The Falkirk FC Thread

[ShaggerG]

4 hours ago, Tea and Busquets said:

Hopefully that’s the back of the heritage kit now. Last three performances in it have been average at best - Yesterday, Edinburgh away and Formartine in the cup. 

Maybe it's just me, but I felt that the sending off affected our performance yesterday.

[Shodwall cat]

3 hours ago, GMBairn said:

Wouldn't say it's a problem with the modern game, more like the way you played football went out with the ark.

There is no way for Coll to win that ball without endangering or injuring his opponent so it's a challenge he shouldn't make.

See this is where I disagree completely.. You are asking players to make decisions you are making having watched the replay a couple of times in  what is a split second.  Players can't think hang on a minute now if I win the ball there and bavidge straightens up his run a bit theres a chance I might clatter into him and get sent off so wait I better not try and get the ball there.   By the time that happens bavidge is away he's scored and it's one each.  In the same way bavidge didn't have time to stop and think wait a minute if I change my run slightly and keep going at this pace there's a chance that boy might in clearing the ball give me a dull one so I better stop now and not go any further

If you want to get rid of these sort of situations then you would need to make the game completely non contact which would be a terrible shame.

 

 It's like when you are driving a car carefully along a road and you make a split second decision to change lane . Someone's in your blind spot and you hit them. You don't get a jail term for that because it's a complete accident .Even if the boy in the other car picks up an injury you still don't end up with 6 months in barlinnie. If however, you are driving at 100 mph in a 40 and crash into someone then there is a fairly good chance that the police will be charging you. 

Playing football  back then used common sense. In a very physical and fast game accidents happen and people are going to get hurt . There doesn't have to be someone to blame all the time though. Players understood that back then got up, shook the other boys hand and got on with it. 

I'm a qualified referee so I don't blame the ref for sending him off I just don't agree with laws that send players off for complete accidents. 

Unfortunately the modern day laws have bypassed common sense altogether and what used to be a simple straightforward game is now an over complicated mess. 

That's just me though I just preferred the days when players weren't waving imaginary cards about and wanting players sent off every 5 mins. Players used to be just get on with it unless someone was deliberately trying to do them . Imagine that had been big craw Coll had collided with . He'd have just got back up and wondered what all the fuss was about.

Edited April 21 by Shodwall cat

[FFC 1876]

U16's beat Stirling 3-0 and the U18's followed suit winning 3-1.

Dominated the ball and had plenty of chances to win more convincingly in each of the games.

Edited April 21 by FFC 1876

[ShaggerG]

Given the circumstances I thought we did pretty well yesterday and I'm certain we would have won had Donaldson stayed on. Nesbitt was far and away the best man on the park and fully deserved his MOTM award IMO. If I have any criticism at all it's that, defensively, we played very narrowly following the dismissal and Kelty made very good use of the width of the pitch. Also, I felt that the best chance of us grabbing a winner was keeping the MacIver and Morrison combo on as Ross was winning a fair few headers with Morrison benefitting and looking dangerous. Having said that, Alfie did just as well when he came on, but I would definitely have kept MacIver on to partner him.

I said a few months ago that we could be in trouble if we lost Donaldson and Lang, thankfully that's only going to be for 2 and 3/4 games, but it will be a big ask to have only one player in the defence playing in their true position over the final two games. We really need the forward players to turn up over these games so that any defensive mishaps may not prove too costly.

To an extent I'm also with Shodwall re his take on players' punishment. I've long thought that players being booked or sent off for totally accidental incidents is unfair. The issue there though would be that refs would have to make the call as to whether an incident was meant or not and no doubt we would have players trying to make a deliberate act look innocent.

[Gaz]

2 hours ago, Hartleys18/19Army said:

I understand fans want to be loyal to Donaldson with some of the defences we are reading on here but it's a red, simple as that. It happens, we survived it, let's move on. 

Yep. It's an absolute shame that he'll miss the last two games though. Easily our most improved player this season. He's been excellent.

[GMBairn]

3 hours ago, Shodwall cat said:

See this is where I disagree completely.. You are asking players to make decisions you are making having watched the replay a couple of times in  what is a split second.  Players can't think hang on a minute now if I win the ball there and bavidge straightens up his run a bit theres a chance I might clatter into him and get sent off so wait I better not try and get the ball there.   By the time that happens bavidge is away he's scored and it's one each.  In the same way bavidge didn't have time to stop and think wait a minute if I change my run slightly and keep going at this pace there's a chance that boy might in clearing the ball give me a dull one so I better stop now and not go any further

If you want to get rid of these sort of situations then you would need to make the game completely non contact which would be a terrible shame.

 

 It's like when you are driving a car carefully along a road and you make a split second decision to change lane . Someone's in your blind spot and you hit them. You don't get a jail term for that because it's a complete accident .Even if the boy in the other car picks up an injury you still don't end up with 6 months in barlinnie. If however, you are driving at 100 mph in a 40 and crash into someone then there is a fairly good chance that the police will be charging you. 

