Serious discussion-Review of red & Yellow cards.

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Oso

2010-01-04 11:51:35 UTC

I was listening to Radio Scotland in the car whilst travelling home to watch
the match on Sunday and serious discussion developed. Normally their
discussion as are about as heavweight as an envelope of feathers but they
came away with this.

"The appeal system for red and yellow cards should be reviewed in the light
of Willie Collum's failure to admit he made a mistake in sending off Kenny
Miller. At present the referee must say that he has made a mistake and
Willie Collum was not big enough to do this. At this moment he must be
about 4' 10" tall. (That made me laugh.) The first port of call for the
appeal should not be the match referee but a panel who can consider video
evidence presented by the club." This was the view of all of the panelists
including one who is known not to be friendly to either Old Firm team.

Now judge of there is any merit in the sending off decision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8435647.stm

As I see it, even taking off the blue specs, Miller is stuck on top of Dodds
and cannot get off of him. There is no intentional lashing out with arms or
legs just a desperate attempt to get off of Dodds. Collum did not have the
guts to say "I got it wrong" and Dodds should be done for simulation, the
same as Lafferty justifiably was.

Your opinions please. Please do not intersperse your message into this
message but rather post it underneath so there can be some kind of ease of
reading also allowing us not to miss cogent, and hopefully coherent,
sections of the argument.

Jonbhoy

2010-01-04 13:14:49 UTC

Permalink

Post by Oso
I was listening to Radio Scotland in the car whilst travelling home to
watch the match on Sunday and serious discussion developed. Normally
their discussion as are about as heavweight as an envelope of feathers but
they came away with this.
"The appeal system for red and yellow cards should be reviewed in the
light of Willie Collum's failure to admit he made a mistake in sending off
Kenny Miller. At present the referee must say that he has made a mistake
and Willie Collum was not big enough to do this. At this moment he must
be about 4' 10" tall. (That made me laugh.) The first port of call for the
appeal should not be the match referee but a panel who can consider video
evidence presented by the club." This was the view of all of the
panelists including one who is known not to be friendly to either Old Firm
team.
Now judge of there is any merit in the sending off decision.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8435647.stm
As I see it, even taking off the blue specs, Miller is stuck on top of
Dodds and cannot get off of him. There is no intentional lashing out with
arms or legs just a desperate attempt to get off of Dodds. Collum did not
have the guts to say "I got it wrong" and Dodds should be done for
simulation, the same as Lafferty justifiably was.
Your opinions please. Please do not intersperse your message into this
message but rather post it underneath so there can be some kind of ease of
reading also allowing us not to miss cogent, and hopefully coherent,
sections of the argument.

To be honest i think the time has long past since football has needed an
overhaul.Things have moved on in the past 20 years faster than ever before
yet FIFA just sits there.Video evidence should be used more as well as goal
line cams etc,i would even say some penalty appeals could go to a 5th
official reviewing it on cam (Could even strike an agreement with tv
companies as they can cover it from all angles).Yellow cards though is a
sticky point and i think its down more to the fact it will double paperwork
and investigations.Remember the SFA/FA etc doesnt just work for top level it
works pretty much all the way down to grass roots.I remember in one
affiliated FA league i played in on a sunday you would actually get a one
match ban if you got a yellow and that actually made players behave a bit
more respectfully and from my memory (Many years back now) i believe that
league had a season with no Red cards but again you could not appeal the
yellow which was annoying but you just had to accept it.Thing is Refs can
get it wrong and of course most times they will still try to cover their
back,same way some players dive with us all knowing they dived yet they
still stand there claiming they dont dive.Its just one part of football that
needs to be addressed but until FIFA get off their backsides and move with
the times we will be stuck with it.

liam67

2010-01-04 13:48:05 UTC

Permalink

Yesterday's ref, like the one at Ibrox, was a hun...Lafferty should
have walked with opportunities for at least two red cards, the goal
should have been allowed and Celtic should have got a pen at
Ibrox...but it's just papering over the RFC cracks...

