Tokely Appeal

[HumbersideDude]

This is what I see:

In your first picture, the rangers player is running towards the photographer, who we assume was not in the goal but to the side, the ball is to the players right and therfore going away from goal and not going in the same direction of the rangers diver, sorry, player, who is going towards the photographer. the rangers player is looking at the ball and has realised that he has been tackled(fairly).

In pic 2, the deep sea diver is already screaming for a penalty. Also there is no scissor movement from Rossco's right leg as claimed. Thats what I see in the 2 pics.

[CaleyD]

For me the how and when of the contact is not the main point for argument. Whilst I've seen it from several different angles and don't think it was even a foul, it all comes down to opinion and can be argued in circles forever. For me, the main point of contention is that I don't believe it was a "clear goal scoring opportunity" and the video evidence, IMO, clearly shows that...but the "experts" disagree. The angle for any shot that might have been taken was tight, the keeper was well placed and Shinnie was coming across and had it covered as well.

PMF...I look at the images you posted and see something entirely different to you.

The ball has either been touched and knocked out of the path of Naismith, or he has lost control of it. If you believe the first scenario, then it's not even a foul. If you believe the second scenario, then it's not a clear goal scoring opportunity and did not merit a red card. I see nothing in the images that confirms or denies contact between the players at that point in time.

[Renegade]

In the first pic, if you look at the angle of the ball, it's clearly away from Naismith's feet, meaning that, as he hadn't lost control Tokely must have touched the ball before that frame - that would not be a penalty.

I'll also add that there was a picture in the Courier from the start of the week, which was from behind - Tokely is clearly seen making contact with the ball and Naismith is still standing up right! Heck, I was sixty yards away (I might even be in the background of some of those frames!) and could clearly see it wasn't a penalty.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Renegade

[Strathman]

Do we know who the members of the "independent appeal panel" were?

I can only think of two decisions as bad as this one. Zalikuas at Pitodrie in an incident with Lee Miller. Miller fouled Zalikuas, Brines sent the Hearts man off.

Appealed and Brines said his decision stood! Murdo Macleod denied Jason Scotland a work permit.

They go on about the ills of Scottish football and the lack of competition for the old scum. Neutral referees would help.

[Renegade]

The SFA need to hire someone who can tear the whole thing down and start again. Someone who knows football, knows how it should be run and how it should be played is the way to go. For me, that man would be someone like Johan Cruyff. People may dismiss this first of all, but it might be the kind of job he'd go for at this time.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Renegade

[Scarlet Pimple]

Strongly disagree with the panel.Still shocking--OF bias.IMHO

Since Tokes had to move one of his legs acoss the other to get the ball should he have walked out onto the park with one leg tied to the other to avoid the future possibility of it looking like a scissor motion. Also I do not think that he wrapped his legs round the player and squueezed them closed so , again how on earth could it be a scissor motion .

But the sending off was the most shocking decision ....ach! I am flipping quitting whilst I am ahead,,ffs.

And King Beastie can't you tell when one of my Pimple granchildren has taken up the pen and is just joking.? :biggrin: All right, have it your way, Terry comes from Norwich-- Ipswich or Norwich, same difference to an elderly Pimple. WICH is the message I am trying to send.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Well we just have to get over with it but it has clearly set a precedence - but they had it all clearly recorded from THREE different positions on TV replays - do they feckin use them. They had a get out clause becos they could have even spared criticising the ref by simply stating that his view of the actual incident was obscured - and it was - and he made a genuine error of judgement - although he still was probably waiting fer an opportunity to redeem himself.

It will never happen but I cant help but thinking that if we had adopted the instant replay and panel decision as they have in Rugby League - this tackle would have been replayed to all with slow motion and different angles and a big sign saying NO GOAL would have been displayed fer all to see.

[Scarlet Pimple]

Right on IHE--just what I have been trumpeting for quite a long time.Bring on the intant video.