Billy Gilmour

[Guest]

 

[Ewanandmoreagain]

TA gonks rule

 

( again )

[PSJ.84]

 

[Jambomo]

Better than his highlights against Everton 

 

Edited February 25 by Jambomo

[KingRocketman II]

16 hours ago, Jambomo said:

Better than his highlights against Everton 

 

meh. yellow card pre-VAR....

[Bairnardo]

41 minutes ago, KingRocketman II said:

meh. yellow card pre-VAR....

Harry Maguire had a very similar one at the weekend, unpunished and VAR never recommended anything. 

[A Diamond For Me]

Absolute nonsense giving a red card to a challenge like that.  Game's gone, AMF, old man yells at cloud etc. 

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

3 hours ago, KingRocketman II said:

meh. yellow card pre-VAR....

It’s a red card at every level and has been for at least a couple of decades.

Unfortunate, but losing the ball and trying to regain possession is how these types of fouls occur. 

[ArabFC]

16 hours ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

It’s a red card at every level and has been for at least a couple of decades.

Unfortunate, but losing the ball and trying to regain possession is how these types of fouls occur. 

I can assure you, not at the level I play at.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, ArabFC said:

I can assure you, not at the level I play at.

If it's a level with a qualified referee and he actually sees it then it should be!

I get people moaning about how rules are interpreted these days but honestly that Gilmour challenge is a stonewall red card and would have been pre-VAR also.

20 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

Harry Maguire had a very similar one at the weekend, unpunished and VAR never recommended anything. 

I thought Maguire was pretty fortunate but his was a good bit lower and on the top of the foot rather than above the ankle which appears to now be the guidance for red. Gilmour's is a definite red. Maguire's the debatable one.

[Bairnardo]

Just now, Skyline Drifter said:

If it's a level with a qualified referee and he actually sees it then it should be!

I get people moaning about how rules are interpreted these days but honestly that Gilmour challenge is a stonewall red card and would have been pre-VAR also.

I thought Maguire was pretty fortunate but his was a good bit lower and on the top of the foot rather than above the ankle which appears to now be the guidance for red. Gilmour's is a definite red. Maguire's the debatable one.

I agree it's a red. Felt it odd at the time that Maguires was not also and like you say, his wasn't quite as bad as BGs but as I watched I was sure VAR would intervene. 

[Jambomo]

5 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

I agree it's a red. Felt it odd at the time that Maguires was not also and like you say, his wasn't quite as bad as BGs but as I watched I was sure VAR would intervene. 

I thought Maguire’s was worse tbh, because he goes flying in and there much more force behind his. It doesn’t mean BG’s wasn’t a red though, but so was Maguire’s and probably Caicedo’s the other day as well. 

[Bairnardo]

2 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

I thought Maguire’s was worse tbh, because he goes flying in and there much more force behind his. It doesn’t mean BG’s wasn’t a red though, but so was Maguire’s and probably Caicedo’s the other day as well. 

We're in need of some gifcraft here I think. 

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

20 hours ago, Jambomo said:

I thought Maguire’s was worse tbh, because he goes flying in and there much more force behind his. It doesn’t mean BG’s wasn’t a red though, but so was Maguire’s and probably Caicedo’s the other day as well. 

One of my biggest frustrations with refereeing and the LotG is that there is near-universally understood and accepted guidance/training for elements such as Serious Foul Play and Violent Conduct that isn't written down anywhere publicly available.

The guidance provided is that a tackle of the same force where the 'point of contact' is above the boot/foot and onto the ankle is almost always a red card, whilst a near-identical tackle where the boot makes contact with the opponent's boot/foot is a yellow card.

Now, if you hit someone hard enough any tackle can/should be a red, but the above distinction is used at all levels of refereeing (or at least it should be if grassroots officials go to their coaching classes).  

Don Robertson rejected an OFR for downgrading a red card for Rangers a couple of weeks ago with a foot-on-foot challenge as he deemed the force to be high enough, but typically challenges like Maguire's end up in the yellow card camp.  Gilmour's on the other hand should be a red card because it's a clear example of endangering safety - the ankle is an incredibly vulnerable position and so making direct contact with studs (not mentioned in Law but part of guidance) into the ankle (again, as per above) is likely to be deemed excessive force/endangering safety.

