St Mirren v Ayr United 17/12/16

[Tam M]

[HeathrowAUFC]

Apparently Syria's answer to Ant & Dec are hosting a charity evening in Aleppo for "those poor b*****ds in Paisley". Bless.

[ayrmad]

1 hour ago, FTOF said:

So it's really people's ignorance regarding the new rules that's making them look rather foolish on this thread.

The sooner every cynical tackle like that is punished by a red card the better. Might stop players with high levels of skill getting hacked to pieces every week.

No, if the refs have been given a new directive then it's them as a collective that are displaying ignorance of the directive, if you watch challenges with next to no expectation of getting the ball going without a red on a regular basis you're quite entitled to assume that those tackles aren't deemed as red card offences.

Those sort of challenges happen fairly regularly when someone is bombing up the wing and only receive a red when the ref thinks the tackler is trying to injure his opponent.

Is this directive only for Scottish football as Chris Brunt only received a yellow for wiping out Rashford yesterday and not one pundit mentioned anything about it being a red under any directive.

[Bobby_F]

3 minutes ago, Tam M said:

1-1 draw - stay classy Mr McCall!

[sergie's no1 fan]

Fuxakes I get it was a bigger point for Ayr than it was for us but he must realise every team in the league have pumped us apart from Ayr and they have had what 4? attempts at it.

It is good deflection tactics and the Ayr fans enjoyed it but they should be questioning why they keep blowing leads against us when everyone else has done it with relative ease.

[ayrmad]

7 hours ago, itzdrk said:

No he doesn't.   Jamie is in the Scott Brown school of bookings.  Incredible that the big thug () had avoided a red for us until today.  

I'm not disputing that Adams deserves his cards on the vast majority of occasions but I'm pointing out that an awful lot of similar tackles in the same matches go without a card.

Even when Adams goes for high balls he's quite rightly penalised a high % of the time he fouls, unfortunately IMO he only receives a foul on a low % of occasions where he's fouled going for high balls.

I wouldn't change him though, we had years there where watching our midfield getting overrun was like watching the powderpuff girls.

[Bobby_F]

I have some sympathy with the Ayr fans (well those who think it wasn't a red, many did) because this ruling isn't applied uniformly.

And even pundits who are paid to talk about football aren't always great at keeping up with rule changes (some still talk about 'last man' ).

Take the 'grabbing opponents at corners' thing.

Grabbing an opponent is always a foul, therefore grabbing an opponent in the penalty box is always a penalty.  How often is was it given before Euro 2016 - next to never.

So they release a directive to referees saying "Punish this all the time and we'll cut it out".  There were a few at the start of the Euros.  And the first few weekends in the EPL there were a lot.

As the weeks go by the directive gets applied less and less but that doesn't meant it's not still what's supposed to happen.  West Ham yesterday got a ridiculously soft penalty - but it was still a penalty going by the rules.  Both pundits last night (wrongly) said it wasn't.

The problem is inconsistency in application.

Bottom line is that yesterday's red was a red, and the fact it's not always given doesn't change that.

Personally, I can't see why any football fan would NOT want the rules to eradicate that kind of behaviour.  Young player running straight at goal being taken out like that is just wrong, and if red cards are applied to it consistently then players will think twice before doing it. 

[AUFC 1910]

Ok, so let's clear this up.

We now have a siege mentality.

This means that everyone is against us and so everyone at Ayr are uniting together against the world.

Have I got that right?

BOOOOOOOO EVERYONE ELSE!

MON AYR!

[ayrmad]

5 minutes ago, Bobby_F said:

I have some sympathy with the Ayr fans (well those who think it wasn't a red, many did) because this ruling isn't applied uniformly.

And even pundits who are paid to talk about football aren't always great at keeping up with rule changes (some still talk about 'last man' ).

Take the 'grabbing opponents at corners' thing.

Grabbing an opponent is always a foul, therefore grabbing an opponent in the penalty box is always a penalty.  How often is was it given before Euro 2016 - next to never.

So they release a directive to referees saying "Punish this all the time and we'll cut it out".  There were a few at the start of the Euros.  And the first few weekends in the EPL there were a lot.

As the weeks go by the directive gets applied less and less but that doesn't meant it's not still what's supposed to happen.  West Ham yesterday got a ridiculously soft penalty - but it was still a penalty going by the rules.  Both pundits last night (wrongly) said it wasn't.

The problem is inconsistency in application.

Bottom line is that yesterday's red was a red, and the fact it's not always given doesn't change that.

Personally, I can't see why any football fan would NOT want the rules to eradicate that kind of behaviour.  Young player running straight at goal being taken out like that is just wrong, and if red cards are applied to it consistently then players will think twice before doing it. 

That tackle was all about stopping the attacker and nothing to do with trying to injure the boy, if I thought for a second that he'd tried to injure the boy I'd have accepted a red no problem regardless of whether he even caught the boy or not.

I don't even agree with some of the reds that have been rescinded for our players when they've absolutely mangled opponents without intention in recent seasons, rather than being rescinded I'd far rather they just left them as a red without a ban.

[Bobby_F]

1 minute ago, ayrmad said:

That tackle was all about stopping the attacker and nothing to do with trying to injure the boy, if I thought for a second that he'd tried to injure the boy I'd have accepted a red no problem regardless of whether he even caught the boy or not.