Breen Gin (RFC 52 Titles)

2010-01-04 17:56:49 UTC

Permalink

Post by Oso
I was listening to Radio Scotland in the car whilst travelling home to watch
the match on Sunday and serious discussion developed. Normally their
discussion as are about as heavweight as an envelope of feathers but they
came away with this.
Your opinions please.
Yesterday's ref, like the one at Ibrox, was a hun...Lafferty should
have walked with opportunities for at least two red cards, the goal
should have been allowed and Celtic should have got a pen at
Ibrox...but it's just papering over the RFC cracks...

Sigh . . . . . . . . .
--
Breen

RFC Scotland's most successful club
52 Titles
WORLD RECORD

_
/'_/
,/_ /
__ / /_
/'_'/' '/'_'7,
/'/ / / /"/-
('( ' ' _~/
\ ' 7
'\' \ _7
\ (
\ \.

Siempre Borracho

http://whatsyourview.net/forum/free_football.php

Since light travels faster than sound, is that why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak?

Oso

2010-01-04 18:40:23 UTC

Permalink

Post by Breen Gin (RFC 52 Titles)

Post by Oso
I was listening to Radio Scotland in the car whilst travelling home to watch
the match on Sunday and serious discussion developed. Normally their
discussion as are about as heavweight as an envelope of feathers but they
came away with this.
Your opinions please.
Yesterday's ref, like the one at Ibrox, was a hun...Lafferty should
have walked with opportunities for at least two red cards, the goal
should have been allowed and Celtic should have got a pen at
Ibrox...but it's just papering over the RFC cracks...

Sigh . . . . . . . . .

And you wonder why I have Liam in my FOAD file? I couldn't see his post
until you replied. An intelligent contribution pertinent to the discussion
proposed might occasionally reprieve him but they just don't happen.

liam67

2010-01-04 18:44:30 UTC

Permalink

Post by Breen Gin (RFC 52 Titles)

Post by Oso
I was listening to Radio Scotland in the car whilst travelling home to watch
the match on Sunday and serious discussion developed. Normally their
discussion as are about as heavweight as an envelope of feathers but they
came away with this.
Your opinions please.
Yesterday's ref, like the one at Ibrox, was a hun...Lafferty should
have walked with opportunities for at least two red cards, the goal
should have been allowed and Celtic should have got a pen at
Ibrox...but it's just papering over the RFC cracks...

Sigh . . . . . . . . .

And you wonder why I have Liam in my FOAD file?

I thought it was cos I asked if you voted BNP...not that Rangers fans
have anything to do with that sort of thing though... ;)

Moody Marco

2010-01-06 09:07:02 UTC

Permalink

Post by liam67

The replay on the BBC highlights clearly shows Fortune nudged McGregor's
left arm just as he was about to catch the ball, Pat Nevin pointed this
out. Fortune was also offside when the ball first came in. So on what
basis should the goal have been allowed?

Also Fortune is a lying bastard as he was adamant in his interview he
never touched McGregor...

liam67

2010-01-07 10:54:37 UTC

Permalink

Post by Moody Marco

Post by liam67

I think Nevin was slightly more ambiguous than you point out Moody.
Didn't Nevin suggest there was a case also to award a goal? Nevin
certainly never convinced with his argument Richard Gordon, who
thought it should have been a goal.

My view is that both Fortune and McGregor went for the ball. Which I
presume is OK. Both were equally right to go for the ball. There was
contact between the two players. But at no point did McGregor look as
if he was going to get the ball. He misjudged his jump, rather than
Fortune knocked the ball out of his hands.

On Sky they sounded pretty convinced it was a goal. Ewen Cameron on
Real Radio thought it was a goal. Apparently Hugh Keevins on Clyde
thought it was a goal. Graham Spiers in The Times, thought the
decision "utterly mystifying." On BBC Radio Scotland they were all
pretty convinced it was a goal. Richard Gordon, David Begg and Billy
Dodds for example. And Dodds is hardly a Celtic man...

It's like when a goalie and attacked go for a corner. If both have a
chance to get the ball but the attacker gets his header away and
scores, the goalie and attacker make contact before the header. There
may be contact between the two, but if it looked all the way that the
attacker was going to get the ball, then you give a goal.

