Jump to content

Jack Ross...Notice of Compliance


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 


We're not discussing random potential instances, we're discussing a specific instance.

 

I wasn't. Gie's a hug and we'll move on. :D

Edit: the reason I posted was because it appeared to me you are saying it couldn't be timewasting because a yellow card was shown? I don't get that - if indeed that is what you are saying. Yellow card or not, it all seems simply down to the discretion of the referee. If Thomson came out tomorrow and publicly said he told the St Mirren player to leave the field because he deemed the time taken to treat him as being excessive - how could you disprove Thomson's statement. By saying as he showed a yellow it couldn't be timewasting? I must be missing something here!

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites


How can there be time wasting if a foul has been committed and a player is receiving treatment? Surely the ref just stops his watch or the time is added.  It's hardly the same thing as a goalie fannying about over taking a goal kick or an outfield player delaying taking a throw. It's a proper stoppage in play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, pozbaird said:
I wasn't. Gie's a hug and we'll move on. 
Edit: the reason I posted was because it appeared to me you are saying it couldn't be timewasting because a yellow card was shown? I don't get that - if indeed that is what you are saying. Yellow card or not, it all seems simply down to the discretion of the referee. If Thomson came out tomorrow and publicly said he told the St Mirren player to leave the field because he deemed the time taken to treat him as being excessive - how could you disprove Thomson's statement. By saying as he showed a yellow it couldn't be timewasting? I must be missing something here!

 


You certainly couldn't disprove that.

Equally though, Jack said that when he met with the referee head honcho, this was not explained and he was only acting acording to what the boss of the ref had told him in person.

Can that be disproven?

Jack will let it go.

He is a gentleman and a wise man who carefully selects his battles.

1 match in the stand is small stuff.

I hope he doesn't forget though and at some point in the future is able to look back with a smug grin!

 

Edited by BuddieinEK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

 


You certainly couldn't disprove that.

Equally though, Jack said tgat when he met with the referee head honcho, this was not explained and he was only acting acording to what the noss of the ref had told him in person.

Can that be disproven?

Jack will let it go.

He is a gentleman and a wise man who carefully selects his battles.

1 match in the stand is small stuff.

I hope he doesn't forget though and at some point in the future is able to look back with a smug grin!

 

If Jack says he was told this, then I accept that to be the case, hence explaining Jack's reaction on seeing a St Mirren player (on the end of a yellow card incident), being told by Thomson to leave the field. 

A clusterfcuk. It's Scottish football though, the whole shooting match is a clusterfcuk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what fans think the only one who has the discretion is the referee.  If you listen to Jack's post match interview he said  "I probably didn't react in the right way" and "I'm not disputing Craig's take on it".  Sounds like a plea of "I was drunk at the time or I never would've dun it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, rabuddies said:

It doesn't matter what fans think the only one who has the discretion is the referee.  If you listen to Jack's post match interview he said  "I probably didn't react in the right way" and "I'm not disputing Craig's take on it".  Sounds like a plea of "I was drunk at the time or I never would've dun it".

or maybe "ok... this time the arsehole has me on a technicality... but rest assured that will never happen again and as my career rises, I will wave to the ex-ref from afar with no sympathy!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Wrong . If a player is fouled and the guilty player is booked then injured player does not need to leave the field of play if he is fit to play on. This is what this case is about. 

And in the video Jack accepted he was wrong about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rabuddies said:

What the change for this season is that if a card is given "the injured player is allowed to remain on the field of play for treatment and not go off after. Providing, the Law says, the assessment and treatment is completed quickly". Refs have been given an emhasis from fifa on the completed quickly part. This means it is now at the referees discretion particularly where they consider time wasting my be involved. So Thompson was within his rights and Jack seems to have accepted this. Better for the club if we all move on.

Yep. Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said on the Craig a Thomson thread, the exact same thing happened the next day in the Spurs Chelsea game. 

Player injured, offender booked.  Injured player receives treatment on the park and is then ask to leave before being allowed back on. 

No drama, no complaints from players or management. The game continues. 

The referee has the call, if he wants him off the park then there's f**k all anyone can do about it. 

JR had every right to be disappointed and annoyed at the refs decision but he went absolutely mental and acted aggressively towards the referee. Only 1 outcome there I'm afraid. 

Edited by davidg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't at the game last week so didn't see what happened, only going by what Jack said.
Seemed that the ref was in the wrong, but the SFA is always going to back up their man.
In this case by my reckoning the game he would sit in the stands would be the fizzy pop game against the Hearts kids

To be fair there no real different between sitting in our main stand and the dugout apart from 1 step back
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pozbaird said:

Surely it could be time wasting simply if the referee reckons the trainer is deliberately taking his time treating the player in order to run time off the clock? Booking the opposition player has nothing to do with anything surely? 

How can you run time off the clock? The referee can add any excess time ON. It also baffles me that people still talk about timewasting. The referee can add as many minutes as he feels fit at the end of the game therefore no player should be able to tick down the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

How can you run time off the clock? The referee can add any excess time ON. It also baffles me that people still talk about timewasting. The referee can add as many minutes as he feels fit at the end of the game therefore no player should be able to tick down the clock.

