ever see. 

I was just referring to others in this thread who appeared to see it as I did.

I’m willing to accept you are better qualified on this than I am as a referee.

To me a red card here is punishing the consequences rather than the action. As I thought he got to the ball first and the contact with May was a bit unfortunate. Unless he’s deliberately “left a bit on him” in which case it’s a definite red, it doesn’t look particularly nasty, but Jack has a bit of a reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sbcmfc said:

I was just referring to others in this thread who appeared to see it as I did.

I’m willing to accept you are better qualified on this than I am as a referee.

To me a red card here is punishing the consequences rather than the action. As I thought he got to the ball first and the contact with May was a bit unfortunate. Unless he’s deliberately “left a bit on him” in which case it’s a definite red, it doesn’t look particularly nasty, but Jack has a bit of a reputation.

The consequences are a result of the action. His action has endangered an opponent. If he can't get the ball without doing what he did on his follow through, then he can't win it cleanly. 

The chat above that May "got what he deserved" is utterly pathetic tbh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wee-toon-red said:

If Holt hadn't shat out of it then McLean wouldn't have made contact with him. Obviously.

A fair point. Clearly Holt got what he deserved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

The consequences are a result of the action. His action has endangered an opponent. If he can't get the ball without doing what he did on his follow through, then he can't win it cleanly. 

The chat above that May "got what he deserved" is utterly pathetic tbh. 

May bottled the challenge. One of the first things I was taught was always commit to the challenge or you'll be the one getting hurt, and that is very true. 

May bottled it and got what he deserved out of the challenge, a sore ankle. 

If that's a red card now then Football is absolutely dead. There's no point in tackling if you can't do it properly. No wonder so many players get serious injuries if they're getting taught to just hang a leg out and hope for the best. 

Let's see if there's an appeal and how it goes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, wee-toon-red said:

If Holt hadn't shat out of it then McLean wouldn't have made contact with him. Obviously.

You must be a referee with eyesight that bad. 

Studs down the back of the ankle deliberately, so a stick on yellow for me. 

I'm surprised McLean got close enough to make contact during the game. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Parklife said:

It's incredible that in a week where at least 1 Rangers goal should've been chalked off for offside, they're attempting to play the put-upon victims. 

Who's playing the victim? 

Taverneir 2nd goal was definitely offside but I can see how the linesman could have missed it as the defence moved up as Taverneir moved in. 

No real excuse as they're supposed to be professional these days, just a possible reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

May bottled the challenge. One of the first things I was taught was always commit to the challenge or you'll be the one getting hurt, and that is very true. 

May bottled it and got what he deserved out of the challenge, a sore ankle. 

If that's a red card now then Football is absolutely dead. There's no point in tackling if you can't do it properly. No wonder so many players get serious injuries if they're getting taught to just hang a leg out and hope for the best. 

Let's see if there's an appeal and how it goes. 

I think that's maybe where you're going wrong. Like it or lump it, you're not supposed to enter into challenges where there's a chance a player could get hurt because if they do, then you're looking at a sending off. Today's game isn't about flying into challenges and physically intimidating your opponent, it's about skill, positioning and reading of the game to block or intercept a pass or shot. A lack of understanding of that within coaching teams the length and breadth of the country is quite possibly one of the things holding Scottish football back.

Edited by wee-toon-red
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

You must be a referee with eyesight that bad. 

Studs down the back of the ankle deliberately, so a stick on yellow for me. 

I'm surprised McLean got close enough to make contact during the game. 😉

In all honesty I find it incredible (literally) that anyone could think May was in any way at fault for the Jack "tackle" so forgive me being a bit flippant with anything else.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, wee-toon-red said:

If Holt hadn't shat out of it then McLean wouldn't have made contact with him. Obviously.

 

14 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

You must be a referee with eyesight that bad. 

Studs down the back of the ankle deliberately, so a stick on yellow for me. 

Whoosh!

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

May bottled the challenge. One of the first things I was taught was always commit to the challenge or you'll be the one getting hurt, and that is very true. 

May bottled it and got what he deserved out of the challenge, a sore ankle. 

If that's a red card now then Football is absolutely dead. There's no point in tackling if you can't do it properly. No wonder so many players get serious injuries if they're getting taught to just hang a leg out and hope for the best. 

Let's see if there's an appeal and how it goes. 

May pulled out of a challenge that he would've lost. He took the correct action, as going in to the challenge would've resulted in him fouling Jack. Jack, on the other hand, went in to the challenge in such a way that meant his follow through endangered his opponent. It's as clear a red as you'll see this season, only someone blinded by bias or ignorant on the laws of the game would think otherwise. 

I love the "football is dead" lines from folk whenever a thug in their side gets sent off for a horrendous challenge. :lol: 

34 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Who's playing the victim? 

Rangers fans on twitter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wee-toon-red said:

I think that's maybe where you're going wrong. Like it or lump it, you're not supposed to enter into challenges where there's a chance a player could get hurt because if they do, then you're looking at a sending off. Today's game isn't about flying into challenges and physically intimidating your opponent, it's about skill, positioning and reading of the game to block or intercept a pass or shot. A lack of understanding of that within coaching teams the length and breadth of the country is quite possibly one of the things holding Scottish football back.

A player can be hurt in any physical challenge so what you're saying is tackling isn't allowed. 

Any challenge in the air is especially dangerous but they're allowed, so I don't think you're interpretation can be correct. 

If we're going to ban tackles then it needs to be a non contact sport like basketball. Not worth watching in my opinion. 

