Fife Derby: Pars vs Rovers - Sat 26th August

[Rovers_Lad]

32 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

Mind when they thought they knew the rules about emergency loans and ended up playing Ryan Sevenson in goals? That was some laugh.

They did know the rules .They tried to but were unable to secure a goalkeeper on an emergency loan although close to signing young keeper from Celtic.The club,well Drysdale asked SPFL to cancel the game as all three keepers were injured,SPFL refused hence why RS played in goals

[Jilted John]

I’d imagine that if he was going to be suspended for Saturday then we would have appealed it in which case he would have been eligible. The fact we haven’t makes me think it’ll be next season’s cup tie he will miss and IM isn’t too bothered!

[TxRover]

1 hour ago, Raithie said:

Was there not some loophole that clubs could go through by appealing a red card thus making their player eligible for the next game until the hearing was concluded? 

Yes.

 

59 minutes ago, Enigma said:

I think one of the dangers with appealing is if it doesn’t go your way you might have the player given an additional suspension.

Yes.

1 hour ago, CallumPar said:

Looking forward to Rovers getting a hard-fought draw, then having to forfeit the game 3-0 and getting fined because they think they know the rules better than the SFA.

There’s not another straight red card offence that fits (although, I do think it was a very harsh red card) and the suspension rules for these offences have been the same for a number of years now. I’m not sure why it seems to be getting debated.

1 hour ago, Double Jack D said:

That's my take on it. Fact it's a straight red means it has to be serious foul play, therefore suspension.

I agree with both of you, BUT there was reporting from a competent source (Craig Cairns) directly after the match that he would be eligible. That, plus the SFA’s inability to make anything clear, plus the radio silence since, makes it a wee bit questionable exactly what is going on. There have been extreme cases of referees reporting a red card inaccurately, and the player thus being eligible to play until a correction was made, for instance. I just wish we clearly knew…I’m assuming he’s out.

[craigkillie]

If Raith had appealed the hearing would take place tomorrow.

[Raithie]

I'm sure Murray's pre-match interview will clear it up.

[Enigma]

I think he’ll be suspended. I don’t think we’ll have appealed.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Enigma

[Double Jack D]

Whilst it wasn't intentional, it's hard to argue that kicking someone in the puss isn't serious foul play if that's the refs view on it.

[DAFC.]

1 hour ago, Raithie said:

Was there not some loophole that clubs could go through by appealing a red card thus making their player eligible for the next game until the hearing was concluded? 

A lot of us, myself included, believed he was a changed man after doing quite well with Ross County in the Premiership. How wrong we were and we, as a club, deserved absolutely everything we got for that season. Thankfully we got up first time of asking and there is a real connection at the club for the first time in ages. 

[The Toun Clock]

10 minutes ago, DAFC. said:

A lot of us, myself included, believed he was a changed man after doing quite well with Ross County in the Premiership. How wrong we were and we, as a club, deserved absolutely everything we got for that season. Thankfully we got up first time of asking and there is a real connection at the club for the first time in ages. 

Aye before Peter Grant got it I wanted Yogi (after one or two others). When PG got binned I again wanted Yogi and was delighted when it was announced. Did we not go up to Inverness (Yogi watching from the stand) and win or at least get a draw, which wasn't like us up in Inverness. Dom Thomas and Yogi hugging on the pitch etc. The following week we battered Ayr 3-0 at East End and I thought that was us, about to kick on. Absolute dogsh*t after.

[CallumPar]

2 hours ago, Raithie said:

Was there not some loophole that clubs could go through by appealing a red card thus making their player eligible for the next game until the hearing was concluded? 

This loophole got sorted years ago and appeals are now ‘fast-tracked’ to avoid this. You have to appeal within a certain timeframe and the appeals are reviewed on a Wednesday/Thursday. There’s not been any word on an appeal, so I’d suggest there wasn’t one lodged.

[DA-go Par Adonis]

1 hour ago, The Toun Clock said:

Aye before Peter Grant got it I wanted Yogi (after one or two others). When PG got binned I again wanted Yogi and was delighted when it was announced. Did we not go up to Inverness (Yogi watching from the stand) and win or at least get a draw, which wasn't like us up in Inverness. Dom Thomas and Yogi hugging on the pitch etc. The following week we battered Ayr 3-0 at East End and I thought that was us, about to kick on. Absolute dogsh*t after.

