[FT] Aberdeen 1 - 2 Rangers (Wilson 14; Windass 63)

[the gunslinger 3,366]

What next after a rangers player is sent off for a pass.

 

A striker sent off if his shot injures the keeper.

Edited December 4, 2017 by the gunslinger

[Uilleam 5,475]

A red card for dirty look; after all it shows intent.

[pete 2,499]

I must admit it was fantastic to see the players wearing their special laces.

[Walterbear 557]

Law 12

 

“SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

 

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

 

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

 

VIOLENT CONDUCT

 

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

 

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.”

 

 

There must be reasonable doubt whether Jack used excessive force considering it is May who mistimed his challenge and it was he who had the most distance to travel before contact. It is clear Jack did not lunge at May as May came in late and Jacks foot trajectory was constant and covered less distance than Mays (using the Dons player at the top of the photo as a reference point and assuming the photo is at a perpendicular angle to the play).

 

Collum could not have seen the relative distances the players legs travelled prior to contact given he was behind May and therefore at the wrong angle.

 

Like many on here having played the game and un the interest of balance it is possible Jack is protecting himself from May as he senses a late challenge and then potentially turns his studs and ankle up at the last moment but I have seen no evidence of that so would have to discount it. If that did happen it would be to protect himself and was not a lunge and the excessive force is because of the poor attempt at a tackle from May.

 

There is certainly reasonable doubt this is a red card foul (or even a foul) but I don’t know what criteria the appeals panel use to assess guilt or innocence.

 

What is likely is that a Scottish ref has has simply once more demonstrated the consistently appalling level of ability of our refs (reference the inability to red card Shinnie in the same game for a far clearer lunge with excessive force, no where near the ball on Tavernier).

 

It is also highly likely that the embarrassment of overturning a wrong decision yet again on a Jack red card will be too much to bear for the SFA and given their capacity for incompetence they will compound Collums error and co tribe to dismiss the appeal.

 

The incident also yet again indicates the rotten state of punditry in Scotland that not one ex pro or so called sports journalist who make a living out of being ‘experts’ in this game can bother to quote rules, reference actual events accurately, or review incidents of foul play from any team other than Rangers.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Walterbear

[the gunslinger 3,366]

It is hard to see them overturning another red.

 

The witch hunt would be hard to deny then.

 

 

[pete 2,499]

It is hard to see them overturning another red.

 

The witch hunt would be hard to deny then.

 

If it is honest then it should be judged on what happened and not what the reaction is. I can see why the referee gave this as I also thought it was red at first. I don't even think a video referee would of helped here as the referee does not have the time to do it frame for frame.

Edited December 4, 2017 by pete

[Bill 13,717]

If it is honest then it should be judged on what happened and not what the reaction is. I can see why the referee gave this as I also thought it was red at first. I don't even think a video referee would of helped here as the referee does not have the time to do it frame for frame.

 

Sadly, that's a big "if" but I live in very fragile hope.

Edited December 4, 2017 by pete

[pete 2,499]

Sadly, that's a big "if" but I live in very fragile hope.

 

Sorry Bill I edited your post by mistake to change a fault in my post .I had used the referee twice. I never changed anything else. Apologies.

[Bill 13,717]

Sorry Bill I edited your post by mistake to change a fault in my post .I had used the referee twice. I never changed anything else. Apologies.

Thanks ... never a problem.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

If it is honest then it should be judged on what happened and not what the reaction is. I can see why the referee gave this as I also thought it was red at first. I don't even think a video referee would of helped here as the referee does not have the time to do it frame for frame.

I think video ref would see him win the ball cleanly and thats that.

 

I think thats what gollem missed in the real time game.