Matchday Thread: ICT -V- Aberdeen

[MissICT]

http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/1947428

McGee complaning...tell me something new...he's blaming everything under the sun apart from the players!

[Scotty]

I too wil put my hand up and say that I didn't think the red was deserved, whilst it is not like Hayes to fake. I never saw a stamp and I was fairly close, looked like a tangle to me. Having said that, we would still have won, had they kept the 11. Rosco on the other hand probly desereved a red, just when Mr. Biro had said he had outgrown that kind of thing. I wonder will he be a marked man for the sheep as well as the Smirrens?

Having watched the game again, I thought the red card for Paton was very harsh. There was a tangle of legs and his studs caught Hayes in the stomach. No malice there. I don't think Aberdeen can appeal however as it was deemed violent conduct. Tokely won the ball from Megginson but then caught him in the ankle. Looked like it could be the ligaments.

Having seen the highlights now, I think Tokely was lucky to stay on the pitch after that. He went in with studs showing and took the boy out, right under the refs nose. Whether or not there was malice in Paton's challenege I dont know, but he seemed to flick his boot back in towards Hayes after, when he could easily have just kept going. Another ref might have kept Paton on and Tokely off, but c'est la vie, I'm not complaining.

Watched the red card incident again and I think he deserved to go. As Hayes lies on the ground you clearly see Paton dig his foot into the stomach of Hayes. A stupid thing to do and a definite red card.

Looks like Paton may have been guilty of a wee bit of rucking on Hayes but it's certainly not clear cut and one of those instances where a Ref has a split second decision to make and it went for us. No idea what match/highlights those who claim Rossco had studs up were watching!!! Could have been a red on the basis of a clumsy tackle from behind, but no worse than some of the treatment Hayes got that went unpunished in any way shape or form for most of the game.

Have just been preparing the highlights for the official site and have to say well done to the ref !!!

As i first watched the highlights I thought the Paton red card was harsh and the Rossco yellow was lenient. However after rewatching both incidents I have to say the ref got it 100% spot-on. Unlike the referee I was able to view the incidents frame by frame and it is quite clear that Paton stamped (or kneed) Hayes and that Rossco got the ball (and the player's ankle). either could have been a red or a yellow based on the ref having to make a split second decision, but I believe he got it right.

http://community.caleythistleonline.com/uploads/miscellaneous/paton.avi

http://community.caleythistleonline.com/uploads/miscellaneous/tokely.avi

[davie]

Spot on Scotty. On first viewing, Rosco's tackle looks really bad and my first though was straight red, but he did get the ball right in front of the ref's nose. He also cleaned Megginson out, so a yellow is probably what you get for the result of the tackle. Any intent and/ or foot off the ground and it's a red. TBH, I don't know if Ross had to take that chance at that point in the game, but that's the way it goes when you're that kind of full on player. If Aberdeen had one defender who played anywhere near as well as Rossco on Saturday, they might not be in the state that they are.McGhee's attitude will hopefully get the odious, whining little oxygen thief the sack before long so that the rest up us don't have to put up with him. There certainly seem to be enough sheepfans of that point of view. On yer way Mark, obscurity will suit you just fine.

[The Mantis]

Sir Alex has spoiled the Dons fans for evermore :laugh:

[RiG]

Nah I disagree about Tokely and I think he was lucky to only get a yellow. Back in the day you could get away with that kind of tackle but not now. Lunging in late and from behind / side on to an opponent is normally asking for trouble.

Despite what McGhee might say Paton deserved to walk.

[Scotty]

I think the ref could have given yellow or red for either.

Tokely's looked worse but in slo-mo you can see he actually gets the ball first and he was perhaps lucky the ref was near enough to him to see it clearly.

Paton on the other hand definitely kneed Hayes as he got up, his leg was away then it was back into the midriff. The only argument you might make for yellow over red was that Hayes' leg was also coming back up and perhaps that motion 'pulled' Paton's trailing leg into him. The ref was further away and obviously saw the 'kneeing' motion and based his red on that.

I note that aberdeen are appealing the red card ........