Playing football  back then used common sense. In a very physical and fast game accidents happen and people are going to get hurt . There doesn't have to be someone to blame all the time though. Players understood that back then got up, shook the other boys hand and got on with it. 

I'm a qualified referee so I don't blame the ref for sending him off I just don't agree with laws that send players off for complete accidents. 

Unfortunately the modern day laws have bypassed common sense altogether and what used to be a simple straightforward game is now an over complicated mess. 

That's just me though I just preferred the days when players weren't waving imaginary cards about and wanting players sent off every 5 mins. Players used to be just get on with it unless someone was deliberately trying to do them . Imagine that had been big craw Coll had collided with . He'd have just got back up and wondered what all the fuss was about.

I suppose we will just need to agree to disagree because we aren't going to get common ground here, I didn't need replays to know he'd made a mistake and I don't think the players or most of the crowd did either.

Even in your driving analogy you've not described an unavoidable accident, you've described one caused by a poor decision for which you are at fault which you would be punished for, not likely with a jail sentence but with your insurance picking up the costs of all the repairs if no one's hurt. 

Even if it's an accident if you killed someone then you might go to jail for recklessness given you changed lanes without checking your blind spot, which is negligence, not an accident and you're responsible for that. 

Edited April 21 by GMBairn

[Gaz]

8 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

I'm also with Shodwall re his take on players' punishment. I've long thought that players being booked or sent off for totally accidental incidents is unfair. The issue there though would be that refs would have to make the call as to whether an incident was meant or not and no doubt we would have players trying to make a deliberate act look innocent.

The second part of this paragraph answers perfectly why the first part of your paragraph would never work.  You'd have some absolutely horrific leg breakers and as soon as the player says "I didn't mean it" they'd get off Scot-free. Totally unworkable.

[Gaz]

52 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:

See this is where I disagree completely.. You are asking players to make decisions you are making having watched the replay a couple of times in  what is a split second.  Players can't think hang on a minute now if I win the ball there and bavidge straightens up his run a bit theres a chance I might clatter into him and get sent off so wait I better not try and get the ball there.   By the time that happens bavidge is away he's scored and it's one each.  In the same way bavidge didn't have time to stop and think wait a minute if I change my run slightly and keep going at this pace there's a chance that boy might in clearing the ball give me a dull one so I better stop now and not go any further

If you want to get rid of these sort of situations then you would need to make the game completely non contact which would be a terrible shame.

 

 It's like when you are driving a car carefully along a road and you make a split second decision to change lane . Someone's in your blind spot and you hit them. You don't get a jail term for that because it's a complete accident .Even if the boy in the other car picks up an injury you still don't end up with 6 months in barlinnie. If however, you are driving at 100 mph in a 40 and crash into someone then there is a fairly good chance that the police will be charging you. 

Playing football  back then used common sense. In a very physical and fast game accidents happen and people are going to get hurt . There doesn't have to be someone to blame all the time though. Players understood that back then got up, shook the other boys hand and got on with it. 

I'm a qualified referee so I don't blame the ref for sending him off I just don't agree with laws that send players off for complete accidents. 

Unfortunately the modern day laws have bypassed common sense altogether and what used to be a simple straightforward game is now an over complicated mess. 

That's just me though I just preferred the days when players weren't waving imaginary cards about and wanting players sent off every 5 mins. Players used to be just get on with it unless someone was deliberately trying to do them . Imagine that had been big craw Coll had collided with . He'd have just got back up and wondered what all the fuss was about.

This is a completely mental stuff.

Not checking your blind spot isn't an accident. It's negligence.

[Tea and Busquets]

I was having a think watching the Elliot’s played of the year video on the Facebook page- but I’d argue that Stephen McGinn has been our most important signing in many a year. Not just for his playing efforts last year but in terms of his influence on the dressing room. Something we haven’t had since the McCracken/Kerr/Miller days etc. I really don’t think we can underestimate how big a help he has been this year in winning us the title, and that’s been from the changing room rather than the pitch. I wouldn’t mind keeping him in a player / coaching role (more so coach) he’s had that big an influence on us.

[Jimmy1876]

This is a ridiculous debate. It's a straight red. Accidental or not is completely irrelevant. If you want to stop people making potentially reckless and dangerous tackles you cannot allow reckless and dangerous tackles to go unpunished just because he didn't mean it. Donaldson was half a foot from booting a guy studs up in the face which could have been disastrous and was lucky it was his shoulder. If you don't want tackles with that potential to happen then they have to always be punished regardless of the outcome or intent. That's what limits players taking the risk in the first place and leaves those events only being accidental freak things as it was yesterday rather than a regular occurrence where players think they can chance it.

In the car accident example if you change lanes you are at fault and have to pay the costs (or insurance does) if the accident results in more damage like death you are in fact jailed. Accidentally or no.

Edited April 21 by Jimmy1876

[Roboccop]

Tidzer post game interview:

” we scored two good goals”. 

[Shodwall cat]

6 minutes ago, Gaz said:

This is a completely mental stuff.

Not checking your blind spot isn't an accident. It's negligence.

