Airdrieonians vs Dunfermline

[Skyline Drifter]

19 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

See on the highlights, again at full speed, it doesn't look like Smith is rolling, it doesn't look like he's stabilising himself.... looks to me like he's thrown his arm backwards - now you could argue about whether or not he knew the ball was there or deliberately tried to knock it away but that movement makes it look like he was trying to do something, whether knocking the ball away or impeding Wighton or just putting him off. It's not like it just hit him like the Soucek one and it's not like he was sliding to block a cross and it's taken a deflection or anything, it looks - again at full speed which is what the on field referee sees it at - like a movement of the arm towards the ball. It's a penalty all day long IMO and once the penalty is given it's pretty obviously a red for DOGO.

I'm not having it that the Soucek one "just hit him". He stretched out for it. That was a clear penalty.

This one against Smith, no, not for me. Take the point about what it may "look" like at full speed but I don't accept he had the first clue the ball was there and I don't think his movement is unnatural at all considering he's just fallen over / been pushed over in the penalty area.

[parsforlife]

I don’t think it matters how much smith knew about it,  it’s an outstretched arm and doesn’t in the slightest bit look like it was to break his fall it’s going to be a handball and DOGO doesn’t give the slightest f**k how deliberate a handball was, handball to deny a obvious goal scoring opportunity is always a red.

[Skyline Drifter]

25 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

I don’t think it matters how much smith knew about it,  it’s an outstretched arm and doesn’t in the slightest bit look like it was to break his fall it’s going to be a handball and DOGO doesn’t give the slightest f**k how deliberate a handball was, handball to deny a obvious goal scoring opportunity is always a red.

Actually it does. I'm not sure where you've pulled that interpretation from? It's only DOGO if it's deemed deliberate. It's not even a foul if it's not.

So yes, it does matter how much he knew about it and how the ref interprets the "unnatural position" guidance. If you're lying on the ground having just been sent there and trying to recover your footing you can't do it with your arms by your side. For me his position isn't particularly "unnatural". You're free to think he's deliberately making his body shape bigger if you like. Gavin Duncan clearly agrees with you. Not for me though.

[parsforlife]

4 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Actually it does. I'm not sure where you've pulled that interpretation from? It's only DOGO if it's deemed deliberate. It's not even a foul if it's not.

So yes, it does matter how much he knew about it and how the ref interprets the "unnatural position" guidance. If you're lying on the ground having just been sent there and trying to recover your footing you can't do it with your arms by your side. For me his position isn't particularly "unnatural". You're free to think he's deliberately making his body shape bigger if you like. Gavin Duncan clearly agrees with you. Not for me though.

I‘m meaning as soon as handball offence is decided then it doesn’t matter if it’s considered deliberate or not for DOGO

Is your interpretation is that smith is trying to get back up and that’s why his arm is reaching toward the ball? If that’s true that’s piss poor awareness and doesn’t get you out of it.

Edited February 12, 2023 by parsforlife

[101]

3 hours ago, Shandon Par said:

Evens out the Jimmy Sandison one (before your time).

If we are balancing up handballs I can't wait for next year's Scottish cup final with Matty Todd using a volley ball save as a 95th minute winner against Celtic.

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, parsforlife said:

I‘m meaning as soon as handball offence is decided then it doesn’t matter if it’s considered deliberate or not.

Is your interpretation is that smith is trying to get back up and that’s why his arm is reaching toward the ball? If that’s true that’s piss poor awareness and doesn’t get you out of it.

Whit? "As soon as the handball offence is decided" it's already been deemed deliberate. Accidental handball is not not and never has been a foul. I'm not sure what you're going on about here. In awarding a penalty Gavin Duncan's deemed it deliberate.

My interpretation is that Smith's arm is where it is because he's been sent to the ground and rolled over. I don't think his arm is reaching for the ball at all. It's just "there". Is it unnaturally there? or has it been thrown out by the way he's gone down and tried to right himself? There's the $64,000 question but the notion he's done it to block the ball intentionally seems ridiculous to me.

[parsforlife]

2 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Whit? "As soon as the handball offence is decided" it's already been deemed deliberate. Accidental handball is not not and never has been a foul. I'm not sure what you're going on about here. In awarding a penalty Gavin Duncan's deemed it deliberate.

My interpretation is that Smith's arm is where it is because he's been sent to the ground and rolled over. I don't think his arm is reaching for the ball at all. It's just "there". Is it unnaturally there? or has it been thrown out by the way he's gone down and tried to right himself? There's the $64,000 question but the notion he's done it to block the ball intentionally seems ridiculous to me.

