Did Cuellar do the right thing?

[craig 5,195]

I disagree. When you have a split second to make a decision it makes very little difference to what you have taught yourself. Your brain doesnt get the chance to process in the heat of the moment as methodically as it does when you are teaching yourself not to do it. Everyone's instincts react in different ways too.

 

I will give you your motorcycle synopsis as I don't know about it.

 

My reference to hindsight was not poor at all. Read it in its proper context (or at least the context it was made). Actually, you are using hindsight to make your argument too because I can almost guarantee that had we drawn that game 1-1 last night given his sending off and the subsequent penalty save you would also be shouting his praises for doing so (yes I am assuming here but I think a fair assumption)

 

So why would it make it OK for you to use hindsight to show he did the wrong thing but then others don't get the benefit of hindsight to analyse the incident ?

 

Further, read what I said. I said that (or at least meant) at the precise moment in time the incident happened it would have been better to lose the goal and try to fight back - but had we nicked the draw then of course it was the right decision as it would have saved the game for us. Sorry if this doesn't fit in the neat little box you want that he shouldn't have given away the penalty but had it got us a point and left them still 4 behind us then I would say he did the right thing 10 times out of ten.

 

You use hindsight to say we lost the game due to his actions and could lose the next game due to his absense - so why shouldnt I also surmise and say that the red would have been worth it to avoid defeat ? Besides, I see nothing wrong in me saying "it would have been fine if...." because that IS the case and many many people would agree.

 

You may be a purist and that is fine - but sorry that I see it a different way in that avoiding defeat last night could have been the 2nd to last nail in their coffin for the season. The outcome wasn't as we wanted - but then, you too are using hindsight to analyse it.

 

Every single outfielder knows he shouldn't handle the ball but I bet you in similar circumstances the cast majority of outfield players would have done the same thing - it is, as you say, instincts ruling - they want to avoid a goal at all costs and when it is a split second decision your mind doesn't quite process "I shouldn't do this" it simply processes "I don't want them to score a goal".

 

Does he wish he hadn't handled ? Very likely he does wish he hadn't handled. Would his response be the same if we had walked away with a draw ? Maybe not.

 

I don't really care what you saw in Celtic losing to Xamax with 10 men. There are also plenty of instances where the 10 men have overcome 11 so to use one instant is hardly representative. Is it harder to play 10 vs 11 ? Usually. Is it something which is impossible to overcome ? No and we have proven it a few times ourselves against the Tims.

 

Put yourself in his position for a moment if you can. If you were playing for Rangers against your arch rivals, drawing 1-1 in a game where, if you avoid defeat, you could virtually win the league and tell me you wouldn't do it. None of us know for sure but I reckon I would have handled, you yourself say you have done it in the past - yet we all know you should never handle as an outfielder - so did you not train yourself to not handle ? I don't think any amount of training prepares you for the instant it happens in a game for ANYONE.

[craig 5,195]

PS Great poll though Calscot - certainly gets the debate flowing. We need more of these, wish I had the imagination to think of some of these type polls to get a debate moving.

[Frankie 8,150]

Ideally, he shouldn't have done it.

 

Unfortunately, it's not easy to factor in all the hindsight arguments when a shot is coming right for you. Natural instinct to keep it out of the net IMO.

[stewarty 1,876]

Craig makes some good arguments. Perhaps the crucial one for me is the fact that if we finish the game without losing then the league is virtually in the bag. It's perhaps a cynical view to have and I have no doubt Cuellar regrets doing it but had we got the draw then instead of having this argument it would be about whether Carlos cheated or not.

[calscot 0]

I disagree. When you have a split second to make a decision it makes very little difference to what you have taught yourself. Your brain doesnt get the chance to process in the heat of the moment as methodically as it does when you are teaching yourself not to do it. Everyone's instincts react in different ways too.

 

So, supposing I chucked you a metal ball and supposing your reaction was to catch it. If I now heated the ball in the oven to 200C, how long do you think it would it take you to lose the instinct to catch the ball and get yourself out of the way? Or would you just keep going to your natural instincts? This may sound trivial but shows how easily our natural instincts change with experience.

 

I will give you your motorcycle synopsis as I don't know about it.

 

Saved me last night. I stupidly accelerated and overtook a car on some white chevron lines after coming out of a roundabout, the bike slipped on the white paint and I had a tank slapper on my hands; however, as I've read Keith Code's book about this, I didn't try to fight it and it worked itself out. The last time something like this happened to me, years ago, I high-sided, and ended up with a broken elbow, a sublimated collar bone and a piece of junk for a bike.

 

My reference to hindsight was not poor at all. Read it in its proper context (or at least the context it was made).

 

I still believe something can work out but still be totally the wrong decision. However, when it does, people are very difficult to teach otherwise. That's why hindsight should not be used here - it's a one off where the penalty was saved.

 

Actually, you are using hindsight to make your argument too

 

That's not true, I only used hindsight as irony for those using hindsight to prove their case. Using hindsight it the decision lead to a bad result. Ironically people are using the argument that on hindsight it ALMOST lead to the right result. That's why it's a very poor argument, notwithstanding that one positive result does not make a decision correct.

 

because I can almost guarantee that had we drawn that game 1-1 last night given his sending off and the subsequent penalty save you would also be shouting his praises for doing so (yes I am assuming here but I think a fair assumption)

 

How's your betting these days, because your dead wrong. If we got a positive result, I'd be happy but I would still think that it was the wrong decision.

 

There is a case recently of a boy that broke his sisters arm which meant that while in hospital they found she had bone cancer that would have gone undetected. On hindsight he saved her life, but it doesn't justify children going round breaking each other's bones. You do get positive results from bad situations.

 

So why would it make it OK for you to use hindsight to show he did the wrong thing but then others don't get the benefit of hindsight to analyse the incident ?