I've no idea what you are on about with the offside...

Post by Moody Marco
Also Fortune is a lying bastard as he was adamant in his interview he
never touched McGregor...

Strong words for Fortune Marco...I hope you were equally adamant about
Kyle Lafferty's antics...with Ian Durrant sitting in the stand...I
hope Smith had words...doubt it though....Lafferty dived against
Aberdeen towards the end of last season....nevertheless Smith played
Kyle against Dundee Utd the following week...low and behold Lafferty
scores the first goal....Rangers diginity eh....

sme

2010-01-04 20:51:02 UTC

Permalink

Post by Oso
I was listening to Radio Scotland in the car whilst travelling home to
watch the match on Sunday and serious discussion developed. Normally
their discussion as are about as heavweight as an envelope of feathers
but they came away with this.
"The appeal system for red and yellow cards should be reviewed in the
light of Willie Collum's failure to admit he made a mistake in sending
off Kenny Miller. At present the referee must say that he has made a
mistake and Willie Collum was not big enough to do this. At this
moment he must be about 4' 10" tall. (That made me laugh.) The first
port of call for the appeal should not be the match referee but a
panel who can consider video evidence presented by the club." This
was the view of all of the panelists including one who is known not to
be friendly to either Old Firm team.
Now judge of there is any merit in the sending off decision.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8435647.stm
As I see it, even taking off the blue specs, Miller is stuck on top of
Dodds and cannot get off of him. There is no intentional lashing out
with arms or legs just a desperate attempt to get off of Dodds.
Collum did not have the guts to say "I got it wrong" and Dodds should
be done for simulation, the same as Lafferty justifiably was.
Your opinions please. Please do not intersperse your message into
this message but rather post it underneath so there can be some kind
of ease of reading also allowing us not to miss cogent, and hopefully
coherent, sections of the argument.

Watched it several times there and two points. 1. Why did Miller feel he
had to a) keep sticking his leg in til Dodds went down and b) why
couldn't he simply have rolled away? My other point is that Dodds was at
it when he reacted as if Miller caught his face when it was clearly his
calf hitting his shoulder.

Not a red card but not sure what Millers gesture was at the end?

Oso

2010-01-04 22:08:09 UTC

Permalink

Post by sme

Post by Oso
I was listening to Radio Scotland in the car whilst travelling home to
watch the match on Sunday and serious discussion developed. Normally
their discussion as are about as heavweight as an envelope of feathers
but they came away with this.
"The appeal system for red and yellow cards should be reviewed in the
light of Willie Collum's failure to admit he made a mistake in sending
off Kenny Miller. At present the referee must say that he has made a
mistake and Willie Collum was not big enough to do this. At this
moment he must be about 4' 10" tall. (That made me laugh.) The first
port of call for the appeal should not be the match referee but a
panel who can consider video evidence presented by the club." This
was the view of all of the panelists including one who is known not to
be friendly to either Old Firm team.
Now judge of there is any merit in the sending off decision.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8435647.stm
As I see it, even taking off the blue specs, Miller is stuck on top of
Dodds and cannot get off of him. There is no intentional lashing out
with arms or legs just a desperate attempt to get off of Dodds.
Collum did not have the guts to say "I got it wrong" and Dodds should
be done for simulation, the same as Lafferty justifiably was.
Your opinions please. Please do not intersperse your message into
this message but rather post it underneath so there can be some kind
of ease of reading also allowing us not to miss cogent, and hopefully
coherent, sections of the argument.

Watched it several times there and two points. 1. Why did Miller feel he
had to a) keep sticking his leg in til Dodds went down and b) why
couldn't he simply have rolled away? My other point is that Dodds was at
it when he reacted as if Miller caught his face when it was clearly his
calf hitting his shoulder.
Not a red card but not sure what Millers gesture was at the end?

The gesture looked like a "what the hell do you think you are doing you
feigning bastard?" What do you think of the proposal by the chattering
nabobs to change the appeals process?

