Seaside Nipper Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Over zealous red cards issued on Saturday to be challenged. Need a success here, we are bereft of players Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 I have to confess to having bolted before the second. Baird's seemed very harsh, however Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 I have to confess to having bolted before the second. Baird's seemed very harsh, however I was watching it on Falkirk TV and even the Falkirk heavily biased commentators were astonished when Baird was dismissed. I switched the telly off after the 3rd goal. However if as reported the foul took place near halfway then this is a long way from goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) Reid's foul was in the other half of the park! The Falkirk player would have had to run more than half the length of the pitch then try and beat Langfield. A red card is only for a 'clear goal scoring opportunity' which is usually interpreted as the attacking player having no-one in front of him and heading straight for goal otherwise it is a booking (and possibly a penalty if in the box). Both decisions were a joke but in no way changed the outcome of the game in my opinion. Edited November 2, 2015 by Sonny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edinbuddie Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 I'd love to hear the officials' explanation of Baird's sending off. Looked ridiculous at the time, and it's even worse on seeing it on telly. It didn't affect the result, but I'm not sure what they thought had happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Baird is fair enough and will probably get over turned. Looked a shocking decision. I will astounded if Reid's get overturned, can't they increase the ban for a cheeky appeal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soctty Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 The Reid foul was in the Falkirk half. Ridiculous decision to give a red card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank McGarvey' wonky legs Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Lee Mair got sent off near to the halfway line Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyg Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Lee Mair got sent off near to the halfway line Yes , v Accies , I was sitting next to Kenny Clark that day and I asked him his opinion on it ! He said , not a clear goalscoring opportunity as Antoine Curier was in the centre circle ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E=Mc2 Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 I'd love to hear the officials' explanation of Baird's sending off. Looked ridiculous at the time, and it's even worse on seeing it on telly. It didn't affect the result, but I'm not sure what they thought had happened. I can tell what the officials thought. The stand side linesman initially did not react then he reacted to the Falkirk support behind him. The referee, who hadn't reacted as he saw nothing untoward, then asked his linesman what happened and the referee then followed his assistants instructions. Not unlike the very bad tackle on Paul McMullan when the referee asked the stand side assistant if the tackle was inside the box and the reply was "no". When there should have been two more questions. Was it a goal scoring opportunity and was the tackle itself a red card offence? The game is fecked when officials at this level cannot officiate effectively. No balls I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 First red was a terrible decision and killed the game. The 2nd showed this ref and both assistance should not even be allowed to watch football as paying spectators. Apparently the same ref that was dishing out cards in the Morton game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Wasting money appealling the second. Just ask Reid what his intention was when pulling the striker to the ground and he'll tell you it was to stop him getting a free run on goal. There was no covering defender - not even close and Reid wasn't going to catch him. I'm afraid the referee was correct. The Baird incident is less obvious from the TV angle but all the ref needs to say is Baird put his arm out - which he may well have done - and the red card will stand. Webster reaction is telling. Not one word of protest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Wasting money appealling the second. Just ask Reid what his intention was when pulling the striker to the ground and he'll tell you it was to stop him getting a free run on goal. There was no covering defender - not even close and Reid wasn't going to catch him. I'm afraid the referee was correct. The Baird incident is less obvious from the TV angle but all the ref needs to say is Baird put his arm out - which he may well have done - and the red card will stand. Webster reaction is telling. Not one word of protest If my memory serves me right, Langfield got booked for protesting. Don't let that get in the way of your impartial analysis, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 If my memory serves me right, Langfield got booked for protesting. Don't let that get in the way of your impartial analysis, however. Webster was the closest player. I didn't have a good view of the incident. Unfortunately the South Stand at Hampden didn't afford me a live angle. I'm going by the TV pictures. Webster doesn't utter a word of protest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Webster was the closest player. I didn't have a good view of the incident. Unfortunately the South Stand at Hampden didn't afford me a live angle. I'm going by the TV pictures. Webster doesn't utter a word of protest Take my word for it that others most certainly did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigD Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Webster was the closest player. I didn't have a good view of the incident. Unfortunately the South Stand at Hampden didn't afford me a live angle. I'm going by the TV pictures. Webster doesn't utter a word of protest Well if you did look at the pictures you would indeed realise what a ridiculous decision it was . I await your comments when it is overturned . Honestly, what is the point in you contributing? What do you bring? Clearly sending off had no bearing on result but was not correct decision . Will be overturned . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Reids will be overturned as it was not 'a clear goal scoring opportunity' . Getting hauled down by a keeper or defender when you are past them with no-one in front of you in or near the box may be clear but having to run more than half the length of the park under pressure from Reid chasing you and still having to beat a keeper is not 'a clear goal scoring opportunity'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Gilhooley Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Neither cards will be overturned & the SFA will give Jim Goodwin a retrospective Red Card just because. