Zappa 0 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Sorry I disagree it was a dangerous tackle he kicked the ball and Naismith fell over his leg almost in slow motion. It was technically a tackle from behind. If he had went in with just one leg it wouldn't have been as dangerous, but could still have been given as a penalty. He went in with two legs from behind though, with one in front of Naismith's left leg and the other behind it, so it was a two footed challenge from behind and whether he got a bit of the ball or not, it was still a dangerous tackle. As for the slow motion pete; they slow down the replays, so maybe that's what you're thinking about. Naismith played for the penalty and got it good for him, that is a part of today's game but it does not hide the fact it was a bad decision from the referee and possibly a worse one from the linesman who must have had a much better view of it. We'll have to just agree to disagree pete. Those sort of tackles were allowed when Butcher played, but nowadays they're not and for good reason too. As I said in the match thread; Ian Black put Jelavic out for half of last season with a similar type of tackle. On another day that sort of tackle could have seen Tokely putting Naismith out of action for months, maybe more. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 According to Peter baldy twat Houston on sportscene. None of them where pens and Jela was "6 or 7 inches offside". I kid you not he actually said that live on TV bitter wee man. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 In one of the broadsheets down here, possibly the independent, I read acolumn today talking about people's understanding of the laws. They were referring only to the English football this weekend and not Scottish but were saying that "he got the ball" is a term that has found its way into fans and pundits lexicon but actually has nothing to do with the laws of the game. May or may not apply here, but is interesting none the less. For me, I feel that Tokely had to go through Naismith to play the ball and hence is a foul. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 Exactly the point and for a SPL manager to sit in a tv studio and say he got the ball so it's not a pen just beggars belief. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,475 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 In one of the broadsheets down here, possibly the independent, I read acolumn today talking about people's understanding of the laws. They were referring only to the English football this weekend and not Scottish but were saying that "he got the ball" is a term that has found its way into fans and pundits lexicon but actually has nothing to do with the laws of the game. May or may not apply here, but is interesting none the less. For me, I feel that Tokely had to go through Naismith to play the ball and hence is a foul. The fact of the matter is,going by the law you cannot tackle from behind,regardless of whether the player gets a touch on the ball or not,if the ref interprets it that way?. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 It's been that way for what seems like over a decade - it's not about whether you get the ball any more, it's the potential dangerousness of the tackle. We've lost out to the same rules time and again and the pundits explain this at the time - so why does their understanding change when it affects our opposition? 0 Quote Link to post 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.