Sportscene Watch 19/20

[GNU_Linux]

Why would anyone wear football boots to the pub?

 

The final evolution of the full kit wånkër

 

[wastecoatwilly]

6 hours ago, JTS98 said:

and it was certainly a pretty shitey thing to do, but a yellow card seems right according to the laws of the game.

 

6 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

 

You’ve basically articulated what I meant when I said on the match thread ‘not convinced it’s a red’. So thank you.

 

The thing is Griffiths didn't get a yellow for the alleged stamp he got a yellow for the handbags with Gogic.
This is where it gets a bit convoluted,if the compliance officer has had a bad weekend she can take it out on the footballers.
The guilty by sportscene adds to the decision made by highlighting it.
I got my Scottish football fix this weekend by watching 3 games for me there was more than just one accident but the other 2 I saw didn't make the cut on sportscene.
I thought Naismith made three separate fouls one from the back and the Lewis one at the end of the game was worth another look by the compliance officer.
I find it hard to believe that she will sit down and watch 6 games to pick out possible red cards. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by wastecoatwilly

[coprolite]

I'm with Joey here. 

No problem with teams celebrating, even if it is goal no 3 against the unflushable turd. 

It's just that Celtic always manage to look like massive bellends doing anything. Especially that toddler dance thing. Why can't they just injure disabled people like Rangers do? 

[nsr]

When you have significant advantages over your opponent, your celebrations should be kept relatively sedate. That's just basic non-bawbaggery.

[scottmcleanscontacts]

If you know all the added letters on the lgbtq+ then YOU are probably 'woke'.  
It describes people (usually men I think) who are up-to-date and generally agree with all the progressive ideas in relation to social issues (race, culture, gender identity etc).
 
 

For what it's worth I'm all for all these things. Live and let live.

But I don't ever want to be described as woke. In the sea with terminology like that, please.

[bennett]

I'm guessing that the sportscene hipsters highlighted yesterday's stamp and dive, while demanding retrospective action from the SFA. 

 

They'll have got stuck right in, just like the BT sports guys did.

 

[craigkillie]

5 hours ago, Rodhull said:

The excessive force and brutality nonsense is nothing but a crutch to be used when they want to ignore making a decision or changing one that has already been made. Like last season when Morelos’ red card against Aberdeen was rescinded for not being excessive. The SFA has yet to describe what an acceptable level of violence when kicking an opponent off the ball is. No doubt because it would be complete nonsense to do so. They basically did it because Mckenna barged him a couple of times beforehand and got away with it but they couldn’t use that as an official reason so they just fudge it with the meaningless and highly debatable terminology from the rule book.

Griffiths will be the exact same.

No, it's literally the wording for violent conduct in the FIFA Laws of the Game.

[Rodhull]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

No, it's literally the wording for violent conduct in the FIFA Laws of the Game.

Cool, so what is the defined non-excessive level of violence a player is allowed to kick or stamp an opponent and avoid a red card then?

[Mark Connolly]

6 hours ago, NJ2 said:

Unfortunately he can’t be sent off for being a ned. They probably should write this in to the rules though.

Why would anyone wear football boots to the pub?

Mouldies in the lounge, studs in the bar?

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, Rodhull said:

Cool, so what is the defined non-excessive level of violence a player is allowed to kick or stamp an opponent and avoid a red card then?

The words are there - "excessive force or brutality" - it's not my job to explain the English language to you. So the question being asked is "Was the level of force in the challenge (whatever the challenge is), excessive? Was there a degree of brutality to it?".

[Rodhull]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

The words are there - "excessive force or brutality" - it's not my job to explain the English language to you. So the question being asked is "Was the level of force in the challenge (whatever the challenge is), excessive? Was there a degree of brutality to it?".

With no definition of what any of that means and it being left to people to make up as they go along as their mood takes them or how much they want to avoid controversy.

A fudge in other words like I said.

[Ginaro]

12 minutes ago, Rodhull said:

With no definition of what any of that means and it being left to people to make up as they go along as their mood takes them or how much they want to avoid controversy.

A fudge in other words like I said.