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_the_saint Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) Reids will be overturned as it was not 'a clear goal scoring opportunity' . Getting hauled down by a keeper or defender when you are past them with no-one in front of you in or near the box may be clear but having to run more than half the length of the park under pressure from Reid chasing you and still having to beat a keeper is not 'a clear goal scoring opportunity'. He also boots the ball about 30 yards in front of him. With it being a breakaway from a corner, langfield would have probably have been outside his box so quite likely would have got to the ball first anyway. Edited November 2, 2015 by steve_the_saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby_F Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) Apparently even when you take the ball past Artur Boruc and he kicks you 6 feet in the air, and you're just about to go in to the box, with only a defender to knock the ball by... it's still not a clear goal scoring opportunity. Cough. Edited November 2, 2015 by Bobby_F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 3, 2015 Report Share Posted November 3, 2015 Well if you did look at the pictures you would indeed realise what a ridiculous decision it was . I await your comments when it is overturned . Honestly, what is the point in you contributing? What do you bring? Clearly sending off had no bearing on result but was not correct decision . Will be overturned . You struggling with your comprehension? If you read my posts on this thread I've said that from the TV pictures it looks like a poor decision. However on the TV we only get one angle. It wouldn't be the first time that the TV angle offered wasn't conclusive whilst another angle might well have been. Looking at the TV pictures there is a suggestion that Bairds arm was out in the immediate moments after contact. If the referee saw that from a different angle, which he obviously did, then perhaps he believed it was indeed deliberate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddies1877 Posted November 3, 2015 Report Share Posted November 3, 2015 Wasting money appealling the second. Just ask Reid what his intention was when pulling the striker to the ground and he'll tell you it was to stop him getting a free run on goal. There was no covering defender - not even close and Reid wasn't going to catch him. I'm afraid the referee was correct. The Baird incident is less obvious from the TV angle but all the ref needs to say is Baird put his arm out - which he may well have done - and the red card will stand. Webster reaction is telling. Not one word of protest What a load of pish a clear goal scoring opportunity 15 yards inside the Falkirk half. Whoever the Falkirk player was would have to out run with the ball Reid and any other st Mirren player near for nearly the length of the pitch. So you think that cos you believe that Webster didn't protest that makes it a red card lol was never a red card in a million year and 100% will be overturned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddies1877 Posted November 3, 2015 Report Share Posted November 3, 2015 You struggling with your comprehension? If you read my posts on this thread I've said that from the TV pictures it looks like a poor decision. However on the TV we only get one angle. It wouldn't be the first time that the TV angle offered wasn't conclusive whilst another angle might well have been. Looking at the TV pictures there is a suggestion that Bairds arm was out in the immediate moments after contact. If the referee saw that from a different angle, which he obviously did, then perhaps he believed it was indeed deliberate. even if it was a deliberate hand ball it is a booking the player was cutting backInside Baird where Webster was coming round not running in on goal it was about 30 yards out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 3, 2015 Report Share Posted November 3, 2015 What a load of pish a clear goal scoring opportunity 15 yards inside the Falkirk half. Whoever the Falkirk player was would have to out run with the ball Reid and any other st Mirren player near for nearly the length of the pitch. So you think that cos you believe that Webster didn't protest that makes it a red card lol was never a red card in a million year and 100% will be overturned. Oh FFS. Did you see the TV pictures? There was no other St Mirren player anywhere near close to defending the ball and Reid pulled his opponent down because the striker was in behind him and Reid knew fine he wasn't going to catch him. Distance is indeed one of the four factors the referee has to take into consideration when deciding if it was an obvious goalscoring opportunity. One of the others is the position of other players on the park. No-one was catching the Falkirk striker. He was through on goal. The referee got the decision 100% correct. Ask Reid why he fouled the Falkirk striker so deliberately and you'll get your answer. He did it to stop the Falkirk player going through on goal. Can you imagine the outrage if it was Gallagher bursting through at the other end of the park and a Falkirk defender had pulled him down? Every single one of you hypocrites would be demanding the ref send the defender off and you'd never accept the referee telling you that although Gallagher had a clear run on goal with just the keeper to beat he thought it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity cause Gallagher was closer to the goal than Charlie Adam and several other players that have played in this league have scored from. Indeed St Mirren's only highlight in the match on the TV package was a Mallan shot from just over the halfway line which narrowly went over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 3, 2015 Report Share Posted November 3, 2015 even if it was a deliberate hand ball it is a booking the player was cutting back Inside Baird where Webster was coming round not running in on goal it was about 30 yards out. You've had two goes at this one and only proved that you clearly haven't watched the TV pictures yourself. He wasn't cutting back, he was cutting inside between Baird and Webster and if he'd succeeded in doing so he was through on goal. As I've said the TV angle isn't the best. There was clearly one camera at the match and the only angle offered is obscured at the moment of impact. If St Mirren have indeed appealed this, then all the referee needs to say is that he saw Bairds make a deliberate move to handle the ball and the appeal will be chucked out. The TV picture is hardly conclusive. I've said repeatedly however than from the TV picture I would say the Baird sending off looks harsh and I've said that mitigating that Websters lack of response - Webster being the man closest to the whole thing with the best view of what is going on - suggests he thought the referee had got it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.