MOTD Wannabee Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 To be fair to Beany, whilst the fall is clearly exaggerated, our own highlights from the other side show that Saunders DID catch him on the foot. It's not the contactless dive we all thought from the other side and it is a foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeezeboxson Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 How Beany didn't get booked for the dive or the foul on Gall shortly after still amazes me watching that. Potential shout for hand ball from Lyle for the Queens goal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 How Beany didn't get booked for the dive or the foul on Gall shortly after still amazes me watching that. Potential shout for hand ball from Lyle for the Queens goal? As SD said, theres definitely contact (not that Im excusing him, it was still a silly reaction) and you're never going to see anyone getting a booking for going down 20 yards inside their own half. The foul is a clear foul but nothing more. Its not particularly late or dangerous and Gallacher isnt heading into a dangerous area. Its nowhere near as bad as the Dumbarton fans were trying to make out after the game. Neither, for that, was Russells part in the Saunders booking. Its a late tackle and a stick on booking. Russell goes down hurt but he doesnt exactly jump up when the ball arrives. You can see from the highlights that he's starting to get up when the ball is out wide. Handball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mairdrink Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 SonsTV bumper highlights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 To be fair to Beany, whilst the fall is clearly exaggerated, our own highlights from the other side show that Saunders DID catch him on the foot. It's not the contactless dive we all thought from the other side and it is a foul. As SD said, theres definitely contact (not that Im excusing him, it was still a silly reaction) and you're never going to see anyone getting a booking for going down 20 yards inside their own half. The foul is a clear foul but nothing more. You've got to be kidding on? That couldn't be further from a clear foul. Saunders doesn't even attempt to tackle him, he's just jockeying him and if there is any contact it's Saunders big toe landing on Russells foot, hardly enough to merit a falling over never mind the pig squeal and roll around you get from Russell. It's a contact sport and if we're looking to let Russell off the hook for that pish then I don't want to play any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 You've got to be kidding on? That couldn't be further from a clear foul. Saunders doesn't even attempt to tackle him, he's just jockeying him and if there is any contact it's Saunders big toe landing on Russells foot, hardly enough to merit a falling over never mind the pig squeal and roll around you get from Russell. It's a contact sport and if we're looking to let Russell off the hook for that pish then I don't want to play any more.Nobody has attempted to excuse Russell's over-reaction. Both Mr X and I made that clear. What I did was note that contrary to how it looked from the other side there is actually some contact that generates Russell's reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 You've got to be kidding on? That couldn't be further from a clear foul. Saunders doesn't even attempt to tackle him, he's just jockeying him and if there is any contact it's Saunders big toe landing on Russells foot, hardly enough to merit a falling over never mind the pig squeal and roll around you get from Russell. It's a contact sport and if we're looking to let Russell off the hook for that pish then I don't want to play any more. I was talking about the "hack" Russell was supposed to have on Gallacher. It was a foul but nothing more Saunders definitely catches Russell. Hard to see whether he kicks his foot or stands on it. Its not deliberate but its still a foul. Russells reaction, however, is inexcusable. Not that anyone attempted to excuse it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Paddy Flannery Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 I was talking about the "hack" Russell was supposed to have on Gallacher. It was a foul but nothing more Saunders definitely catches Russell. Hard to see whether he kicks his foot or stands on it. Its not deliberate but its still a foul. Russells reaction, however, is inexcusable. Not that anyone attempted to excuse it A foul You don't genuinely believe that's a foul do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 A foul You don't genuinely believe that's a foul do you? Generally, one players foot making contact with anothers foot is a foul. Im not claiming any great sense of injustice or anything but if the ref sees the contact and Russell doesnt go over as if he's been shot then the likelihood is it would have been a free kick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Nobody has attempted to excuse Russell's over-reaction. Both Mr X and I made that clear. What I did was note that contrary to how it looked from the other side there is actually some contact that generates Russell's reaction. It still not a clear foul. I was talking about the "hack" Russell was supposed to have on Gallacher. It was a foul but nothing more Saunders definitely catches Russell. Hard to see whether he kicks his foot or stands on it. Its not deliberate but its still a foul. Russells reaction, however, is inexcusable. Not that anyone attempted to excuse it Apologies. As above though, it's not a clear foul and even from both QueensTV & SonsTV the contact looks minimal at best. One players foot touching anothers' doesn't make it a foul, it's a contact sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 It still not a clear foul.I never used the word "clear" so not sure why you are quoting that at me. Mr X used the word but he wasnt talking about that incident. I think it most likely was a foul though and no matter how many times you post otherwise football isnt a "contact sport". Incidental contact happens but it isnt intended to be a contact sport and if one player stands on anothers foot then in the normal course of events that is given as a foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 It still not a clear foul. Apologies. As above though, it's not a clear foul and even from both QueensTV & SonsTV the contact looks minimal at best. One players foot touching anothers' doesn't make it a foul, it's a contact sport. As SD said, when I said a clear foul I was referring to Russells challenge on Gallacher. In this incident, you're right the contact is minimal, which is what makes Russells reaction so disappointing. However, minimal contact can still be a foul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 We'll agree to disagree then, for me there has to be enough contact to impede or obstruct a player, two players feet landing in the same spot sounds like incidental contact to me. Saunders hasn't moved his foot towards the ball which is why I think calling a foul there would've been extremely soft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Paddy Flannery Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Aye, that's never a foul in my eyes. I'd probably not bother following football if minimal contact such as the event in question was considered a foul. Thankfully it's not. Probably best to bury this ,as well as Iain Russell, and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Aye, that's never a foul in my eyes. I'd probably not bother following football if minimal contact such as the event in question was considered a foul. Thankfully it's not. Probably best to bury this ,as well as Iain Russell, and move on. You also thought Saunders got booked for nothing though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 We'll agree to disagree then, for me there has to be enough contact to impede or obstruct a player, two players feet landing in the same spot sounds like incidental contact to me. Saunders hasn't moved his foot towards the ball which is why I think calling a foul there would've been extremely soft. Russells foot is already on the ground when Saunders makes contact. It would have been a soft foul but one you see given all the time. Agree to disagree though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Paddy Flannery Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 You also thought Saunders got booked for nothing though More than happy to admit I got that one wrong, thank god for highlights and the chance to watch things back eh? Again though, whilst it was a booking, Russell's reputation and utterly dramatic reaction to any sort of contact instantly has people assuming it was a dive. I don't think he realises that by falling to ground in such a dramatic fashion it actually makes it look like less of a free kick. Happy to move on and admit I was wrong on the booking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 More than happy to admit I got that one wrong, thank god for highlights and the chance to watch things back eh? Again though, whilst it was a booking, Russell's reputation and utterly dramatic reaction to any sort of contact instantly has people assuming it was a dive. I don't think he realises that by falling to ground in such a dramatic fashion it actually makes it look like less of a free kick. Happy to move on and admit I was wrong on the booking. Im not sure he does either. I think he might have had it pointed out to him on Saturday by a few team mates though! Maybe now its cost his side a goal he'll think twice, then again ... You're saying what a few Queens fans have been saying for a while. The problem is he still does win free kicks too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeezeboxson Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Not sure what Mr X and SD have been on... The foul on Russell was not a bookable and if you can't see that his reaction got the player booked then you need to take off the tinted specs. The foul by Russell on Gallacher is clearly made in no attempt to even get the ball. He deliberately took the players down from behind when he had no chance of getting near the ball. Gallacher was advancing into a decent area where he could have got a shot away so you are wrong on that as well. Thank goodness we don't have to play you again for another 5 days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.