Also worth noting, a tackle that is boot-on-boot and where the player's ankle might 'bend' isn't in itself indication of a red card challenge.  Point of contact and sheer level of force/brutality etc is what referees and VAR are considering when determining careless (nothing) reckless (yellow) and serious foul play (red).

That may be of some help, or it may just confused things further.

[Jambomo]

4 hours ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

One of my biggest frustrations with refereeing and the LotG is that there is near-universally understood and accepted guidance/training for elements such as Serious Foul Play and Violent Conduct that isn't written down anywhere publicly available.

The guidance provided is that a tackle of the same force where the 'point of contact' is above the boot/foot and onto the ankle is almost always a red card, whilst a near-identical tackle where the boot makes contact with the opponent's boot/foot is a yellow card.

Now, if you hit someone hard enough any tackle can/should be a red, but the above distinction is used at all levels of refereeing (or at least it should be if grassroots officials go to their coaching classes).  

Don Robertson rejected an OFR for downgrading a red card for Rangers a couple of weeks ago with a foot-on-foot challenge as he deemed the force to be high enough, but typically challenges like Maguire's end up in the yellow card camp.  Gilmour's on the other hand should be a red card because it's a clear example of endangering safety - the ankle is an incredibly vulnerable position and so making direct contact with studs (not mentioned in Law but part of guidance) into the ankle (again, as per above) is likely to be deemed excessive force/endangering safety.

Also worth noting, a tackle that is boot-on-boot and where the player's ankle might 'bend' isn't in itself indication of a red card challenge.  Point of contact and sheer level of force/brutality etc is what referees and VAR are considering when determining careless (nothing) reckless (yellow) and serious foul play (red).

That may be of some help, or it may just confused things further.

Thank you for that, I do appreciate the clarification. I suppose I just feel like there’s a bit too much focus on the point of contact, when the force of the tackle matters more in terms of causing real damage. It’s force which breaks legs. 

[2426255]

In more upbeat news, the Scotland National Team will be airing a documentary on Billy Gilmour tomorrow on their YouTube page.

Quote

The documentary teaser includes chats with former Norwich and Scotland teammate Kenny McLean, ex-Chelsea boss Frank Lampard, Scotland manager and fellow Three Towns man Steve Clarke and Scottish football pundits Pat Nevin and Gordon Duncan.

https://www.ardrossanherald.com/news/24140848.scotland-national-team-release-billy-gilmour-documentary/

[AUcal]

 

[Caledonian1]

16 minutes ago, AUcal said:

 

Havent watched it all yet but the little I have seen is excellent.  Very likeable and switched on guy with a great deal of talent.

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

On 28/02/2024 at 18:38, Jambomo said:

Thank you for that, I do appreciate the clarification. I suppose I just feel like there’s a bit too much focus on the point of contact, when the force of the tackle matters more in terms of causing real damage. It’s force which breaks legs. 

Acknowledging the danger in dragging it on...  You're not wrong, and it's an aspect of refereeing that can be overlooked.  Referees are taught to consider point of contact (POC), level of force, brutality, endangerment of safety, whether leading with studs, did the player attempt to pull out the tackle etc.

Level of force matters of course, and sometimes too much attention is spent on the POC.  However, some degree of foot-on-foot contact is expected given the nature of the game, and so sensibly there is a greater 'allowance' for such challenges.  Serious injury and endangerment increases substantially above the foot, and players have much greater ability and responsibility to control their tackles/bodies at those heights.  At least we've 'mostly' got away from the "but he won the ball first" arguments (though the G.Shinnie one in Ross County(?) last year demonstrated that it's still not widely understood/appreciated).

I do agree with you - I've seen too many discussions focussing on POC, when the sheer level of force effectively makes it irrelevant.  

Edited March 1 by HuttonDressedAsLahm

[Venti]

On 29/02/2024 at 22:31, AUcal said:

 

"Roll slice & tattie scone."

As if I didn't love this guy already.