Munoz Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 3 hours ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said: That was a terrible tackle from Shaughnessy. Incredible that the ref didn't even give a foul at first. If Ross Stewart knew how to contest a 50/50 tackle, this debate wouldn't be happening. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZingaliMan Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 Won the ball first thats the bottom line . Did Ross get carried off as it looked he would be ? No got a fellow professional sent off no injury fake news. Looked bad will give you that Ross is a cheat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty-RCFC Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 Won the ball first thats the bottom line . Did Ross get carried off as it looked he would be ? No got a fellow professional sent off no injury fake news. Looked bad will give you that Ross is a cheat. Doesn’t matter whether you win the ball first these days. Maybe 40 year ago that’s a fine tackle but not in the modern game. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZingaliMan Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 21 minutes ago, Matty-RCFC said: Doesn’t matter whether you win the ball first these days. Maybe 40 year ago that’s a fine tackle but not in the modern game. It did look nasty will admit that. Hey I'm a buddie black and white glasses. For me he won the ball what happened after that was unfortunate dont believe he went out to hurt Ross. Yellow card. Sportscene agreed red. Did say I wear black and white specs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrie Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 If he hadn't smashed Stewart with the follow through it'd be no foul and play on. He was unlucky that it absolutely melted Stewart. 20 years ago that'd probably be allowed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishBhoy Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 Shaughnessy is unlucky in the fact that he has went in and won the ball and I don’t believe he has went in with any intent to injure Stewart, but he’s put a straight leg with his studs showing about a foot off the ground, and if the requisite for a red card is endangering an opponent then it ticks all the boxes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 One of those ones where the euphemistically titled "modern game" doesn't allow for that sort of tackle. I understand why, and I accept it, bit of a shame though as it's clear Shaughnessy hasn't gone in "to do" Stewart. I just hope that it's a one game rather than two game ban as he's an important player for us. I do not see us getting that over turned on appeal. Another tackle that looks much worse in slow motion which, I am guessing, is what the majority of people who are judging this are going on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coventry Saint Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 1 hour ago, IrishBhoy said: Shaughnessy is unlucky in the fact that he has went in and won the ball and I don’t believe he has went in with any intent to injure Stewart, but he’s put a straight leg with his studs showing about a foot off the ground, and if the requisite for a red card is endangering an opponent then it ticks all the boxes. All true. And all applies to Vigurs' challenge on McCarthy, too. Sorry for the whataboutery, but we need consistency. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishBhoy Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 27 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said: All true. And all applies to Vigurs' challenge on McCarthy, too. Sorry for the whataboutery, but we need consistency. I know what your saying with Vigurs, and it was a challenge that was on the very edge of ‘endangering an opponent’, but if I was a referee looking at that I would be taking into account the fact that Vigurs had his eyes on the ball at every moment before the challenge, and I think a straight red would be incredibly harsh for that. Shaugnessy has been unlucky and on another day with a different set of officials its either deemed as a fair tackle or a yellow card, but I don’t think there can be too many complaints when you see the bottom of his boot land on another players leg like that. I watched it in real time and thought it was going to be red instantly, when you see a straight leg landing in that manner it’s almost always a sending off. If that same tackle happened in a game with VAR I have absolutely no doubt it would have been a red as well. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 6 minutes ago, IrishBhoy said: .. I would be taking into account the fact that Vigurs had his eyes on the ball at every moment before the challenge .. You could argue the same for both tackles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishBhoy Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 47 minutes ago, Ric said: One of those ones where the euphemistically titled "modern game" doesn't allow for that sort of tackle. I understand why, and I accept it, bit of a shame though as it's clear Shaughnessy hasn't gone in "to do" Stewart. I just hope that it's a one game rather than two game ban as he's an important player for us. I do not see us getting that over turned on appeal. Another tackle that looks much worse in slow motion which, I am guessing, is what the majority of people who are judging this are going on. It’s the sort of tackle you see from time to time and you just know it’s flirting with a straight red card. Shaughnessy has absolutely won every bit of the ball, but the way his foot lands on Ross Stewart’s leg makes it look like a horror tackle. The laws of the game do state that using excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent are red card offences, and as much as I am certain that Joe Shaughnessy went into that tackle with absolutely no intent to injure Stewart, both of those boxes are ticked in my opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishBhoy Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, Ric said: You could argue the same for both tackles. Not really sure you can as McCarthy wasn’t even in Vigurs eyeline when he challenged for the ball. It reminds me of the challenge Nani got sent off for Man Utd V Real Madrid a few years ago, in a Champions League quarter final. Absolutely no intent to injure the opponent, but the outcome of the challenge DID endanger the opponent. They are the sort of challenges that I imagine referees hate to have to deal with, because they will more than likely know that there was no intent to injure the opponent, but they need to take into account the damage that has been done, accidentally or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, Comrie said: If he hadn't smashed Stewart with the follow through it'd be no foul and play on. He was unlucky that it absolutely melted Stewart. 20 years ago that'd probably be allowed. Unfortunately, 20 years ago is still 2000. No chance that’d be allowed then, either. It’s a clear as day red, although I’m surprised the ref missed it. 1970s football maybe. Edit: all in all it seems like a decent point. St Mirren look a better side than last season. Hope the Donaldson injury isn’t too bad. He’s been great this season so far. Edited August 23, 2020 by Savage Henry 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, ZingaliMan said: Won the ball first thats the bottom line . At least that takes away any doubt you're not that @Demented Zebra weirdo. Edited August 23, 2020 by RandomGuy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishBhoy Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: At least that takes away any doubt you're not that @Demented Zebra weirdo. I thought that was obvious to everyone. Thick as mince in the neck of a bottle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankthetank22 Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 9 minutes ago, Savage Henry said: Unfortunately, 20 years ago is still 2000. No chance that’d be allowed then, either. It’s a clear as day red, although I’m surprised the ref missed it. 1970s football maybe. Edit: all in all it seems like a decent point. St Mirren look a better side than last season. Hope the Donaldson injury isn’t too bad. He’s been great this season so far. I suppose a point isn't too bad but frustrating that we just couldn't kill them off and head home with all three points. Ultimately, it's dropped points like this that will probably cost us a European place lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenburn bud Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 Only one player going in with studds up, and it’s not Shaughnessy. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 Just a pity Collum wasn't so vigilant during this game in 2008 . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, glenburn bud said: Only one player going in with studds up, and it’s not Shaughnessy. Stills absolutely prove nothing. No foul has been committed in that shot. But, it’s a red card when you play it out. “Studs up” in itself is meaningless. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 1 hour ago, IrishBhoy said: Not really sure you can as McCarthy wasn’t even in Vigurs eyeline when he challenged for the ball. That's a bit irrelevant, though. Unless you are claiming that unintentional fouls can only happen when the opposing player and ball are not in the same line of sight. It's all a bit academic, to be fair, we don't really disagree on the main issue. Shaughnessy's tackle wasn't intentionally reckless and wouldn't have been punished previously, but I think we both accept the game is changing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.