You can't be sure there was any malice in the tackle and in my opinion May should have either went for it or got out of the way. If the players were the other way around I'd be berating Jack for his cowardice and defending May. It's not a team blinkered attitude as Parky continues to try and imply. I just believe it's a man's game that requires some physical combative challenges. Otherwise it's a training session and really not very interesting to watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sbcmfc said:

 

Whoosh!

:lol:

I got his joke but wanted to see what he'd do if I ignored it. 

His next answer was very magnanimous in the face of my intended ignorance. 

Intelligent debate with folk of a different opinion is normally very difficult on here as you generally get the Parky approach of "you're wrong" instead of any debate. 😀 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

May pulled out of a challenge that he would've lost. He took the correct action, as going in to the challenge would've resulted in him fouling Jack. Jack, on the other hand, went in to the challenge in such a way that meant his follow through endangered his opponent. It's as clear a red as you'll see this season, only someone blinded by bias or ignorant on the laws of the game would think otherwise. 

I love the "football is dead" lines from folk whenever a thug in their side gets sent off for a horrendous challenge. :lol: 

Rangers fans on twitter. 

I know you don't like Rangers and you're also no longer a fan of Jack and I think that's clouding your opinion. 

Im not viewing this with team bias. I'm able to manage that quite nicely thanks. If the roles were reversed I'd be defending May and calling Jack a coward. 

It's about wanting football to be competitive. 

I'm assuming that both of the recent Celtic penalties were stonewallers in your opinion since there was contact? 

Rangers have now appealed and we shall find out soon enough. 

The football is dead line is my opinion. I'll no longer be watching if contact isn't allowed. It just won't be interesting. 

Edited by RenfrewBlue
Adding last paragraph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

A player can be hurt in any physical challenge so what you're saying is tackling isn't allowed. 

Any challenge in the air is especially dangerous but they're allowed, so I don't think you're interpretation can be correct. 

If we're going to ban tackles then it needs to be a non contact sport like basketball. Not worth watching in my opinion. 

You can't be sure there was any malice in the tackle and in my opinion May should have either went for it or got out of the way. If the players were the other way around I'd be berating Jack for his cowardice and defending May. It's not a team blinkered attitude as Parky continues to try and imply. I just believe it's a man's game that requires some physical combative challenges. Otherwise it's a training session and really not very interesting to watch. 

Honestly, that's the way it is these days. The blood and snotters, hit them before they hit you stuff is so far away from the modern game outside of Scotland - and maybe England at a push - that it isn't true. Watch an international game or Champs League etc and you won't see much of the physical stuff outside of the UK teams - big, strong, hard to knock off the ball, certainly but the leaving the foot in stuff ala Jack yesterday is ALWAYS punished strongly by the refs.

There's an article doing the rounds today with Mark Clattenburg where he's mainly talking about how great he is but in amongst it he mentions having to referee European games completely differntly to domestic matches because the big players won't tolerate the physical stuff. That's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wee-toon-red said:

Honestly, that's the way it is these days. The blood and snotters, hit them before they hit you stuff is so far away from the modern game outside of Scotland - and maybe England at a push - that it isn't true. Watch an international game or Champs League etc and you won't see much of the physical stuff outside of the UK teams - big, strong, hard to knock off the ball, certainly but the leaving the foot in stuff ala Jack yesterday is ALWAYS punished strongly by the refs.

There's an article doing the rounds today with Mark Clattenburg where he's mainly talking about how great he is but in amongst it he mentions having to referee European games completely differntly to domestic matches because the big players won't tolerate the physical stuff. That's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about.

I'm not talking of going back to the old days. I just want the game to be competitive. If physically competing is banned then there's no need to play the game. The players with the most ball control will win, every time. 

There'll be absolutely nothing to get excited about if the wee teams can't try and compensate with passion and physicality. 

I'm not saying just kick folk. 

I know that's just my opinion but it's why I don't watch much CL anymore and also partly why Scotland games don't appeal any more. They aren't entertaining. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wee-toon-red said:

In all honesty I find it incredible (literally) that anyone could think May was in any way at fault for the Jack "tackle" so forgive me being a bit flippant with anything else.

 

Sorry meant to reply to this earlier. 

He wasn't at fault for the tackle. He was at fault for not protecting himself properly. It's not Jack's responsibility to look after May, he's a big boy now. 

That's where I differ from the apparent rules. It's personal responsibility not public. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

I'm not talking of going back to the old days. I just want the game to be competitive. If physically competing is banned then there's no need to play the game. The players with the most ball control will win, every time. 

There'll be absolutely nothing to get excited about if the wee teams can't try and compensate with passion and physicality. 

I'm not saying just kick folk. 

I know that's just my opinion but it's why I don't watch much CL anymore and also partly why Scotland games don't appeal any more. They aren't entertaining. 

There’s no doubt that 30 years ago no-one would be complaining about jack’s tackle but the fact that he’s not allowed to make it is completely linked to how may went in. In a climate where that kind of tackle is outlawed a player shouldn’t have to worry about defending himself as he shouldn’t expect a foot to be left in.

You might be right that it’s spoiling football but there is a whole generation of fans who have grown up with things the way they are. I’d say I’m on the cusp at 37 of knowing how it was in the “old days” but also seeing how it is in the modern game and I bet if you ask most teenagers if they want to see Ronaldo, messi etc doing their stuff or if they’d prefer Terry hurlock, Peter grant, or Ryan jack (😜) trying to break their legs then there would only be one choice.

apologies if I’ve gone into more than just your quote above but I’m aware we’re quoting each other in two separate but related conversations so tried to tie them back together.

Edited by wee-toon-red
Added a smiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...