[Red White and Blue]

McGhee whinges about everything - it's never his fault. On the amount of Aberdeen injuries that he whinged about,did no one mention to tell him that we had Proctor, McCann, Gillet, Cox, Sanchez and Blumenshstein out through injury (all first team players). Get a life McGhee and just admit that your team just weren't good enough and were beaten by a better side.

[RiG]

Apparently Stuart Duff updated his Facebook on Saturday to simply say "Easy! "Easy!"

[RiG]

Tokely's looked worse but in slo-mo you can see he actually gets the ball first and he was perhaps lucky the ref was near enough to him to see it clearly.

Strongly disagree. It makes no difference if you get the ball or not, it can still be a foul and a red card. You can't challenge like that anymore.

Paton on the other hand definitely kneed Hayes as he got up, his leg was away then it was back into the midriff.

Strongly agree. There is a clear kicking motion into Hayes midriff whilst he is on the ground. There may not be a stamp but you cannot kick players and expect to get away with it. A fully warranted red card. Hopefully the SPL / SFA or whoever it is laugh out the appeal.

[CaleyD]

RiG, the rules of the game were altered (again) in reference to the "tackle from behind" about 5 years ago and the rulebook no longer makes any reference to it directly.

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

Fouls and misconduct are penalised as follows:

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

? kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

? trips or attempts to trip an opponent

? jumps at an opponent

? charges an opponent

? strikes or attempts to strike an opponent

? pushes an opponent

? tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:

? holds an opponent

? spits at an opponent

? handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 ? Position of free kick).

Penalty kick

A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.

Indirect free kick

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:

? controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession

? touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player

? touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate

? touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

? plays in a dangerous manner

? impedes the progress of an opponent

? prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands

? commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

The indirect free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 ? Position of free kick).

Cautionable offences

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

? unsporting behaviour

? dissent by word or action

? persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game

? delaying the restart of play

? failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in

? entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee?s permission

? deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee?s permission

A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if he commits any of the following three offences:

? unsporting behaviour

? dissent by word or action

? delaying the restart of play

Sending-off offences

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:

? serious foul play

? violent conduct

? spitting at an opponent or any other person

? denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

? denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player?s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick

? using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures

? receiving a second caution in the same match

A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

SOURCE: Laws of the Game 20101/11

[DALNEIGHCALEY]

I too wil put my hand up and say that I didn't think the red was deserved, whilst it is not like Hayes to fake. I never saw a stamp and I was fairly close, looked like a tangle to me. Having said that, we would still have won, had they kept the 11. Rosco on the other hand probly desereved a red, just when Mr. Biro had said he had outgrown that kind of thing. I wonder will he be a marked man for the sheep as well as the Smirrens?

Having watched the game again, I thought the red card for Paton was very harsh. There was a tangle of legs and his studs caught Hayes in the stomach. No malice there. I don't think Aberdeen can appeal however as it was deemed violent conduct. Tokely won the ball from Megginson but then caught him in the ankle. Looked like it could be the ligaments.

Having seen the highlights now, I think Tokely was lucky to stay on the pitch after that. He went in with studs showing and took the boy out, right under the refs nose. Whether or not there was malice in Paton's challenege I dont know, but he seemed to flick his boot back in towards Hayes after, when he could easily have just kept going. Another ref might have kept Paton on and Tokely off, but c'est la vie, I'm not complaining.

Watched the red card incident again and I think he deserved to go. As Hayes lies on the ground you clearly see Paton dig his foot into the stomach of Hayes. A stupid thing to do and a definite red card.

Looks like Paton may have been guilty of a wee bit of rucking on Hayes but it's certainly not clear cut and one of those instances where a Ref has a split second decision to make and it went for us. No idea what match/highlights those who claim Rossco had studs up were watching!!! Could have been a red on the basis of a clumsy tackle from behind, but no worse than some of the treatment Hayes got that went unpunished in any way shape or form for most of the game.

Have just been preparing the highlights for the official site and have to say well done to the ref !!!