I don't even agree with some of the reds that have been rescinded for our players when they've absolutely mangled opponents without intention in recent seasons, rather than being rescinded I'd far rather they just left them as a red without a ban.

But do you not think we want to eradicate that kind of tackle from the game?

I'd have thought we all want to see exciting attacking football played, and that tackle is as clear an example as you'll get of someone trying to stop that.

 

[Mgc1910]

No one is defending the tackle.  It was a proper old fashioned cynical take one for the team hack.  It's the inconsistency that's the problem.  I've lost count of the number of times this season Devlin has been wiped out while galloping up the wing.  Check out the Benedictus tackle on him a couple of weeks back that was judged a yellow and explain the difference to what Adams did yesterday.  At 2mins 15ish.

 

 

[Jan Vojáček]

The referee adjudged that Benedictus made an attempt for the ball. 

[ayrmad]

9 minutes ago, Mgc1910 said:

No one is defending the tackle.  It was a proper old fashioned cynical take one for the team hack.  It's the inconsistency that's the problem.  I've lost count of the number of times this season Devlin has been wiped out while galloping up the wing.  Check out the Benedictus tackle on him a couple of weeks back that was judged a yellow and explain the difference to what Adams did yesterday.  At 2mins 15ish.

 

 

I think it's a far more dangerous tackle than the one Adams put in and they happen regularly, I'd also far rather see the Dundee United 24's challenge on Crawford being a red as it was all studs, I was no more than 8 feet away and Robbie was very lucky he wasn't injured, not even a card.

[Bobby_F]

9 minutes ago, Mgc1910 said:

No one is defending the tackle.  It was a proper old fashioned cynical take one for the team hack.  It's the inconsistency that's the problem.  I've lost count of the number of times this season Devlin has been wiped out while galloping up the wing.  Check out the Benedictus tackle on him a couple of weeks back that was judged a yellow and explain the difference to what Adams did yesterday.  At 2mins 15ish.

 

 

Agreed. Terrible tackle.

I think the only difference is that everyone's out to get Ayr (only joking!).

The main difference I see is that one is out on the wing, and the other is going straight at goal and is taken down 10 yards from the box.

I think maybe coming in from the back rather than the side makes a difference too - probably easier to argue a tackle is mistimed if coming in from the side.  I really don't think anyone could argue yesterday's tackle was mistimed?

[ayrmad]

Just now, Sonsteam of 08 said:

The referee adjudged that Benedictus made an attempt for the ball. 

That'll console a young guy when they're out for months or years.

[ayrmad]

13 minutes ago, Bobby_F said:

Agreed. Terrible tackle.

I think the only difference is that everyone's out to get Ayr (only joking!).

The main difference I see is that one is out on the wing, and the other is going straight at goal and is taken down 10 yards from the box.

I think maybe coming in from the back rather than the side makes a difference too - probably easier to argue a tackle is mistimed if coming in from the side.  I really don't think anyone could argue yesterday's tackle was mistimed?

I don't think yesterdays tackle was mistimed, I think it was a professional foul.

I'm not really into the 10 yards from the box argument, the boy would have been very unlucky to have received a bad injury yesterday where as there was a fair chance that Devlin could have been badly injured.

It's probably your point about coming in from the side that allows players to put in reckless challenges with very little expectation of receiving a red card, pro players aren't daft and most would mangle their granny if they thought they could get away with it and gain an advantage.

[Jan Vojáček]

Just now, ayrmad said:

That'll console a young guy when they're out for months or years.

I'm sure it will. You do realise that there are a number of offences that can result in a red card? Making no attempt for the ball and performing a cynical foul (a la Adams yesterday) is just one of many.

[ayrmad]

2 minutes ago, Sonsteam of 08 said:

I'm sure it will. You do realise that there are a number of offences that can result in a red card? Making no attempt for the ball and performing a cynical foul (a la Adams yesterday) is just one of many.

It's the % of reds dished out for cynical fouls that's being called into question here, I've certainly not witnessed any significant increase in reds for them this season.

[FTOF]

1 hour ago, North Terrace Gazza said:

 

 

I have a certain sympathy with this view, however, as has been stated before how many times do you see guys getting fouled with no intention of getting the ball. This challenge usually gets a yellow. I will be interested to see you accept a red when it happens against your team.

 

I have no problem with that.

I'm sick and tired of players who genuinely attempt to play good football, being cynically taken out of the game  by players seeking to boot a player up in the air after they've just been skinned.

 

[FTOF]

1 hour ago, ayrmad said:

No, if the refs have been given a new directive then it's them as a collective that are displaying ignorance of the directive, if you watch challenges with next to no expectation of getting the ball going without a red on a regular basis you're quite entitled to assume that those tackles aren't deemed as red card offences.

Those sort of challenges happen fairly regularly when someone is bombing up the wing and only receive a red when the ref thinks the tackler is trying to injure his opponent.

Is this directive only for Scottish football as Chris Brunt only received a yellow for wiping out Rashford yesterday and not one pundit mentioned anything about it being a red under any directive.

 I agree that referees do have to get tougher when punishing this type of tackle and become collectively more consistent.

It still doesn't detract from the fact that under the new ruling, which many fans are obviously ignorant of, the tackle was a red card offence.