Jonbhoy

2010-01-04 22:17:13 UTC

Permalink

Post by Oso

Post by sme

Post by Oso
I was listening to Radio Scotland in the car whilst travelling home to
watch the match on Sunday and serious discussion developed. Normally
their discussion as are about as heavweight as an envelope of feathers
but they came away with this.
"The appeal system for red and yellow cards should be reviewed in the
light of Willie Collum's failure to admit he made a mistake in sending
off Kenny Miller. At present the referee must say that he has made a
mistake and Willie Collum was not big enough to do this. At this
moment he must be about 4' 10" tall. (That made me laugh.) The first
port of call for the appeal should not be the match referee but a
panel who can consider video evidence presented by the club." This
was the view of all of the panelists including one who is known not to
be friendly to either Old Firm team.
Now judge of there is any merit in the sending off decision.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8435647.stm
As I see it, even taking off the blue specs, Miller is stuck on top of
Dodds and cannot get off of him. There is no intentional lashing out
with arms or legs just a desperate attempt to get off of Dodds.
Collum did not have the guts to say "I got it wrong" and Dodds should
be done for simulation, the same as Lafferty justifiably was.
Your opinions please. Please do not intersperse your message into
this message but rather post it underneath so there can be some kind
of ease of reading also allowing us not to miss cogent, and hopefully
coherent, sections of the argument.

Watched it several times there and two points. 1. Why did Miller feel he
had to a) keep sticking his leg in til Dodds went down and b) why
couldn't he simply have rolled away? My other point is that Dodds was at
it when he reacted as if Miller caught his face when it was clearly his
calf hitting his shoulder.
Not a red card but not sure what Millers gesture was at the end?

The gesture looked like a "what the hell do you think you are doing you
feigning bastard?" What do you think of the proposal by the chattering
nabobs to change the appeals process?

"feigning bastard" Werent you Rangers fans warned about using languange like
this towards Celtic fans?

;-)

Fish Supper

2010-01-04 16:38:56 UTC

Permalink

Post by Oso
I was listening to Radio Scotland in the car whilst travelling home to
watch the match on Sunday and serious discussion developed. Normally their
discussion as are about as heavweight as an envelope of feathers but they
came away with this.
"The appeal system for red and yellow cards should be reviewed in the
light of Willie Collum's failure to admit he made a mistake in sending off
Kenny Miller. At present the referee must say that he has made a mistake
and Willie Collum was not big enough to do this. At this moment he must
be about 4' 10" tall. (That made me laugh.) The first port of call for the
appeal should not be the match referee but a panel who can consider video
evidence presented by the club." This was the view of all of the
panelists including one who is known not to be friendly to either Old Firm
team.
Now judge of there is any merit in the sending off decision.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8435647.stm
As I see it, even taking off the blue specs, Miller is stuck on top of
Dodds and cannot get off of him. There is no intentional lashing out with
arms or legs just a desperate attempt to get off of Dodds. Collum did not
have the guts to say "I got it wrong" and Dodds should be done for
simulation, the same as Lafferty justifiably was.
Your opinions please. Please do not intersperse your message into this
message but rather post it underneath so there can be some kind of ease of
reading also allowing us not to miss cogent, and hopefully coherent,
sections of the argument.

Actually, I think the ref got it absolutely right in Miller's case. If you
look at the slo-mo at 14 seconds, you can see that Miller swipes at Dodds's
face with his left hand - a slappy punch. Dodds is not the acting type and
he didn't make nearly as much of a meal of it as most other players would
have.

As to the main point, there clearly has to be an overhaul of the system. I
would favour one whereby any caution can be appealed , yellow as well as
red, before an independent committee made up of managers, refs and
ex-players - but with the proviso that if you make an appeal which fails,
then the caution is automatically doubled, so that a failed yellow appeal
would result in the card being changed to red. It's clearly ludicrous to ask
the person who made the initial decision to be the one to rescind it or
leave it be.

The current system is completely unfair and corrupt - remember leblanc's red
card in the 98 WC semi against Serbia (?). The serb clearly dived as video
evidence proved, but leblanc missed the biggest game of his life because of
it.