Jump to content

Sevco 2012 v Aberdeen 1903 - Part II, Revenge of the Thread


Recommended Posts

That is 90 odd minutes of football that I won't get back. Both sides very poor and Aberdeen didn't lay a glove on Rangers. The only positive for Aberdeen is they defended well in the game particular Gallagher.

Rangers play like that in the next lot of games then they won't be close to winning the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AB1872 said:

You didn’t answer the question 

Why were you asking a question that I had already told you the answer to? As I said previously, yes I think that Arfield’s challenge on Lewis Ferguson was a red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alex_14 said:

Ramsay and Ojo were pretty dreadful for the goal. Ramsay needs to be taught how to defend or simply just be deployed further up the pitch.

The narrative is that Sevco cheated to get the goal, Aberdeen were faultless. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lewis Ferguson had been on the pitch all game and committed a few fouls and niggly wee tackles before he blatantly blocked the Rangers free kick after a period of intense time wasting. 

Scott Arfield had been subbed on, barely had time to have made any errors that the referee might punish and then got in the way of a free kick quickly taken. 

I can fully understand why the referee judged it in the way that he did. I'm not sure why this is such a massive talking point either way. The better team won. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first suggestion i heard of a foul in the build up was from the Rangers Tv commentator who said your player had "got away with one" or something similar. I didn't see it at the time and fucked if i'm watching it back just to argue about it. But that suggests there's at least an argument. 

We deseved f**k all anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Lewis Ferguson had been on the pitch all game and committed a few fouls and niggly wee tackles before he blatantly blocked the Rangers free kick after a period of intense time wasting. 

Scott Arfield had been subbed on, barely had time to have made any errors that the referee might punish and then got in the way of a free kick quickly taken. 

I can fully understand why the referee judged it in the way that he did. I'm not sure why this is such a massive talking point either way. The better team won. 

Can't tell the difference between Arfield and Roofe. 

Arfield had also managed to avoid at least a yellow for his foul on Ferguson prior to that. Even if you didn't mix up players, you'd still be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

Can't tell the difference between Arfield and Roofe. 

Arfield had also managed to avoid at least a yellow for his foul on Ferguson prior to that. Even if you didn't mix up players, you'd still be wrong.

My bad. So Roofe that came on later than Arfield was the one that blocked the ball, that makes my point more apparant. Is it unreasonable to presume the ref gave the yellow to Ferguson for persistent offences rather than just because he blocked the ball? I think people are going off what the commentator said, who was absolut ear rot the whole game anyway. 

Not that I'm fussed about the decisions as we got the win but another terrible one was the foul on Arfield, looked a straight red to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll give Aberdeen supporters the McGregor incident. One of these inexplicable moments you occasionally get in football. Usually I’d say it was one you fear may be given against you but when it’s Rangers and Kevin Clancy it’s 999/1000 going against you. Absolutely no idea why a referee who consistently cheats Rangers didn’t give it. 
 

He did miss two clear fouls on Barisic later that resulted in penalty to Aberdeen so it evened itself out in that one game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

My bad. So Roofe that came on later than Arfield was the one that blocked the ball, that makes my point more apparant. Is it unreasonable to presume the ref gave the yellow to Ferguson for persistent offences rather than just because he blocked the ball? I think people are going off what the commentator said, who was absolut ear rot the whole game anyway. 

Not that I'm fussed about the decisions as we got the win but another terrible one was the foul on Arfield, looked a straight red to me. 

It shouldn't matter how long he's been on the pitch. Ferguson should have been booked. Roofe should be booked for the same offence. Arfield should have been booked for a similar offence to Gallagher.

The Besuijen one looked bad but from memory we didn't get another view of it. Didn't watch Sportscene but it did look late and high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

It shouldn't matter how long he's been on the pitch. Ferguson should have been booked. Roofe should be booked for the same offence. Arfield should have been booked for a similar offence to Gallagher.

The Besuijen one looked bad but from memory we didn't get another view of it. Didn't watch Sportscene but it did look late and high.

Is it established that blocking a free kick is a yellow card offence? If so then they should both have been booked of course but if it's just a caution then obviously Roofe should not have been booked as he was just on the pitch as opposed to Ferguson who had already committed a few offences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

Is it established that blocking a free kick is a yellow card offence? If so then they should both have been booked of course but if it's just a caution then obviously Roofe should not have been booked as he was just on the pitch as opposed to Ferguson who had already committed a few offences.

Not a yellow card but a caution? I understand now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

A speaking to or whatever you wanna call it. I wasn't aware caution was a direct term for a yellow card. The point still stands though. 

It's a specific bookable offence: "failing to respect the required distance..." 

Wasn’t a game changer but it is annoying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, coprolite said:

It's a specific bookable offence: "failing to respect the required distance..." 

Wasn’t a game changer but it is annoying. 

That's fair then, Roofe should have obviously been booked then. Not that it's right but you could tell the referee was feeling the pressure with there being a lot of booing due to time wasting, was it not just shortly after the boy was tying his laces on the pitch at the goal kick? I think the majority of our referees do tend to crumble under home pressure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...