Hibs v Livi

[LIVIFOREVER]

Just now, StellarHibee said:

Once again, completely irrelevant. He goes for the ball studs up. His lack of awareness of any surrounding players is not some get out clause. It doesn't have to be deliberate in order to be dangerous. When a player goes for the ball like that, they are always taking a risk. The modern day rules are very much clear on what constitutes as dangerous play and getting to the ball first or lacking awareness of where other players are doesn't make it any less of a red card offence. 

 

If Nisbett was in front of him and Holt wins the ball and continues into him then yep, i'd agree with you it would've been out of control and a red card, or if Nisbett had got the ball first in front of Holt then got caught, but that wasn't what happened either, Nisbett is the one who's late and comes in after the ball is played, that's not reckless by Holt, or dangerous play, Nisbett is the one coming in late from the side and was lucky not to catch Holt, but instead get caught himself.

[StellarHibee]

17 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

 

If Nisbett was in front of him and Holt wins the ball and continues into him then yep, i'd agree with you it would've been out of control and a red card, or if Nisbett had got the ball first in front of Holt then got caught, but that wasn't what happened either, Nisbett is the one who's late and comes in after the ball is played, that's not reckless by Holt, or dangerous play, Nisbett is the one coming in late from the side and was lucky not to catch Holt, but instead get caught himself.

It doesn't matter. Like I said, dangerous play doesn't have to be intentional to be dangerous play. He takes the ball with his studs (which he didn't need to do). Yes, Nisbett get's in the way of the follow through. But the fact remains that there was a follow through. Had that contact resulted in a broken ankle, would you still be on here adamant that it wasn't a sending off? 
Players can't go sliding in with the studs anymore, no matter how certain they are in their own mind that they aren't endangering any other players.

[LIVIFOREVER]

20 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

It doesn't matter. Like I said, dangerous play doesn't have to be intentional to be dangerous play. He takes the ball with his studs (which he didn't need to do). Yes, Nisbett get's in the way of the follow through. But the fact remains that there was a follow through. Had that contact resulted in a broken ankle, would you still be on here adamant that it wasn't a sending off? 
Players can't go sliding in with the studs anymore, no matter how certain they are in their own mind that they aren't endangering any other players.

How else do you take the ball sliding into it, as Michael Stewart said, you'd have to ban slides onto the ball altogether in that case.

 

Nisbett comes in late, it isn't a follow through onto Nisbett, it's a natural momentum from sliding onto the ball but it isn't a follow through onto Nisbett, it's Nisbett that comes on into Holt's path after the ball has been played.

 

BTW this is the same ref who thought this tackle on Devlin didn't even warrant a foul, let alone a booking, he gives Hearts a throw in.

 

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by LIVIFOREVER

[LIVIFOREVER]

Quote from the Sportscene pundits.

Quote

Jason Holt did NOT deserve to be sent off for Livingston against Hibs today.

That's the opinion of Michael Stewart and Ricky Foster as they pored over today's events for BBC Sportscene. The Livi midfielder was ordered off after 15 minutes for a tackle on Kevin Nisbet in which he appeared to win the ball cleanly before a coming together between the two players.

Stewart said: "Hibs were good today but I don't think you can underestimate how important this was.

"Holt wins the ball quite clearly. Nisbet isn't even in his field of movement either, he moves into his path and he catches him.

"I don't see how Jason Holt how can be punished for that because I don't know what else he's meant to do.

"He slides in, wins the ball and Kevin Nisbet should've been either jumping the challenge or not going into it at all because he was never going to win the ball. As we've shown there, Jason Holt quite clearly wins the ball.

Which is what i've been saying. 

Edited December 25, 2022 by LIVIFOREVER

[Aim Here]

1 hour ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

 

Rubbish,  Nisbett arrives late from the side going for the ball and gets caught. Holt didn't win the ball and slide into him. The still only shows the contact, go look at the footage and you'll see it was a clean winning of the ball and Nisbett comes in later going in front of Holt, purely accidental and not a dangerous tackle as it wasn't even 50/50 with Holt getting to it well before Nisbett arrives. 

Even if everything you say is true, none of that contradicts what I said, which is that dangerous play is a straight red card offence, regardless of whether the ball was won. You're trying to make the case that this incident wasn't a dangerous play offence and the referee was wrong (which is a reasonable way to go about disputing this red card), but that's different from the faulty argument that ATLIS was making, which was that Holt won the ball so it's not a red card.

