ged62 Posted January 20, 2019 Report Share Posted January 20, 2019 What if it was a dive and you said it was a dive. Would that make you a non St Mirren fan ? But it wasn’t so don’t talk [emoji90] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ged62 Posted January 20, 2019 Report Share Posted January 20, 2019 He startit it. SPS believes it also. If a Saints player really dives and a Saints fan says it's a dive then that person aint a Saints fan. Thats what Ged and SPS are saying. It's boring but not my fault. And you're an abusive nonentity. He started it? lol What age are you? [emoji23][emoji23] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted January 20, 2019 Report Share Posted January 20, 2019 He was fouled and didn't dive. If he had dived I would have wanted his loan terminated and him sent back to Blackburn. And guess what, I am a St Mirren Supporter and I dinnae want cheats disgracing our Club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted January 20, 2019 Report Share Posted January 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, ged62 said: He started it? lol What age are you? Irrelevant. You said elvis isn't a saints fan. Give me one example why he is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeper07 Posted January 20, 2019 Report Share Posted January 20, 2019 Given that many Saints fans disagree whether Lyons 2nd booking was or was not justified, it seems that the on the spot one was not an easy one to make. I am not defending yesterday's ref - he was dreadful - and for the record I think the foul was the other way. I think we should appeal it - I think Lyons is a big player to lose for the Dee Utd game in the next round .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPAFKA Jersey 2 Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 There is only one thing I find more surprising than the Ref’s absolutely horrific decision, and that is how many football supporters on this thread a) have never played football before and b) don’t know the rules of football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 Brad could have avoided the collision if he had been wearing his spectacles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 9 hours ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said: There is only one thing I find more surprising than the Ref’s absolutely horrific decision, and that is how many football supporters on this thread a) have never played football before and b) don’t know the rules of football. Don't think you have to had played football to be a football supporter. and not everyone will admit to having reading all the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 14 hours ago, Sweeper07 said: I think we should appeal it - I think Lyons is a big player to lose for the Dee Utd game in the next round .. Would like to hope we're not solely depending on Lyons for rest of season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevo_smfc Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 My thoughts on it are that if the referee thought it was a dive, why did he not continue play and have a word with the player. He had only booked him a few minutes earlier for a challenge. It was so far out from goal, i couldnt see why he would want to go down, as if he beats his man, he has a chance of a shot on goal as the other defenders are pulled away from him with other players runs. You can clearly see from the replay the defender is showing his left shoulder out, waiting for Brad to get closer to him, then when he sees that he is going to continue his run by his open side (the defenders right), he puts his right shoulder in front to put up a block and prevent him getting by. There is no simulation, clear contact. If he did play for the foul fair play, though weigh this up against Alloa player going down in the box 2nd half, waving his arms about in frustration, ref waves play on. I've never understood this one. If you think he went down in the box and no penalty, could the player have dived to win a pen, therefore merit a booking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 17 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said: Spot on the defender is rightly trying to break play defender decision. For me obstruction. What is annoying the ref called it wrong which could be a game changer. With the ref in full view is unacceptable. Not saying the ref is trying to cheat us. It was a poor decision that should be appealed. It was a game changer we wouldn't have won otherwise. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spankin_panda Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 21 hours ago, djchapsticks said: Correct, Lyons should have been waved up and the match played on. It's not a foul. Crucially though, not all instances where a player goes down are fouls....not all instances where a player goes down and there's no foul are dives. It's a very narrow viewpoint to take that if he wasn't fouled, he dived. He's anticipated being blocked off and went down. Staying on his feet would have potentially been more painful so I can see why he did it. It was in a nothing area of the park and if this is going to be deemed a bookable offence, then we're going to see a lot more in future. Funnily enough, I don't see it happening. An Alloa player did the EXACT same thing in the box yesterday at 2-0 where the St. Mirren player won the ball but a bit of contact was made....the Alloa player was waved up by the ref....how does that work? This is exactly what I said at the game and since seeing it. IMO - It was not a foul. It was not a dive. Game should have continued. Each time a player hits the deck is not a bi polar foul or dive, these guys run at pace and is (should be) a contact sport, I think he called this one wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPAFKA Jersey 2 Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 1 hour ago, pod said: Don't think you have to had played football to be a football supporter. and not everyone will admit to having reading all the rules. That’s fine Pod (although I strongly suspect that most football supporters have played the game to some degree, even if it was only in a school playground). However, if you’ve never played the game before and don’t know the rules, then I’d suggest you don’t pontificate on a message board about how correct the Ref’s decision was. By “you” I of course don’t mean you personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original 59er Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 16 hours ago, Kemp said: I think it could be overturned. Lyons is going down as the Alloa player has stepped in to his path to obstruct him and the collision is coming and he's going to take a sore one if just steams straight in to the boy. On a slow motion replay you lose the reality of the situation happening at high speed. (Rugby has this problem with its VAR). The foul here is obstruction, not simulation. Should have been a Saints free kick. He should have been sent off for the tackle he got his first yellow for though! The boy will need to screw the nut! Being at the match I thought that his first yellow was totally justified and you can see why the referee gave the 2nd yellow. When I saw him going down I immediately said dive and looking at the video I haven't changed my mind. Yes there is contact, but it comes after he has left his feet. Maybe he anticipated a sore one in a collision with the Alloa defender, but I too err towards a blatant attempt to go to ground early and try and get a foul awarded in an advantageous position. What I don't get in many cases why don't players just try and stay on their feet and if they get contact then stumble or at least make an honest attempt to keep going, THEN they might just see a bit more sympathy from the refs. As an added comment, I find it incredible that games are stopped so easily by refs for apparent head