Not all handball offences are deliberate.   I thought that was clearly established,   

“It is an offence if a player:

deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball

touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised

scores in the opponents’ goal:

directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental”

So there’s 3 reasons a ref may give handball only one which involves deliberately playing it.

I don’t think it’s worth arguing over smiths intentions to decide if it’s in the first category or the second.    He simply can’t put his arm there and then argue he didn’t know where the ball was, by having his arm there he has risked the ball hitting it and the consequences of that.

[Shandon Par]

1 hour ago, Passionate said:

Kick a man when their down, why don't you...

 

You are going to get pages now of the Sandison incident,  not to mention Syme and the corrupt SEA at the time,   the wounds have healed. Honest...

There’s quite a bit of discussion about what should happen but the guiding principle of “What would Davie Syme Do?” is a good rule of thumb. If there’s any doubt, just give Dunfermline a penalty.

[CallumPar]

2 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Did you post this after actually seeing the highlights? A clearer push you'll rarely see.

Funny you say that. Did you watch the highlights? There are 2 or 3 clearer pushes in the middle of the park from Airdrie defenders, that are shown in the highlights, that weren’t deemed fouls. If you’re not going to give fouls for similar challenges in the middle of the park, you can’t be disallowing goals for it. Simple as that.

When you add in Rae’s handball and lack of a second yellow, it’s hard to take anyone seriously when they’re trying to argue Airdrie were hard done by with refereeing decisions yesterday.

[Skyline Drifter]

6 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Not all handball offences are deliberate.   I thought that was clearly established,   

“It is an offence if a player:

deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball

touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised

scores in the opponents’ goal:

directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental”

So there’s 3 reasons a ref may give handball only one which involves deliberately playing it.

I don’t think it’s worth arguing over smiths intentions to decide if it’s in the first category or the second.    He simply can’t put his arm there and then argue he didn’t know where the ball was, by having his arm there he has risked the ball hitting it and the consequences of that.

You're all over the place here. The "unnatural position" thing is deeming the action as deliberate even if not actually with the specific intent of going after the ball.

I'll give you that goals are now ruled out for accidental handballs (but only by the scorer) but that's no more relevant here than the backpass rule as it's not what we're discussing.

We clearly can argue about Smith's intent because we have been for the last half page. It's not as black and white as you're suggesting. I accept it's an interpretation call and the ref calls it as he sees it. Personally I think it's harsh. The idea that it's "stonewall" is nonsense. "Stonewall" is the likes of the Motherwell one conceded against Raith yesterday.

[Skyline Drifter]

4 minutes ago, CallumPar said:

Funny you say that. Did you watch the highlights? There are 2 or 3 clearer pushes in the middle of the park from Airdrie defenders, that are shown in the highlights, that weren’t deemed fouls. If you’re not going to give fouls for similar challenges in the middle of the park, you can’t be disallowing goals for it. Simple as that.

When you add in Rae’s handball and lack of a second yellow, it’s hard to take anyone seriously when they’re trying to argue Airdrie were hard done by with refereeing decisions yesterday.

And we all know that things that are fouls routinely in one area of the pitch aren't when they are in the penalty area. And vice versa. It shouldn't be the case but it is. The fact is that it was two hands in the back on the defender that eased him under it. It's a foul all day, regardless of what others might have got away with elsewhere on the day.

[parsforlife]

4 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

You're all over the place here. The "unnatural position" thing is deeming the action as deliberate even if not actually with the specific intent of going after the ball.

I'll give you that goals are now ruled out for accidental handballs (but only by the scorer) but that's no more relevant here than the backpass rule as it's not what we're discussing.

We clearly can argue about Smith's intent because we have been for the last half page. It's not as black and white as you're suggesting. I accept it's an interpretation call and the ref calls it as he sees it. Personally I think it's harsh. The idea that it's "stonewall" is nonsense. "Stonewall" is the likes of the Motherwell one conceded against Raith yesterday.

No, people have been needlessly arguing over intent when it doesn’t matter cos smiths actions were always going to be handball wether it was considered deliberate or considered unnaturally making his body bigger.  it is very black and white, if you have an outreached arm, don’t have any reasonable argument for it being there and the ball hits it it’s a handball offence.   The only argument you have is he was trying to ‘right himself/stand up’  doing either makes himself bigger and it’s no more of an argument against handball than claiming the ball only hit your hand cos you were pointing at something in the stand you thought was funny.