I really must be missing something. Let's try again. During a game, any game, not specifically the recent St Mirren v Livvy game...

There's an incident between a player from team A who fouls a player from team B.

The referee brandishes a yellow card to the player fom team A, while treatment is allowed to the team B player.

The referee, as this was a yellow card incident, can allow the team B player (once treated) to remain on the field as the game restarts.

However - it is not an absolute hard, fast rule that the injured party can stay on field following a yellow card offence on him, because....

It is at the referee's discretion. If he feels the treatment was completed within 'reasonable' time the guy doesn't get told to leave the field.

If the referee deems the time taken to be unreasonable, he can tell the team B player to get the fcuk off the field.

My reckoning is that the referee thinks the trainer, player, and maybe under the manager's instructuon are taking an 'unreasonable' time in an ATTEMPT to timewaste, run down the clock, take the sting out the game, slow it down - call it what you will. A bit of gamesmanship... no different to a goalie who, having conceded a goal, tries to hold onto the ball and an opponent tries to grab it. No different to a manager substituting the player farthest away from tbe dugout. No different to a substituted player walking off as slowly as possible. No different to a goalie deliberately taking ages to take a goal kick and taking a yellow card for it. It's an attempt to run down the clock.

 

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting aside the rights and wrongs of the situation, Ross was sent to the stand and presumably gets a ban. Fair enough.

However, I'm a bit confused as to why he has been issued with a notice of complaint when I haven't seen one for Fowler and the Falkirk guy who got sent to the stand on the opening day of the season. Have they somehow escaped a ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

I really must be missing something. Let's try again. During a game, any game, not specifically the recent St Mirren v Livvy game...

There's an incident between a player from team A who fouls a player from team B.

The referee brandishes a yellow card to the player fom team A, while treatment is allowed to the team B player.

The referee, as this was a yellow card incident, can allow the team B player (once treated) to remain on the field as the game restarts.

However - it is not an absolute hard, fast rule that the injured party can stay on field following a yellow card offence on him, because....

It is at the referee's discretion. If he feels the treatment was completed within 'reasonable' time the guy doesn't get told to leave the field.

If the referee deems the time taken to be unreasonable, he can tell the team B player to get the fcuk off the field.

My reckoning is that the referee thinks the trainer, player, and maybe under the manager's instructuon are taking an 'unreasonable' time in an ATTEMPT to timewaste, run down the clock, take the sting out the game, slow it down - call it what you will. A bit of gamesmanship... no different to a goalie who, having conceded a goal, tries to hold onto the ball and an opponent tries to grab it. No different to a manager substituting the player farthest away from tbe dugout. No different to a substituted player walking off as slowly as possible. No different to a goalie deliberately taking ages to take a goal kick and taking a yellow card for it. It's an attempt to run down the clock.

 

To reiterate. Technically it is not possible to waste time. Any stoppage in play can be added to the end of the game. I do think players or coaching staff can be blamed for gamesmanship resulting in cards for ungentlemanly conduct but not for ticking down a clock. That is totally in the hands of the referee. Even the added time indicated by the fourth official is a minimum figure. If the referee thinks a player walked off too slowly he has the authority to add however much time he deems appropriate,  We aren't at loggerheads here. I'm not suggesting the referee hasn't the right to request a player leave the field. I am saying that it should not be deemed as time wasting as the referee adjusts this by addition of injury time which is entirely up to the man in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Stu said:

Putting aside the rights and wrongs of the situation, Ross was sent to the stand and presumably gets a ban. Fair enough.

However, I'm a bit confused as to why he has been issued with a notice of complaint when I haven't seen one for Fowler and the Falkirk guy who got sent to the stand on the opening day of the season. Have they somehow escaped a ban?

Maybe the Fowler incident didn't feature in the referees report. 

Says it all about Thompson. Trying to show who's boss as per . A card happy poor ref .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

or maybe "ok... this time the arsehole has me on a technicality... but rest assured that will never happen again and as my career rises, I will wave to the ex-ref from afar with no sympathy!!!"

Or maybe we just take our Manager at his word instead of trying to read between the lines for conspiracy theories?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

Silly point perhaps but there would be no discussion if our manager hadn't left the technical area and forcefully made his point to the rather than discussing it after the game. Having said this I can understand that feelings  were running high.

Yeah I agree with your first sentence but this second sentence is a problem football needs to sort out ASAP.
Personally, I am sick of hearing "feelings running high" as an excuse for appalling behaviour. Football is one of thousands of sports worldwide. It has no monopoly on passion or "feelings running high" and yet almost every other sport manages to be operated on an almost exclusively respectful manner. The problem here isn't "passion". The problem is people within football thinking there are pretty much no consequences to their behaviour. That seems to be true whether the bad behaviour is on the pitch, in the dugout or in the stands.

IMO of course.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

That's nice. Is this the friendly, cuddly Drew that BuddieInEK assured me was a decent guy if I gave him a chance to show it?

I'm not ths type of comment is needed on the forum TBH.

Down with this sort of thing:lol:

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...