 

It isn't ok. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.

 

Further, read what I said. I said that (or at least meant) at the precise moment in time the incident happened it would have been better to lose the goal and try to fight back - but had we nicked the draw then of course it was the right decision as it would have saved the game for us. Sorry if this doesn't fit in the neat little box you want that he shouldn't have given away the penalty but had it got us a point and left them still 4 behind us then I would say he did the right thing 10 times out of ten.

 

Like I said before a positive outcome doesn't justify a bad decision. I would bet that about nine times out of ten, such a hand ball, causes a negative result. Unfortunately in our case it could cause two negative results.

 

You use hindsight to say we lost the game due to his actions and could lose the next game due to his absense - so why shouldnt I also surmise and say that the red would have been worth it to avoid defeat ? Besides, I see nothing wrong in me saying "it would have been fine if...." because that IS the case and many many people would agree.

 

The red would possibly have been worth it to avoid defeat but as that wasn't guaranteed it's not a bargain you can make. It's a high risk gamble, and when it come to high risk gambling with their own money, most prefer not to. Just because your partner bets your house on the result of a fooball match and wins, does not mean it was a good decision to do so.

 

That may sound extreme but your logic should survive extreme examples.

 

Gambling and winning once makes you lucky, not good. The best gamblers play the percentage game and win in the long run.

 

You may be a purist and that is fine - but sorry that I see it a different way in that avoiding defeat last night could have been the 2nd to last nail in their coffin for the season. The outcome wasn't as we wanted - but then, you too are using hindsight to analyse it.

 

No again, I'm just say you can't say the end justified the means, because it didn't.

 

My point is that you just shouldn't do it. Maybe it could be justified in the last five minutes of the last game of the season, but the timing and the manner of our play, meant that letting the goal in was the percentage play.

 

Every single outfielder knows he shouldn't handle the ball but I bet you in similar circumstances the cast majority of outfield players would have done the same thing - it is, as you say, instincts ruling - they want to avoid a goal at all costs and when it is a split second decision your mind doesn't quite process "I shouldn't do this" it simply processes "I don't want them to score a goal".

 

Yes but a defender learns from experience as it tends to happen to them more than once - I think I have learned. I've also learned to keep my hands behind my back when marking in the penalty area as I was done for a penalty for my arms being "near" the attacker. I've also been done for a penalty for a striker heading the ball against my chest from point blank range and leaving a dirty ball mark on my shirt and a red mark on my skin. The cheating ref - from their team (as the proper ref didn't turn up), said my "arms were up".

 

Does he wish he hadn't handled ? Very likely he does wish he hadn't handled. Would his response be the same if we had walked away with a draw ? Maybe not.

 

Hindsight can make you feel better if the outcome is good. Like putting a stupid bet on that comes off...

 

I don't really care what you saw in Celtic losing to Xamax with 10 men. There are also plenty of instances where the 10 men have overcome 11 so to use one instant is hardly representative. Is it harder to play 10 vs 11 ? Usually. Is it something which is impossible to overcome ? No and we have proven it a few times ourselves against the Tims.

 

It was just the first example which I seen live and thought, "you stupid idiot". It was the moment I realised that it is definitely the wrong thing to do - unless there's only a few minutes left.

 

Put yourself in his position for a moment if you can. If you were playing for Rangers against your arch rivals, drawing 1-1 in a game where, if you avoid defeat, you could virtually win the league and tell me you wouldn't do it. None of us know for sure but I reckon I would have handled, you yourself say you have done it in the past - yet we all know you should never handle as an outfielder - so did you not train yourself to not handle ? I don't think any amount of training prepares you for the instant it happens in a game for ANYONE.

 

I would be less likely to handle now as I've been punished before. Cuellar is more experienced than me. I can't say I'd definitely not do it again although I feel the chances are slim and I haven't done it since.

 

However, it's not my livelyhood and I'm not a pro. My instinct used to be to meet the ball passed to me with my foot going forward, but I've trained myself to pull my foot back to try kill the momentum - and sometimes I still have to think about it as I'm not as well trained as your average amateur. Cuellar will have trained himself to do it completely automatically so I'd assume he's retrained more of his football instincts much better than I have.

 

Not handling the ball on the line should be one of them.

[calscot 0]

PS WRT my ball argument, have you ever seen Memento?

[calscot 0]

PPS I realise that instinct makes you do and I'm not blaming Cuellar in the slightest. I'm just saying that when analysed my conclusion is that it's usually the wrong thing to do, even if it gets you a result.

 

It's like not squaring the ball to your strike partner when you should when two on one with the keeper, but you score anyway. Ideally you should pass the ball and get the certain goal.

 

You can praise the guy for scoring but still tell him to pass next time. If he does it again and misses he looks like a selfish idiot.

[Super_Ally 0]

I picked the right thing, a penalty is not a certain goal.

 

However in light of his and Weir's suspensions I realise he did the wrong thing. Not in handling the ball, but because of he didn't immediately go and "punch a pape" after stopping the goal. Then he'd have been red carded for violent conduct instead and would miss the next game, St Johnstone, like Weir instead of the next league game, v them. :devil:

[juffery 0]

Surely a defrenders natural reaction in the box is to pull his hand away from the ball to stop a penalty being given?

 

I said it last night, what carlos did was stupid - he is supposed to be professional player and to do that was just idiocy. Like Calscot says, the majority of penalties are scored, so that would leave us 2-1 down, away from home, fighting our closest rivals, who are in a must win situation and without our best defender. Stupid decision - any result we had managed to get, would have been in spite of his 'save' rather than because of it.

[otis 0]

No with 11 men on the pitch i believe we'd have took a point if not all 3 though i understand and accept why did it and it nearly paid off.