[101]

2 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Did you post this after actually seeing the highlights? A clearer push you'll rarely see.

Having now watched it back I'm not sure I would have it in the "clearer push you'll rarely see" category perhaps more "seen them given" if they applied those rules consistently near enough every corner or goal kick would result in a free kick or penalty which I don't think anyone wants to see that. Frustrating at the time but meaningless now.

[Diamonds are Forever]

31 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Not all handball offences are deliberate.   I thought that was clearly established,   

“It is an offence if a player:

deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball

touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised

scores in the opponents’ goal:

directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental”

So there’s 3 reasons a ref may give handball only one which involves deliberately playing it.

I don’t think it’s worth arguing over smiths intentions to decide if it’s in the first category or the second.    He simply can’t put his arm there and then argue he didn’t know where the ball was, by having his arm there he has risked the ball hitting it and the consequences of that.

 

It is literally written in the law you have quoted that the player has to have deliberately made their body bigger - 'to have made their body unnaturally bigger'. Having your body in an unnatural position is, by definition, deliberate. Otherwise it would be, well, natural.

The whole purpose of the unnatural position guidance is that it is meant to help the referee decide whether the player has deliberately changed his body shape to increase the likelihood of the ball hitting it. If a referee gives handball he has to think the player has deliberately made an action to either handle the ball or increase the likelihood of the ball hitting his hand. If neither of those is true then it's not a handball, I feel like lots of fans (and maybe even referees looking at recent decisions) have forgotten this fundamental part of the law. The exception is the 3rd example you have quoted, but that's clearly not relevant here.

I'm undecided on the Smith one, I can't really see it well enough to see whether he actually moves his arm towards the ball. From the only angle I've seen it looks accidental to me but only he will know.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Diamonds are Forever

[CallumPar]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

And we all know that things that are fouls routinely in one area of the pitch aren't when they are in the penalty area. And vice versa. It shouldn't be the case but it is. The fact is that it was two hands in the back on the defender that eased him under it. It's a foul all day, regardless of what others might have got away with elsewhere on the day.

But it’s not. Every week, all over the world, officials in each game referee games differently. Particularly when it comes to pushes/contact between players. They usually ‘set the standard’ early on. Before that incident and afterwards, the referee deemed similar levels of contact to not be enough for a foul throughout the game.

The way he refereed similar incidents throughout the rest of the game is 100% relevant to the discussion here. If it’s not enough contact to be deemed a foul in another scenario in the same match, it’s not enough to disallow a goal.

Gavin Duncan is an absolutely terrible referee and I’m sure it’s not a surprise to anyone that he’s a big talking point after the game. But the penalty/red card is the only big decision that went in our favour. Despite what the Airdrie fans are bizarrely claiming. Based on the way he refereed the game, it is a controversial decision to disallow Wighton’s goal. It’s also a very poor decision to give a free kick for the keeper handling it outside the box and not give him a second yellow for it. His speed/momentum carried him out of the box with the ball in his hands, if he hadn’t been going at that speed, Wighton could have got to the ball ahead of him. It’s nobody’s fault but Rae’s that he had the ball in his hands outside of the box and there’s no doubt he deliberately had the ball in his hands. Deliberate handball is a yellow card.

[Skyline Drifter]

19 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

No, people have been needlessly arguing over intent when it doesn’t matter cos smiths actions were always going to be handball wether it was considered deliberate or considered unnaturally making his body bigger.  it is very black and white, if you have an outreached arm, don’t have any reasonable argument for it being there and the ball hits it it’s a handball offence.   The only argument you have is he was trying to ‘right himself/stand up’  doing either makes himself bigger and it’s no more of an argument against handball than claiming the ball only hit your hand cos you were pointing at something in the stand you thought was funny.

Seriously, you're making up rules here and tying yourself in knots. It's not remotely black and white.

17 minutes ago, 101 said:

Having now watched it back I'm not sure I would have it in the "clearer push you'll rarely see" category perhaps more "seen them given" if they applied those rules consistently near enough every corner or goal kick would result in a free kick or penalty which I don't think anyone wants to see that. Frustrating at the time but meaningless now.

It's a pretty clear push none the less. In isolation it's a spot on call.

9 minutes ago, CallumPar said:

It’s also a very poor decision to give a free kick for the keeper handling it outside the box and not give him a second yellow for it. His speed/momentum carried him out of the box with the ball in his hands, if he hadn’t been going at that speed, Wighton could have got to the ball ahead of him. It’s nobody’s fault but Rae’s that he had the ball in his hands outside of the box and there’s no doubt he deliberately had the ball in his hands. Deliberate handball is a yellow card.

