Jump to content

Saints To Appeal Both Cards


Recommended Posts


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.

Or that Webster is a professional who is long in the tooth enough to know what you achieve by ranting at a ref? Edited by BuddieinEK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or that Webster is a professional who is long in the tooth enough to know what you achieve by ranting at a ref?

Come on Brian - you know that isn't human nature. Lets put this in context. Lets say a police offers turns up at one of your care homes this afternoon and arrests someone in your care. Would you step aside and let him do so, or would you question why he was arresting him? If the police officer explained to you that your client committed a crime when you absolutely know he was with you what would your response be? Would you simply stand aside not uttering a word of defence? After all ranting at a police officer isn't going to achieve much, is it?

Webster didn't even shake his head never mind offer a defence to his young team mate. That would suggest to me one of two things.

1. Webster hates Baird and was happy to see him sent off

or much more likely

2. Webster saw the incident and thought the ref had got it correct and that the red card was inevitable.

We have got a shit TV angle that shows very little of the handball incident. Both the ref and Webster were in much better positions to see it. If the basis of the appeal is TV evidence, St Mirren are f**ked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could witter on all day about how primitive and embarrassing the officiating of football is compared to other sports, but the one that made despair the most was when an Arsenal player* got a red card for diving like a goalkeeper to turn a point blank shot around the post.

Even although he was quite clearly intending to prevent a goal being scored (by diving like a goalkeeper and saving the shot!) the red card was actually rescinded because the replay showed that the ball was going past the post from the initial shot. So, it didn't prevent a goal, irrespective of the intent of the player who was trying his hardest to prevent a goal.

Yet, for tackles, players are routinely sent off, games are changed and suspensions are served for incidents where it is far from certain that a goal has been prevented, and/or when the player is making a genuine attempt to win the ball, and there is no intent whatsoever to prevent a goal scoring opportunity. This discrepancy is surely ridiculous?

Really, anyone who fouls a player whilst they are in the act of shooting should be getting a red card, whether they are the last man, or not. Shooting at goal is a goal scoring opportunity. However, this would also clearly be ridiculous. How about having laws of the game that lean towards helping to keep it 11 vs 11, and let the players sort out the result amongst themselves without the referee taking centre stage?

*Not to mention that the ref sent off Gibbs when it was actually Chamberlain who handled!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets put this in context. Lets say a police offers turns up at one of your care homes this afternoon and arrests someone in your care. Would you step aside and let him do so, or would you question why he was arresting him? If the police officer explained to you that your client committed a crime when you absolutely know he was with you what would your response be? Would you simply stand aside not uttering a word of defence? After all ranting at a police officer isn't going to achieve much, is it?

What in the flying f**k are you talking about?laugh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

if you watched the Rangers game then it pretty much happened to Gallagher he was near the edge of box won the ball off the Rangers player was trying to get back up and go in on goal but the Rangers player held him down and didn't even get a booking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I watched the game on Falkirk to you muppet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the game on Falkirk to you muppet

I see Baird's red has been reduced to a yellow. The SPFL must have found a definitive view...

Either that or they're not total cocks.

Although...Reid's stands. Being ten yards inside your own half now counts as a geuine goal scoring opportunity...

Or, much more likely, the referee admitted he made a mistake and he's not as much of a cock as you and others made out.

I, of course, called this correctly. I said St Mirren were wasting money on the Reid appeal and I said that from the inconclusive TV evidence the Baird red card looked harsh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, much more likely, the referee admitted he made a mistake and he's not as much of a cock as you and others made out.

I, of course, called this correctly. I said St Mirren were wasting money on the Reid appeal and I said that from the inconclusive TV evidence the Baird red card looked harsh.

Maybe by appealing both they felt that there would be more pressure to rescind at least one of the reds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Yep.

That appeal for Reids was pretty frivolous, I'm surprised the club made it to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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...