Jump to content

Red Cards, Injuries, And Substitutions


Drew

Recommended Posts

Apologies in advance I this has been discussed elsewhere (I couldn't be arsed trawling through all the 'we are all doomed.... doooooooomed!' threads).

Last night, Jordan Stewart was stretchered off after what was reportedly a horror foul by Mullen of Livingston. The latter received a straight red card, but because we had used all our subs, we were also reduced to 10 men.

Now, surely this cannot be reasonable. For me, if a straight red results in the wronged against team being reduced to ten men as a result of consequent injury, they should be permitted to make a further substitution.

Thoughts (and I am not thinking specifically about whether this would have influenced the match last night)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Apologies in advance I this has been discussed elsewhere (I couldn't be arsed trawling through all the 'we are all doomed.... doooooooomed!' threads).

Last night, Jordan Stewart was stretchered off after what was reportedly a horror foul by Mullen of Livingston. The latter received a straight red card, but because we had used all our subs, we were also reduced to 10 men.

Now, surely this cannot be reasonable. For me, if a straight red results in the wronged against team being reduced to ten men as a result of consequent injury, they should be permitted to make a further substitution.

Thoughts (and I am not thinking specifically about whether this would have influenced the match last night)?

Shouldn't this be in the "Utter Nonsense" section?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies in advance I this has been discussed elsewhere (I couldn't be arsed trawling through all the 'we are all doomed.... doooooooomed!' threads).

Last night, Jordan Stewart was stretchered off after what was reportedly a horror foul by Mullen of Livingston. The latter received a straight red card, but because we had used all our subs, we were also reduced to 10 men.

Now, surely this cannot be reasonable. For me, if a straight red results in the wronged against team being reduced to ten men as a result of consequent injury, they should be permitted to make a further substitution.

Thoughts (and I am not thinking specifically about whether this would have influenced the match last night)?

There is no rule to tell you when, or even if you need to use all your substitutes. Discusdion closed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes no sense, whatsoever.

I'm with you 100% It's effectively rewarding thuggery. Should be easy to change the rules and get it adopted. But just hold on ten minutes and some of our bright sparks will come up with a scenario where it could be exploited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did someone mention 'bright sparks'...? :)

It would be difficult to contrive similar circumstances - EG ensure a red carded tackle on one of your weak links whom you'd like substituted - but it would then be possible to bring on a better player.

This, of course, would mean that the decision not to bring that one on earlier means you're an utter shite manager. This does appear to be an exceptional circumstance in which common sense should prevail.

However, 'common sense', morality and the Scottish fitba authorities are not good bedfellows....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think that the conduct of the Livingston player's got Goody booked and there persistent surrounding of the ref any time Goody went near a ball was the reason Goodwin had to be subbed!

The boy Mcmulen should have seen the book long before the red card he got yet the referee gave him the benefit of doubt why not Goodwin?

The injury to Watson was unfortunate and mainly down to new keeper new defender never having played together and as it would go both in the right place to clear the ball Unfortunate!

But the challenge on Jordan Stewart was a horror tackle!

It was not a late tackle it was not a necessary tackle it was a blatant act of of assault on a young player!

I've seen the Tokley challenges that left a promising young St.Mirren player's career over. I can even remember the Horror challenge by Hearts Ian Baird that left Campbell Money with a metal plate in his head and again down to 10 men because we had to sub to replace the keeper!

Yes the rules should be changed the team disadvantaged should be allowed to sub!

That was the most intentional Tackle I have ever seen 3 game suspension for Mcmullen how long out for young Jordan Stewart?

Seems St.Mirren are punished more for the Tackle than the other team!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Murray made his third substitution he knew the consequences if a player got injured. It was clearly a risk he was willing to take. Three subs in a match is plenty. No need for a rule change, just for fans to accept that their own manager took a risk that backfired

Did you read my post, Stuart. Either you didn't, or you did, and failed to grasp the obvious point.

I wasn't suggesting that a player simply being injured should mean that a further sub is permitted. The fundamental point is that an opponent has committed a red card offence that has resulted in the injury, and, as such, the wronged against team are left at a clear disadvantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies in advance I this has been discussed elsewhere (I couldn't be arsed trawling through all the 'we are all doomed.... doooooooomed!' threads).

Last night, Jordan Stewart was stretchered off after what was reportedly a horror foul by Mullen of Livingston. The latter received a straight red card, but because we had used all our subs, we were also reduced to 10 men.

Now, surely this cannot be reasonable. For me, if a straight red results in the wronged against team being reduced to ten men as a result of consequent injury, they should be permitted to make a further substitution.

Thoughts (and I am not thinking specifically about whether this would have influenced the match last night)?

You are of course 100% correct Drew. We said the same thing at the game just after the incident.

Good man ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read my post, Stuart. Either you didn't, or you did, and failed to grasp the obvious point.

I wasn't suggesting that a player simply being injured should mean that a further sub is permitted. The fundamental point is that an opponent has committed a red card offence that has resulted in the injury, and, as such, the wronged against team are left at a clear disadvantage.

What the team down to ten men are disadvantaged? Now that really is quite silly...

If you use all your subs and then get an injury that means you are a player down thats your call and bad luck... To make convoluted rules on the back of it would be pointless... What if said injured is feigning/cheating to get a key opponent out of the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if said injured is feigning/cheating to get a key opponent out of the game?

That is why we have officials.

ETA - Oh, and is a straight red card foul on a player 'bad luck'? Really? Who is being silly now?

Edited by Drew
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...