No it's not. Very common misconception. There's no mandatory booking for deliberate handball (though it's a mandatory red if it stops a clear goalscoring opportunity).

I agree he should have been booked for it. It looks entirely deliberate and he was probably unaware how much time he had. Ref's got it wrong on that one in my opinion. But it is open to him to interpret it as not needing a booking and a free kick sufficing, particularly if as you suggest his momentum carried him out.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Skyline Drifter

[parsforlife]

17 minutes ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

It is literally written in the law you have quoted that the player has to have deliberately made their body bigger - 'to have made their body unnaturally bigger'. Having your body in an unnatural position is, by definition, deliberate. Otherwise it would be, well, natural.

The whole purpose of the unnatural position guidance is that it is meant to help the referee decide whether the player has deliberately changed his body shape to increase the likelihood of the ball hitting it. 

Without wanting to get caught up on linguistics, making something happen doesn’t necessarily mean intent, it just means your actions have caused it to happen. .

6 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It's a pretty clear push none the less. In isolation it's a spot on call.

Refs shouldn’t be making calls in isolation tho, if they allow one thing to happen then they should allow everything the same or less severe to happen.   MacDonald make a far bigger shove about 10 seconds earlier and I was expecting the attack to stop there, but Duncan watched that, thought it was ok and then watched a much less severe contact and decided a foul,  incredible behaviour.   It shouldn’t matter the consequences of a decision, if it’s okay once then it’s okay every time.

[CallumPar]

4 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Seriously, you're making up rules here and tying yourself in knots. It's not remotely black and white.

It's a pretty clear push none the less. In isolation it's a spot on call.

No it's not. Very common misconception. There's no mandatory booking for deliberate handball (though it's a mandatory red if it stops a clear goalscoring opportunity).

I agree he should have been booked for it. It looks entirely deliberate and he was probably unaware how much time he had. Ref's got it wrong on that one in my opinion. But it is open to him to interpret it as not needing a booking and a free kick sufficing, particularly if as you suggest his momentum carried him out.

On the keeper’s handball. The crucial moment that I think makes it a booking, is when he looks down, sees it’s gone out the box and scoops it back in with his hand. If he’d let go of it and/or tried to swipe it away with his legs at that point, I don’t think I’d be arguing for a booking.

One thing this thread has proven is that regardless of technology available, there will always be differing opinions in football. I enjoy a lot of the discussions and trying to listen to/see other sides of things.

There are a few things that are pretty certain though. Gavin Duncan is an awful referee. Airdrie deserved their 3 goal lead when they had it. Really good play for their goals and some very slack play/defending from us. I still can’t understand why a winger getting sent off seemed to have such an impact on Airdrie’s defensive performance/mentality though. But there was a clear shift in attitude/momentum from that penalty. Their assistant manager/captain was in their defence and he showed no leadership and actually contributed to the capitulation. Their manager was in midfield, then came out after the game complaining about the midfield not doing their job in the second half. This isn’t the first time they have collapsed like this and I think McCabe/Fordyce need to either focus on playing or coaching/managing.

[Kenny_m]

7 minutes ago, CallumPar said:

One thing this thread has proven is that regardless of technology available, there will always be differing opinions in football.

Correct as I've just watched the on Thistle have been given against Rangers!

 

 

[Diamonds02]

19 minutes ago, CallumPar said:

On the keeper’s handball. The crucial moment that I think makes it a booking, is when he looks down, sees it’s gone out the box and scoops it back in with his hand. If he’d let go of it and/or tried to swipe it away with his legs at that point, I don’t think I’d be arguing for a booking.

One thing this thread has proven is that regardless of technology available, there will always be differing opinions in football. I enjoy a lot of the discussions and trying to listen to/see other sides of things.

There are a few things that are pretty certain though. Gavin Duncan is an awful referee. Airdrie deserved their 3 goal lead when they had it. Really good play for their goals and some very slack play/defending from us. I still can’t understand why a winger getting sent off seemed to have such an impact on Airdrie’s defensive performance/mentality though. But there was a clear shift in attitude/momentum from that penalty. Their assistant manager/captain was in their defence and he showed no leadership and actually contributed to the capitulation. Their manager was in midfield, then came out after the game complaining about the midfield not doing their job in the second half. This isn’t the first time they have collapsed like this and I think McCabe/Fordyce need to either focus on playing or coaching/managing.

Because our defensive strategy is to keep attacking.