knocks, when clearly (a) there has been no contact with the head and (b) if you compare the impact on a player compared to rugby, the footballers are just a load of nancy boys who go to ground over the smallest incident in order to get the game stopped. The rules should allow a medic / sponge man to come onto the pitch when that happens and the game continues until such time as it becomes obvious that the player is really injured, or interferes with play. (minor rant over)! Edited January 21, 2019 by The Original 59er spelling mistake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeper07 Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 1 hour ago, pod said: Would like to hope we're not solely depending on Lyons for rest of season. Of course we are not, but for now we are still thin on the ground squad wise - Lyons is an improvement to what we had before, so if he is not available then it follows that we are weaker without him. I do think we will sign a few more, but not sure there if will be any other attacking midfielders - unless you count the winger - though Lyons plays more centrally.. I think he will be an important part of the jigsaw which helps us to stay up. (As will McAlister, Popesu, Ladky and the others) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 44 minutes ago, The Original 59er said: Being at the match I thought that his first yellow was totally justified and you can see why the referee gave the 2nd yellow. When I saw him going down I immediately said dive and looking at the video I haven't changed my mind. Yes there is contact, but it comes after he has left his feet. Maybe he anticipated a sore one in a collision with the Alloa defender, but I too err towards a blatant attempt to go to ground early and try and get a foul awarded in an advantageous position. What I don't get in many cases why don't players just try and stay on their feet and if they get contact then stumble or at least make an honest attempt to keep going, THEN they might just see a bit more sympathy from the refs. As an added comment, I find it incredible that games are stopped so easily by refs for apparent head knocks, when clearly (a) there has been no contact with the head and (b) if you compare the impact on a player compared to rugby, the footballers are just a load of nancy boys who go to ground over the smallest incident in order to get the game stopped. The rules should allow a medic / sponge man to come onto the pitch when that happens and the game continues until such time as it becomes obvious that the player is really injured, or interferes with play. (minor rant over)! A bit of a tangent but head knocks need to be taken more seriously in rugby, and probably in football too. Physios should be allowed on the park to check on players while the game is being played as long as they don't interfere with play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said: ,That’s fine Pod (although I strongly suspect that most football supporters have played the game to some degree, even if it was only in a school playground). However, if you’ve never played the game before and don’t know the rules, then I’d suggest you don’t pontificate on a message board about how correct the Ref’s decision was. By “you” I of course don’t mean you personally. They are supporters for health or medical reasons that have never kicked a ball, get a lot of pleasure out of watching and supporting their club. Edited January 21, 2019 by pod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 43 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said: Of course we are not, but for now we are still thin on the ground squad wise - Lyons is an improvement to what we had before, so if he is not available then it follows that we are weaker without him. I do think we will sign a few more, but not sure there if will be any other attacking midfielders - unless you count the winger - though Lyons plays more centrally.. I think he will be an important part of the jigsaw which helps us to stay up. (As will McAlister, Popesu, Ladky and the others) We don't exactly know that yet. Early doors. We won the game without him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeper07 Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, pod said: We don't exactly know that yet. Early doors. We won the game without him. But we could have won in more easily if he had stayed on the park - don't you think? Or are you proposing we play with 10 men every week ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Ricky Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 12 minutes ago, pod said: They are supporters for health or medical reasons that have never kicked a ball, get a lot of pleasure out of watching and supporting their club. I played the game at Primary School but switched to Rugby at senior school. The rules in both games have changed a bit.. more in Rugby than in football but I wouldn't profess to be an expert on the rules of either. Discussion and differences of opinions add interest and colour to both games. Top level use of VAR systems add an opportunity for referees to review their decisions at critical moments and should be standard in the top leagues in each country. (I know this was a cup game.). Now that we all have access to replays etc, the red should too. Had he seen a replay and then made his decision then it might be easier for onlookers to accept decisions made. Wouldn't stop all discussion though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddies1877 Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 Reading some crazy logic that because brad left the ground before there was contact then it’s not a foul it’s a dive. That’s just crazy so if someone comes flying in two footed and you know it’s coming you have just to keep your legs planted and take the hit and chance of a broken leg. The rules even state there doesn’t even need to be any contact for it to be a foul. “IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player. All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent. A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.” You can clearly see the Alloa defender in the replay he turns his right side into brads path as they get closer together so it’s a foul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original 59er Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 I'm not so sure that on Saturday he looked like one of the Proclaimers, I thought he looked a little bit more like one of the Pretenders! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Sweeper07 said: But we could have won in more easily if he had stayed on the park - don't you think? I was stating a fact. Your making an assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeper07 Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 58 minutes ago, pod said: I was stating a fact. Your making an assumption. 2 hours ago, pod said: We don't exactly know that yet. Early doors. We won the game without him. OK YOUR fact is almost true - he did actually play some of the match, but after he went off, we went from behind to winning. So I know where you are coming from. But you never answered my question - is it better we play with 10 men than with Lyons in a team of 11? The point I am making is that he clearly showed that he has plenty to offer - it is just a shame it ended badly for him on Saturday. It is no problem if you are not convinced yet - but I am a believer - I think he will contribute goals and assists that keep us up . . . I suspect we would both like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said: It is no problem if you are not convinced yet - but I am a believer - I think he will contribute goals and assists that keep us up . . . I suspect we would both like that? Yes I would like to see him being successful. But he'll have to stay on the park for the 90 min's. 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.