Just watched the incident several times and listened to the views of Strachan and Hateley. It will stand as the referee undoubtedly made the decision at the time and watching it in full motion Tansey does raise his arms and does look at Samaras before the challenge. It appeared that he was trying to put Samaras off (which he didnt need to do) and he gave the ref a decision to make. It once again calls fer a look at or discussion with the fourth official instead of immediately flashinng the red card.

There seems to be a huge fixation on the fact that Tansey looked at Samaras therefore it was a warranted red card. I can only assume these people who follow this train of thought have never played football as you are continuously looking round to see where your opponents or team mates are. Some of posts on the Daily Record site have to be seen to be believed.

You're absolutely right, RiG. Whenever I go up for a header I always look to see who might be challenging me - doesn't mean I want to elbow them!

What I always wonder about in these situations, is had Tansey only been yellow carded for the challenge, how many of these so-called "Celtic fans" would be saying it should of been red, or even calling for it to be looked at again in the belief that the punishment should be worse? I can do tell you how many, and it's the same number as their IQ - zero!

There seems to be a huge fixation on the fact that Tansey looked at Samaras therefore it was a warranted red card. I can only assume these people who follow this train of thought have never played football as you are continuously looking round to see where your opponents or team mates are. Some of posts on the Daily Record site have to be seen to be believed.

He doesn't look to see where the ball is and leads with his arm .

He doesn't look to see where the ball is and leads with his arm .

And you obviously haven't watched it. He got the ball.

There seems to be a huge fixation on the fact that Tansey looked at Samaras therefore it was a warranted red card. I can only assume these people who follow this train of thought have never played football as you are continuously looking round to see where your opponents or team mates are. Some of posts on the Daily Record site have to be seen to be believed.

He doesn't look to see where the ball is and leads with his arm .

DC what are you on about ? this is your gawd knows how manyeth post justifying the sending off, and you are still wrong. Of course you are going to look and see where your opponent is before you jump to challenge him for a header - there's no point in challenging otherwise. You can even check again if you have time. If you can see where the ball has been passed from (or in this case lumped up the park from) as a professional you should be able to judge the flight of it, and where you/ opponent and ball intersect. Tansey did. As for your "interpretation" of the laws of the game, they are just that - laws. There is no interpretation. Law 12 (fouls & misconduct) lays them out perfectly well. The referee can only send Tansey off for either "serious foul play" or "violent conduct" There is no such offence as "leading with the arm" I can see no evidence of either of these offences in the highlights. He could only caution Tansey for "unsporting behaviour" which again there is no evidence of. He could have awarded a direct free kick for any number of described offences, including "jumps at an opponent" in a manner that the referee considers "careless, reckless or using excessive force" That is the offence that you have described, and that is the proper outcome according to the Laws of the Game. As my dad would say "gie's peace", but I won't hold my breath for you having the good grace to change your mind.

There seems to be a huge fixation on the fact that Tansey looked at Samaras therefore it was a warranted red card. I can only assume these people who follow this train of thought have never played football as you are continuously looking round to see where your opponents or team mates are. Some of posts on the Daily Record site have to be seen to be believed.

He doesn't look to see where the ball is and leads with his arm .

DC what are you on about ? this is your gawd knows how manyeth post justifying the sending off, and you are still wrong. Of course you are going to look and see where your opponent is before you jump to challenge him for a header - there's no point in challenging otherwise. You can even check again if you have time. If you can see where the ball has been passed from (or in this case lumped up the park from) as a professional you should be able to judge the flight of it, and where you/ opponent and ball intersect. Tansey did. As for your "interpretation" of the laws of the game, they are just that - laws. There is no interpretation. Law 12 (fouls & misconduct) lays them out perfectly well. The referee can only send Tansey off for either "serious foul play" or "violent conduct" There is no such offence as "leading with the arm" I can see no evidence of either of these offences in the highlights. He could only caution Tansey for "unsporting behaviour" which again there is no evidence of. He could have awarded a direct free kick for any number of described offences, including "jumps at an opponent" in a manner that the referee considers "careless, reckless or using excessive force" That is the offence that you have described, and that is the proper outcome according to the Laws of the Game. As my dad would say "gie's peace", but I won't hold my breath for you having the good grace to change your mind.

When have I said there was an offence of leading with the arm ? Violent conduct pure and simple .

ICT have lodged an appeal.

There seems to be a huge fixation on the fact that Tansey looked at Samaras therefore it was a warranted red card. I can only assume these people who follow this train of thought have never played football as you are continuously looking round to see where your opponents or team mates are. Some of posts on the Daily Record site have to be seen to be believed.

He doesn't look to see where the ball is and leads with his arm .

DC what are you on about ? this is your gawd knows how manyeth post justifying the sending off, and you are still wrong. Of course you are going to look and see where your opponent is before you jump to challenge him for a header - there's no point in challenging otherwise. You can even check again if you have time. If you can see where the ball has been passed from (or in this case lumped up the park from) as a professional you should be able to judge the flight of it, and where you/ opponent and ball intersect. Tansey did. As for your "interpretation" of the laws of the game, they are just that - laws. There is no interpretation. Law 12 (fouls & misconduct) lays them out perfectly well. The referee can only send Tansey off for either "serious foul play" or "violent conduct" There is no such offence as "leading with the arm" I can see no evidence of either of these offences in the highlights. He could only caution Tansey for "unsporting behaviour" which again there is no evidence of. He could have awarded a direct free kick for any number of described offences, including "jumps at an opponent" in a manner that the referee considers "careless, reckless or using excessive force" That is the offence that you have described, and that is the proper outcome according to the Laws of the Game. As my dad would say "gie's peace", but I won't hold my breath for you having the good grace to change your mind.