As i first watched the highlights I thought the Paton red card was harsh and the Rossco yellow was lenient. However after rewatching both incidents I have to say the ref got it 100% spot-on. Unlike the referee I was able to view the incidents frame by frame and it is quite clear that Paton stamped (or kneed) Hayes and that Rossco got the ball (and the player's ankle). either could have been a red or a yellow based on the ref having to make a split second decision, but I believe he got it right.

http://community.cal...neous/paton.avi

http://community.cal...eous/tokely.avi

Disagree entirely with you Scotty . Firstly you dont know if Paton stamped on hayes or if he kneed him and thats with the benefit of slow motion ! No intent whatsoever . Roscoe was very lucky to stay on the park as he went right through the man to get the ball , straight red nowadays .

[RiG]

Words

I think Tokelys challenge could be considered "serious foul play" myself. I certainly think those types of tackles, be they from teh side or from behind, fall into that category.

[CaleyD]

"Serious Foul Play", for me, would mean that the player had no intention of playing the ball and had deliberately gone after the player in the tackle.

[gordyfromsneck]

Interesting to see that Scotty. But I thought there was something about simulation, by name, in there rather than the catch-all unsporting behaviour.

[RiG]

"Serious Foul Play", for me, would mean that the player had no intention of playing the ball and had deliberately gone after the player in the tackle.

I think it can be applied whether you get the ball or not. Getting the ball in a challenge doesn't automatically absolve it from not being a foul and punishable by some colour of card.

[TSTtiger]

For me , Tokely was very lucky to stay on the park and looking at it in slow motion i'm not convinced he even got the ball. Doesn't really matter but with 'serious foul play' refs should take appropriate action if a players actions are deemed to put another at risk with reckless tackles etc.

Also think the Dons lad was unlucky to be sent packing as it looked unintentional to me but feck it i'll take both decisions and the win ta very much.

[Scotty]

So basically, with the benefit of highlights, slo-mo, and multiple viewings, none of us can agree on either decision .... and regardless of which viewpoint you have, both sides can make convincing arguments for yellows or reds for either player !!! Who'd be a ref !!!

[RiG]

So basically, with the benefit of highlights, slo-mo, and multiple viewings, none of us can agree on either decision

Yeah pretty much! :D

[CaleyD]

"Serious Foul Play", for me, would mean that the player had no intention of playing the ball and had deliberately gone after the player in the tackle.

I think it can be applied whether you get the ball or not. Getting the ball in a challenge doesn't automatically absolve it from not being a foul and punishable by some colour of card.

I agree, getting the ball does not automatically mean a tackle/challenge is legitimate and should not result in some kind of caution...or even a red card. Leaving the foot in or unnecessarily going through a player in the tackle could just as easily warrant a red card whether they get the ball or not and could be "serious Foul Play". I just don't think Rossco's tackle falls into that category.

I think a red would have been harsh for Rossco, but could quite have easily been given by the ref who does not have the benefit of looking at the incident over and over again. When you go in for that kind of challenge you are effectively flipping a coin and, as someone else pointed out, it was probably unnecessary given the position on the park and the lack of any apparent danger to us at the time

Quite happy to accept that on another day the two decisions may have been reversed. Interpretation and the resulting discussions is half the attraction of football.

[+standbydave]

Going back to the BBC Highlights,I agree they showed a very misinformed slant to the game and credited the Jags goals as an afterthought,but to be expected from the Old Firm/Dons/Tangerine TV Station. Only Friday night on STV is worse.

[Sir C the 3rd]

Tokely clearly does not get the ball and its an absolutley shocking and cowardly tackle on a kid. Really poor show from Rosscoe that!

[tm4tj]

Rubbish, he takes ball and man with the follow through. The ref was perfectly placed to deal with it and he issued a yellow card.

Some you win, some you lose.

[DALNEIGHCALEY]

Rubbish, he takes ball and man with the follow through. The ref was perfectly placed to deal with it and he issued a yellow card.

Some you win, some you lose.

Think you need a trip to specsavers . Tokely doesn't touch the ball , the more I see it the worse it gets .

[SMEE]

Tokely deffo got the ball before the man....ever so slightly....but he did!

[DALNEIGHCALEY]

Tokely deffo got the ball before the man....ever so slightly....but he did!

He didn't , the Aberdeen boy knocks the ball away with the outside of his right foot then Tokely takes him out of the game .