Jump to content

St Mirren v Hamilton Mon 13th May


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Ha ha ha. Even after a night like last night you can still manage to fill your post with negative connotations. 

Exciting night 

great result

largely, a poor performance with too many poor shots and overhit passes or crosses 

a slightly better team would have punished us for defensive blunders

Link to comment
Share on other sites


On 5/14/2019 at 10:13 AM, madball said:

If true then as crap as it is that someone being racist (and no surprise that there are some idiots out there in our support and wider) it is pleasing that fans dealt with it and reported it as no place for it in our support

Did you think I'd made it up?

20190515_101244.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HSS said:

Did you think I'd made it up?

imageproxy.php?img=&key=55a61edf26e8a490

20190515_101244.jpg

No, not at all. I was hoping it would turn out to be wrong like the spitting story, but know that we have idiots in our support who would shout this sort of stuff. I've heard about another incident yesterday that went unreported in W2 so whilst I'm pleased this one was dealt with we've more to do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First chance I’ve had to watch the highlights. IMO. The sending off was harsh, I agree with the commentators , too far from goal to be a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity. Mullen should have received a yellow for his tackle on Gordon and the big No 99 for Hamilton should have saw Red and needs to be cited for his shoulder into McKenzie .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Sweeper07 said:
17 hours ago, saintargyll said:

through ball came off a st.mirren head.... onside im afraid

That is what I thought - think it was MacKenzie's header ..

When' the ball was played he WAS offside and offside is judged by where was the intended receiving player....WHEN.... the ball was struck, ergo offside .....Debate?  😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Eric Arthur Blair said:

True but did the goalie's kick come from a free kick or a goal kick?

You can't be offside from a goal kick.

I'm fairly sure it was a free kick, of course there is the various 'phases of play but if ball was aimed at him then he was offside

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, jaybee said:

When' the ball was played he WAS offside and offside is judged by where was the intended receiving player....WHEN.... the ball was struck, ergo offside .....Debate?  😄

He was standing in an offside position and linesman does not flag till he touches the ball

im not so sure he was the intended receiver as MacKensie headers it before it reaches him hench...onside im afraid

 

its kinda like if a defender passes the ball back to his keeper and there is an attacker inbetween then the attacker is not offside

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, buddies1877 said:

With Celtic and Rangers players getting pulled up for elbows and that why isn’t the Hamilton player?

Because it’s only little st Mirren and Hamilton.

Was clear intent for me his shoulder moves towards MacKenzie no effort to try avoid contact with him.

THIS

We seem to be the nicest support in the world
"Ach he was probably onside, I know he was  5 yards off but it'll be that phase thing"
"Ach Our centre half has been assaulted and potential out concussed but he probably didn't mean it"
"Ach he got a wee touch so he probably didn't dive into our box looking for a penalty, yeah he waved his arms at the ref but he was probably just trying to get up"
"Yeah he's kicked our player on the ground but he was lying on the ball and McGinn should know better than to talk to the ref"
"Ach there's Mullen on the ground, he's probably dived cause he did it once before remember"

That striker should be playing no further part at the weekend and yet I heard absolutely bugger all while an incident already seen and yellow carded is put into
a hearing to be upgraded to red because just as Tuesday night the referees view was obscured by the back of the player.

Different rules for different clubs but we don't half help them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Katie Bear said:

THIS

We seem to be the nicest support in the world
"Ach he was probably onside, I know he was  5 yards off but it'll be that phase thing"
"Ach Our centre half has been assaulted and potential out concussed but he probably didn't mean it"
"Ach he got a wee touch so he probably didn't dive into our box looking for a penalty, yeah he waved his arms at the ref but he was probably just trying to get up"
"Yeah he's kicked our player on the ground but he was lying on the ball and McGinn should know better than to talk to the ref"
"Ach there's Mullen on the ground, he's probably dived cause he did it once before remember"

That striker should be playing no further part at the weekend and yet I heard absolutely bugger all while an incident already seen and yellow carded is put into
a hearing to be upgraded to red because just as Tuesday night the referees view was obscured by the back of the player.

Different rules for different clubs but we don't half help them out.

You are a lunatic :lol:

Ignore list for you. :byebye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, saintargyll said:

He was standing in an offside position and linesman does not flag till he touches the ball

im not so sure he was the intended receiver as MacKensie headers it before it reaches him hench...onside im afraid

 

its kinda like if a defender passes the ball back to his keeper and there is an attacker inbetween then the attacker is not offside

How the hell is it not aimed at him?

The keeper's free kick is literally in a straight line at him and lands just 5 yards over where his start position is. There's  literally no one else in that area he could be targetting.
Unless he just overhit his kick by 15 yards and pushed it right when actually aiming for the 2 guys near the ref in the centre then he was exactly the intended receiver but just got the advantage of running on when his team mate moved across. to challenge.

It should have been flagged offside.

ham offside.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was a goalkick, it’s not offside, end of debate.

If it was a free kick - if he’s offside when the ball was hit, he’s offside.

If he was onside for the original kick, then off when McKenzie headered it, he’s onside.

It’s about the original kick here. He is not “inactive” because if McKenzie doesn’t clear it, then Accies are through on goal. Therefore McKenzie has to act to stop that from happening. It doesn’t matter if he scuffs his header, doesn’t matter if he wins it properly, he’s had to act because of what’s behind him. The main factor here is the original free kick, was he offside when that was hit? The rest is irrelevant in this specific situation. The Accies guy was the intended target so he’s most definitely active.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

If it was a goalkick, it’s not offside, end of debate.

If it was a free kick - if he’s offside when the ball was hit, he’s offside.

If he was onside for the original kick, then off when McKenzie headered it, he’s onside.

It’s about the original kick here. He is not “inactive” because if McKenzie doesn’t clear it, then Accies are through on goal. Therefore McKenzie has to act to stop that from happening. It doesn’t matter if he scuffs his header, doesn’t matter if he wins it properly, he’s had to act because of what’s behind him. The main factor here is the original free kick, was he offside when that was hit? The rest is irrelevant in this specific situation. The Accies guy was the intended target so he’s most definitely active.

^^^^ This - bang on . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

If it was a goalkick, it’s not offside, end of debate.

If it was a free kick - if he’s offside when the ball was hit, he’s offside.

If he was onside for the original kick, then off when McKenzie headered it, he’s onside.

It’s about the original kick here. He is not “inactive” because if McKenzie doesn’t clear it, then Accies are through on goal. Therefore McKenzie has to act to stop that from happening. It doesn’t matter if he scuffs his header, doesn’t matter if he wins it properly, he’s had to act because of what’s behind him. The main factor here is the original free kick, was he offside when that was hit? The rest is irrelevant in this specific situation. The Accies guy was the intended target so he’s most definitely active.

Yup as other poster says, spot on ...and it was indeed a free kick from around the penalty spot and not a goal kick which would have rendered all argument irrelevant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

First chance I’ve had to watch the highlights. IMO. The sending off was harsh, I agree with the commentators , too far from goal to be a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity. Mullen should have received a yellow for his tackle on Gordon and the big No 99 for Hamilton should have saw Red and needs to be cited for his shoulder into McKenzie .

What commentators are you talking about? All the BT ones agreed it was a nailed on red.

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...