Wrong, there's an IFAB glossary http://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/39/section/121/

Brutality

An act which is savage, ruthless or deliberately violent

Excessive force

Using more force/energy than is necessary

[Rodhull]

11 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Wrong, there's an IFAB glossary http://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/39/section/121/

Brutality

An act which is savage, ruthless or deliberately violent

Excessive force

Using more force/energy than is necessary

When you're kicking someone off the ball how hard do you kick them for it to still be deemed necessary? How hard can you stamp on someone for it to be deemed brutal or excessive?

That's the definitions I was talking about. Maybe it is a failing at the FIFA/Ruling body level but I'll be shocked if anyone at the SFA can explain why Morelos kicking McKenna off the ball isn't excessive force using their own terminology apparently.

At the moment it just seems to be they say it is or isn't and that's the end of the matter with no proper explanation.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Rodhull

[Snifter Pee Rot]

Mikey Stewart putting it straight regards the wee fud Morelos and fat Traynor. 

[ewan14]

Stamping deliberately on someone is a pretty brutal act

[tree house tam]

1 hour ago, ewan14 said:

Stamping deliberately on someone is a pretty brutal act

Even if you pay for it?

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Even if you pay for it?

I’m not going to kinkshame you but surely that kind of thing is best left till after the game.

[Guest JTS98]

14 hours ago, Rodhull said:

The excessive force and brutality nonsense is nothing but a crutch to be used when they want to ignore making a decision or changing one that has already been made. Like last season when Morelos’ red card against Aberdeen was rescinded for not being excessive. The SFA has yet to describe what an acceptable level of violence when kicking an opponent off the ball is. No doubt because it would be complete nonsense to do so. They basically did it because Mckenna barged him a couple of times beforehand and got away with it but they couldn’t use that as an official reason so they just fudge it with the meaningless and highly debatable terminology from the rule book.

Griffiths will be the exact same.

To me it seems relatively clear.

Is another person likely to be really hurt by the action?

For example, the Griffiths incident was clearly a pretty neddy thing to do, but was that amount of force genuinely likely to cause a real injury to his opponent? I don't really think so. Of course in that situation any player is going to roll around and get the physio on in order to try and get the opponent sent off, but can you look at the incident and really say there was a real chance of injury, or that there was a real chance that the victim would not be able to continue in the game? I can't.

Similar to things like petty kicks off the ball. If someone swings a leg at someone and catches them in a way that annoys rather than hurts the opponent, is that worth a red card? I don't really think so. But if you walk up to someone and boot them really hard in a way that could cause real pain or injury, then you should be sent off. Same could be said for daft little flicks of the head compared to walking up and full-on nutting someone.

I don't think this idea is hard to understand. On the pitch it's the referees job to make that judgement call.

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by JTS98

[nsr]

The problem is our referees can't be trusted to make subjective judgement calls either competently or fairly.

[Dons_1988]

6 hours ago, JTS98 said:

To me it seems relatively clear.

Is another person likely to be really hurt by the action?

For example, the Griffiths incident was clearly a pretty neddy thing to do, but was that amount of force genuinely likely to cause a real injury to his opponent? I don't really think so. Of course in that situation any player is going to roll around and get the physio on in order to try and get the opponent sent off, but can you look at the incident and really say there was a real chance of injury, or that there was a real chance that the victim would not be able to continue in the game? I can't.

Similar to things like petty kicks off the ball. If someone swings a leg at someone and catches them in a way that annoys rather than hurts the opponent, is that worth a red card? I don't really think so. But if you walk up to someone and boot them really hard in a way that could cause real pain or injury, then you should be sent off. Same could be said for daft little flicks of the head compared to walking up and full-on nutting someone.

I don't think this idea is hard to understand. On the pitch it's the referees job to make that judgement call.

 

This is the problem with the rule 'excessive force' though. Excessive of what?

The will the player get hurt argument works for a normal slide tackle. For example, Sam Cosgrove against Celtic, the argument is that yes he got the ball, but the force he launched in with is in excess of what is required and put the player in danger (not syaing that's my view, but I can accept it).

For an incident off the ball i.e. Morelos against Aberdeen, what counts as excessive? Because for me kicking someone when the ball is nowhere around is in excess of what is normal, and how do you draw the line, in real time as to what level of force puts the opposition in danger?