Aye, we beat Inverness 2-1 and then hammered Ayr the following Saturday.

There was log jam at the bottom of the table (I think 1 point separated the bottom 5), but we had technically moved in to 6th place.  If anyone told me, at that time, that the Ayr side I had just seen would finish above us in the table, I would have suggested they stopped with the hallucinogenics.    

[HoBNob]

3 hours ago, VinnyPar said:

Defo shouldn't have been a red for Liam Dick but obviously hope he misses Saturday given raiths lack of options at full back.

Aye? He kicked the boy in the face, thats surely a red? 

[TxRover]

24 minutes ago, HoBNob said:

Aye? He kicked the boy in the face, thats surely a red? 

It’s all relative. A high kick is, in the laws of the game, an indirect kick foul. Then you add consideration of careless, reckless or excessive…no sanction, yellow, red…with adjustments to the foul award accordingly.

I don’t think anyone watching that play would adjudge the foul to be excessive,  but it it was certainly reckless rather than careless because he was somewhat behind the player. The Hibs player did lean forward and slightly down into the ball (and the boot), but that doesn’t excuse the play Dick made. The exact wording of the laws says that he deserves a caution for that reckless play.

It’s like the decision on how low can a players head/face be before it’s his fault he gets one in the puss? Here it was clear he wasn’t at fault in any manner.

[DA-go Par Adonis]

An indirect kick foul?

[DA Baracus]

I was fuming when Hughes was appointed. An abysmal appointment that was always going to end badly. I was absolutely bemused that some folk were pleased with it. An utter clown of a manager and, by most accounts, a man as well. Matty Todd at right back for f**k sake.

Was delighted when he fucked off.

[DAFC.]

FWIW Matty Todd played well at RB when he actually got a game. He was a clown, but two games in we looked like we had turned the tide…Oh well. Never mind, more to be positive these days with McPake’s Marvels than looking back to the disaster previously. 

[HoBNob]

26 minutes ago, TxRover said:

It’s all relative. A high kick is, in the laws of the game, an indirect kick foul. Then you add consideration of careless, reckless or excessive…no sanction, yellow, red…with adjustments to the foul award accordingly.

I don’t think anyone watching that play would adjudge the foul to be excessive,  but it it was certainly reckless rather than careless because he was somewhat behind the player. The Hibs player did lean forward and slightly down into the ball (and the boot), but that doesn’t excuse the play Dick made. The exact wording of the laws says that he deserves a caution for that reckless play.

It’s like the decision on how low can a players head/face be before it’s his fault he gets one in the puss? Here it was clear he wasn’t at fault in any manner.

For me it comes under law 12.

"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

 

As you say no fault can be levelled at the receiving player, so kicking a player in the face firmly comes under endangering the safety of an opponent for me. I've no idea why Dicks even going for that ball with his foot, it's a very silly challenge to attempt. 

 

Edited to add - https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Edited August 23, 2023 by HoBNob

[stevoraith]

1400 tickets sold for the away end according to our social media. 
Not bad going. Hopefully another few hundred before Saturday. 

[TxRover]

4 minutes ago, HoBNob said:

I've no idea why Dicks even going for that ball with his foot, it's a very silly challenge to attempt. 

That’s easy, he got rinsed a few minutes earlier letting a player get by and inside him, so he reacted…poorly.

The biggest fault here is the inconsistent rules application for these sorts of fouls. If the player didn’t duck his head a little, he doesn’t get a boot in the puss…to some refs, that seems to be OK and a mild foul, for others it’s a red card. Supposedly, there is a push from the SFA to crack down on these incidents, but to equate deliberate play like this to stupid play like this isn’t helpful. Humans react and try to do things they shouldn’t. It was clear Dick wasn’t trying to boot him in the chops, and yet here we are. If this sort of thing is so bad, why are we still seeing a WWE Smackdown in the 6 yard box on corners?

[CallumPar]

1 hour ago, stevoraith said:

1400 tickets sold for the away end according to our social media. 
Not bad going. Hopefully another few hundred before Saturday. 

Your social media channels say 1300 and you’ve just decided to add 100 to it… why? It’s still about 75% of your season ticket sales, which is good going.

I’d expect it to be around 2000 by kick off. Good going, but I’m sure we can all understand fans of a small town team being so excited about a day out in the big city.