[Leith Green]

10 hours ago, Aim Here said:

Even if everything you say is true, none of that contradicts what I said, which is that dangerous play is a straight red card offence, regardless of whether the ball was won. You're trying to make the case that this incident wasn't a dangerous play offence and the referee was wrong (which is a reasonable way to go about disputing this red card), but that's different from the faulty argument that ATLIS was making, which was that Holt won the ball so it's not a red card.

Aye, and while I didnt think it was a red at the time, the tv piccies suggest that the ref had "a decision to make", as the pundits say.

Lets see if (a) Livi appeal it and (b) if that appeal wins.

I am not convinced on either.

[Dav nan Gael]

We were well beat,end off........

Some of my fellow Livi fans need to change their angle of attack on why,next to ferk all to do with a referee and everything to do with the players.

Heads a million miles of playing a game of football,2 penalty misses (inexcusable),not the 1st time Fitzwater has missed a pen,plus get concalves that far tae fook.

All he's doing is denying a far better player a place in the team.

Don't know what DM saw in him,not the 1st time either he's brought some goat in,that couldn't kick his arse from his elbow. 

 

[Troy.1995]

Not sure what kind of contract Goncalves is on.Either way he's a passenger we can ill afford.Not anywhere near good enough at this level.Got to go imo.Il pay for his . Send him to Arbroath .

[Leith Green]

42 minutes ago, Troy.1995 said:

Not sure what kind of contract Goncalves is on.Either way he's a passenger we can ill afford.Not anywhere near good enough at this level.Got to go imo.Il pay for his . Send him to Arbroath .

Looked like he was carrying a fair bit of excess weight when he came on.

[Troy.1995]

1 hour ago, Leith Green said:

Looked like he was carrying a fair bit of excess weight when he came on.

He's been like that since he's come to us.Both I and many Livi fans don't get it.Hes been here long enough to shift the excess.Surprised he's still here..

[LIVIFOREVER]

3 hours ago, Dav nan Gael said:

We were well beat,end off........

Some of my fellow Livi fans need to change their angle of attack on why,next to ferk all to do with a referee and everything to do with the players.

Heads a million miles of playing a game of football,2 penalty misses (inexcusable),not the 1st time Fitzwater has missed a pen, plus get Goncalves that far tae fook.

All he's doing is denying a far better player a place in the team.

Don't know what DM saw in him,not the 1st time either he's brought some goat in,that couldn't kick his arse from his elbow. 

 

We were well beaten yes, but the red card had a lot to do with it,  after we went down to 10 men we took off Bahamboula, and changed our shape, which clearly didn't work, and Hibs ripped us down the wing. All of which wouldn't have happened with 11 v 11. We've played against teams going down to 10 men as well though, Aberdeen and St Mirren, and both didn't collapse like us, St Mirren even managed to beat us with a late goal. So Martindale needs to look at his game plan when that happens again, often it fecks the game up and makes it harder for the team with 11 players to score, because the team with 10 players go into a low block/parking the bus. 

 

So far as i can remember, Obileye has missed 2 pens, Holt missed 1, Kelly missed 2, now Fitzwater and Goncalves have missed 1 a piece. Can't remember Fitzwater having a pen in the 90 mins, was it in a pen shoot out, we lost to Hearts missing a few in a cup game. Anyways' think we need to practice our pen kicks, we're worse than England taking them just now. The 2nd pen against Hibs only came after we missed the first one right enough, if we'd scored we wouldn't have got the 2nd, so either way only one of them would've counted to get us a goal and not made much difference to the outcome. 

[Crawford Bridge]

"He won the baw".

Wow, there's really still people that think that's still a thing? Contact with studs = dangerous play. It's not hard to understand and the ref is well within his/her rights to show a red card.

[LIVIFOREVER]

On 25/12/2022 at 12:11, Aim Here said:

Even if everything you say is true, none of that contradicts what I said, which is that dangerous play is a straight red card offence, regardless of whether the ball was won. You're trying to make the case that this incident wasn't a dangerous play offence and the referee was wrong (which is a reasonable way to go about disputing this red card), but that's different from the faulty argument that ATLIS was making, which was that Holt won the ball so it's not a red card.

Because it wasn't dangerous play, when Holt went for the ball, and he kicked it btw, it wasn't even a studs up lunge, there wasn't anyone in front of him going for the ball for it to be dangerous play, Nisbet comes in late and gets caught, which was his own fault going in late past Holt for the ball after it had been kicked.

14 hours ago, Leith Green said:

Aye, and while I didnt think it was a red at the time, the tv piccies suggest that the ref had "a decision to make", as the pundits say.