Ok maybe the blind spot analogy ist great but there are plenty of split second situations when accidents happen on the road. People don't get jailed for those accidents  Why do we want to send players off the park all the time for complete accidents???? It's nonsense.

[ShaggerG]

16 minutes ago, Gaz said:

The second part of this paragraph answers perfectly why the first part of your paragraph would never work.  You'd have some absolutely horrific leg breakers and as soon as the player says "I didn't mean it" they'd get off Scot-free. Totally unworkable.

Don't agree. It would be up to the ref to decide whether a player meant to injure an opponent not the player. 

[Bainsfordbairn]

51 minutes ago, FFC 1876 said:

U16's beat Stirling 3-0 and the U18's followed suit winning 3-1.

Dominated the ball and had plenty of chances to win more convincingly in each of the games.

There are some really good players in both those teams. I'm going to be interested to see who McGlynn decides to give apprenticeships too. 

[Shodwall cat]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy1876 said:

This is a ridiculous debate. It's a straight red. Accidental or not is completely irrelevant. If you want to stop people making potentially reckless and dangerous tackles you cannot allow reckless and dangerous tackles to go unpunished just because he didn't mean it. Donaldson was half a foot from booting a guy studs up in the face which could have been disastrous and was lucky it was his shoulder. If you don't want tackles with that potential to happen then they have to always be punished regardless of the outcome or intent. That's what limits players taking the risk in the first place and leaves those events only being accidental freak things as it was yesterday rather than a regular occurrence where players think they can chance it.

In the car accident example if you change lanes you are at fault and have to pay the costs (or insurance does) if the accident results in more damage like death you are in fact jailed. Accidentally or no.

As you say  that red card yesterday isn't going to prevent that happening again as it's a complete accident so why are we sending people off for it?  Again people seem to think that in a game as fast and physical as football players have time to think whole complete situations through before making instinctive decisions. It's impossible.The same thing will happen again in the same situation whether a red card is given or not because it wasn't deliberate.  It's like high feet .  Used to just be an indirect free kick now people are getting sent off for it. There was never a plethora of high feet occurrences before it suddenly became a red card so why suddenly make it a sending off offence when it's a complete accident. When I played football I got injured due to accidents but I never wanted or asked for the player to be red carded. These things happen it's football. The real bad tackles are never instinctive they are pre planned and intentional and easy to ban from the game. You don't need to send people off for accidents to get rid of  leg breaking challenges.

[Shodwall cat]

7 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

Don't agree. It would be up to the ref to decide whether a player meant to injure an opponent not the player. 

Exactly it's easy to see whether a player is deliberately trying to hurt a player or not. Yesterday noone thought it was at all deliberate including the kelty players and bavidge.  If you've at all played the game you know when someone is trying to do you or just making an honest attempt to get the ball 

[Bairney The Dinosaur]

There could be a case made that Violent Conduct should receive a longer suspension than Serious Foul Play. If you could determine that Serious Foul Play was related to a football incident and Violent Conduct was intent to injure. Both should be reds though. 

[Shodwall cat]

Just now, Bairney The Dinosaur said:

There could be a case made that Violent Conduct should receive a longer suspension than Serious Foul Play. If you could determine that Serious Foul Play was related to a football incident and Violent Conduct was intent to injure. Both should be reds though. 

It does. Violent conduct is a 3 game ban but you can't get sent off for violent conduct if you are making a tackle.

[Jimmy1876]

10 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:

As you say  that red card yesterday isn't going to prevent that happening again as it's a complete accident so why are we sending people off for it?  Again people seem to think that in a game as fast and physical as football players have time to think whole complete situations through before making instinctive decisions. It's impossible.The same thing will happen again in the same situation whether a red card is given or not because it wasn't deliberate.  It's like high feet .  Used to just be an indirect free kick now people are getting sent off for it. There was never a plethora of high feet occurrences before it suddenly became a red card so why suddenly make it a sending off offence when it's a complete accident. When I played football I got injured due to accidents but I never wanted or asked for the player to be red carded. These things happen it's football. The real bad tackles are never instinctive they are pre planned and intentional and easy to ban from the game. You don't need to send people off for accidents to get rid of  leg breaking challenges.

You've completely not understood what I've said. It doesn't stop freak accidents, but it does make people think twice before making a reckless tackle. It stops people chancing it and massively reduces injuries that way. I remember you were also happy to let players get dementia because of heading the ball so just gonna say I think you need to adjust your priorities. The long term safety and health of players is not something to exploit for your entertainment because you think it's more fun to watch. The reason dangerous tackles are seen less often these days is because of red cards.  Simple as that. 

[Disco Duck]

13 minutes ago, Shodwall cat said:

Exactly it's easy to see whether a player is deliberately trying to hurt a player or not. Yesterday noone thought it was at all deliberate including the kelty players and bavidge.  If you've at all played the game you know when someone is trying to do you or just making an honest attempt to get the ball 

If an action has a greater potential to cause harm, accidental or not, it’s a red card.   If you don’t want to get sent off for it, don’t jump with your foot at head height.