When have I said there was an offence of leading with the arm ? Violent conduct pure and simple .

b#####s!!! no way that was violent conduct

were you at the game? did you see the highlights?

Edited November 21, 201114 yr by Libero

Can't believe people are still taking the bait....DC is clearly on the wind-up.

Confirmation that card is to be appealed - http://ictfc.com/news/team-news/276-tansey-card-to-be-appealed

There seems to be a huge fixation on the fact that Tansey looked at Samaras therefore it was a warranted red card. I can only assume these people who follow this train of thought have never played football as you are continuously looking round to see where your opponents or team mates are. Some of posts on the Daily Record site have to be seen to be believed.

He doesn't look to see where the ball is and leads with his arm .

DC what are you on about ? this is your gawd knows how manyeth post justifying the sending off, and you are still wrong. Of course you are going to look and see where your opponent is before you jump to challenge him for a header - there's no point in challenging otherwise. You can even check again if you have time. If you can see where the ball has been passed from (or in this case lumped up the park from) as a professional you should be able to judge the flight of it, and where you/ opponent and ball intersect. Tansey did. As for your "interpretation" of the laws of the game, they are just that - laws. There is no interpretation. Law 12 (fouls & misconduct) lays them out perfectly well. The referee can only send Tansey off for either "serious foul play" or "violent conduct" There is no such offence as "leading with the arm" I can see no evidence of either of these offences in the highlights. He could only caution Tansey for "unsporting behaviour" which again there is no evidence of. He could have awarded a direct free kick for any number of described offences, including "jumps at an opponent" in a manner that the referee considers "careless, reckless or using excessive force" That is the offence that you have described, and that is the proper outcome according to the Laws of the Game. As my dad would say "gie's peace", but I won't hold my breath for you having the good grace to change your mind.

When have I said there was an offence of leading with the arm ? Violent conduct pure and simple .

DC - you must be on a wind up here!!

"violence - behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt"

What part of Tansey's conduct manifested itself in this way?

Can't believe people are still taking the bait....DC is clearly on the wind-up.

Ignore that troll.

I'm glad we appealed. We should win, but i'm not hopeful! if we succeed, then not losing Tansey for 3 games will be worth the grand. Losing him for 3 games, could cost us more. If we win, I take it we have to still pay the grand? Surely, if we win, this is an admission that the ref got it wrong, therefore we should be re-imbursed for the grand! The whole system is ridiculous.

Violent conduct pure and simple .

You really need to look up what constitutes violent conduct.

Violent conduct pure and simple .

You really need to look up what constitutes violent conduct.

Why was he red carded then ?

I'm glad we appealed. We should win, but i'm not hopeful! if we succeed, then not losing Tansey for 3 games will be worth the grand. Losing him for 3 games, could cost us more. If we win, I take it we have to still pay the grand? Surely, if we win, this is an admission that the ref got it wrong, therefore we should be re-imbursed for the grand! The whole system is ridiculous.

Think if we win appeal there's no fee.

Butcher even described it as an assault on Samaras .

After seeing the incident once again the ref was far too fast to show that card. plus how can he mistake an elbow for a hand? seeing it from his view makes it even more obvious that it wasn't a Red carded indecent. If Tansey doesn't get this card overturned then I don't know what to say.

There is nothing in Butchers statement that indicates he at any time said there was an assault on Samaras. In fact I dont think he mentioned the guys name in any of his statements.

What Butcher actually said was

"If anything it is assault by fingernail - and the player has gone down as if he's been scratched by a jaguar," he said.

Butcher even described it as an assault on Samaras .

I beg you to stop DC please, my sides are splitting with laughter

Butcher even described it as an assault on Samaras .

I beg you to stop DC please, my sides are splitting with laughter

Only repeating what the manager said at the time .

further analysis of the game footage. the ref must have seen it more like this.

There is nothing in Butchers statement that indicates he at any time said there was an assault on Samaras. In fact I dont think he mentioned the guys name in any of his statements.

What Butcher actually said was

"If anything it is assault by fingernail - and the player has gone down as if he's been scratched by a jaguar," he said.

So who do you think the player is that Butcher was referring to ?

Very good Miss ICT, now can you do a photo of O'Reilly with the words "Face........bothered?"

There is nothing in Butchers statement that indicates he at any time said there was an assault on Samaras. In fact I dont think he mentioned the guys name in any of his statements.

What Butcher actually said was

"If anything it is assault by fingernail - and the player has gone down as if he's been scratched by a jaguar," he said.

So who do you think the player is that Butcher was referring to ?

I know who I THINK Butcher was referring to but you are making a statement inferring that Butcher SAID there was an assault on Samaras which is clearly not the case.