Lets see if (a) Livi appeal it and (b) if that appeal wins.

I am not convinced on either.

I doubt we'll appeal, we've taken these sort of decisions on the chin before and just got on with it.

Edited December 26, 2022 by LIVIFOREVER

[LIVIFOREVER]

5 minutes ago, Crawford Bridge said:

"He won the baw".

Wow, there's really still people that think that's still a thing? Contact with studs = dangerous play. It's not hard to understand and the ref is well within his/her rights to show a red card.

The difference for me is it was Nisbet going past Holt and getting himself in front of the resulting contact, not coming in head on and getting caught with Holt sliding into him. Holt slide in and kicks the ball, Nisbet runs in for a late challenge going past Holt, after the ball was gone, and gets caught. As Stewart said, what was Holt meant to do, it was as much Nisbet's fault as anything the way it happened.

[Aim Here]

19 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Because it wasn't dangerous play, when Holt went for the ball, and he kicked it btw, it wasn't even a studs up lunge, there wasn't anyone in front of him going for the ball for it to be dangerous play, Nisbet comes in late and gets caught, which was his own fault going in late past Holt for the ball after it had been kicked.

 doubt we'll appeal, we've taken these sort of decisions on the chin before and just got on with it.

Again, you somehow completely miss the point.

Holt was sent off for, in the referee's opinion, dangerous play, and so whether he wins the ball or not is totally, and utterly, irrelevant. That is all I stated.

Whether the play actually was dangerous IS relevant as to whether he should get a red, but I'm not arguing either way on that score. I was just correcting one of your compatriots who happened to not know what the laws of the game were. If you feel the need to disclose your in-depth forensic analysis of the Sportsound footage and impart your findings on the state of Scottish association football match officiating, find someone else to yammer at. I wasn't correcting *YOU*, I was correcting someone else who isn't saying the same things you are.

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Aim Here

[VincentGuerin]

On 25/12/2022 at 11:06, StellarHibee said:

It doesn't matter. Like I said, dangerous play doesn't have to be intentional to be dangerous play. He takes the ball with his studs (which he didn't need to do). Yes, Nisbett get's in the way of the follow through. But the fact remains that there was a follow through. Had that contact resulted in a broken ankle, would you still be on here adamant that it wasn't a sending off? 
Players can't go sliding in with the studs anymore, no matter how certain they are in their own mind that they aren't endangering any other players.

That definition of 'dangerous play' could include anyone who ever kicks a football and their leg follows through. In any situation like that a player could appear from the blind-side and take a sore one.

Always amazes me when people try to bend over backwards to insist a decision that benefited their side was correct. If that's a Hibs player being sent off, you'd be fuming.

These things happen. It's not the biggest deal in the world, but it's a poor call.

[StellarHibee]

13 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

That definition of 'dangerous play' could include anyone who ever kicks a football and their leg follows through.

Because everybody kicks the football with their studs right?

[VincentGuerin]

5 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

Because everybody kicks the football with their studs right?

What you kick it with doesn't matter. You're allowed to kick the ball with your studs. If you kick the ball and your leg follows through, an opponent could easily come from the blind side and be caught by the studs, potentially causing serious injury. That's completely obvious.

Football is a game where collisions etc happen. There doesn't always have to be a card.

Holt didn't know the opponent was there, didn't motion towards him. It's a poor decision, and I'd imagine you'd be arguing that had it been a Hibs player sent off.

Edited December 26, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[StellarHibee]

Just now, VincentGuerin said:

What you kick it with doesn't matter. If you kick the ball and your leg follows through, an opponent could easily come from the blind side and be caught by the studs. That's completely obvious.

Holt didn't know the opponent was there, didn't motion towards him. It's a poor decision, and I'd imagine you'd be arguing that had it been a Hibs player sent off.

It absolutely does matter. A player not knowing where another player is when they go flying in for the ball with the studs is completely irrelevant. Dangerous play is still dangerous play, even if there is zero intent to injure another player. 

You can't just alter the laws of the game as you see fit. The rules are very clear about this kind of thing.

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

It absolutely does matter. A player not knowing where another player is when they go flying in for the ball with the studs is completely irrelevant. Dangerous play is still dangerous play, even if there is zero intent to injure another player. 

You can't just alter the laws of the game as you see fit. The rules are very clear about this kind of thing.

This is an absolutely ludicrous take.

Why is it so hard to just say you caught a break? What are you so insecure about?