St J v Livi - 30th Sept

[The Marly]

On 01/10/2023 at 12:58, LIVIFOREVER said:

The hand on his back isn't forceful enough, but it also looks like his foot gets clicked together.

The amount of times Nouble is being held onto, pushed and kicked in a game is unreal, and doesn't get anywhere near the fouls he should because he tries to keep on going. 

 

So it's a pen because he may or may not have been fouled in a previous game?

That must be a new rule. 

[Cptn Hooch]

37 minutes ago, The Marly said:

So it's a pen because he may or may not have been fouled in a previous game?

That must be a new rule. 

that's not even close to what he said. The penalty is given because there's a push in the back AND contact between their legs

[The Wrong Car]

29 minutes ago, The Marly said:

So it's a pen because he may or may not have been fouled in a previous game?

That must be a new rule. 

I think he's referring to Nouble's comments in the news article, rather than this specific incident

 

[Radford]

Wonder what the Livingston fans thought about the decision not given first up in this clip?

Still time to go back and delete the posts...

[Cptn Hooch]

17 minutes ago, Radford said:

Wonder what the Livingston fans thought about the decision not given first up in this clip?

Still time to go back and delete the posts...

Keeper wins the ball fairly and the contact from Brown is outside the box...no penalty and VAR wouldn't intervene if it was a thing back then

[The Wrong Car]

31 minutes ago, Radford said:

Wonder what the Livingston fans thought about the decision not given first up in this clip?

Still time to go back and delete the posts...

I'd say that looks like a penalty these days, however pre-VAR it came down to the ref's view on the day which is the big change. To be honest, McCrorie getting sent off would have been a blessing!

The idea that contact inside the box is treated differently isn't exactly new however, if CMs lined up and manhandled opponents in the centre circle like they do at set plays, there would be countless fouls given.

Not sure why a clip from 3 years ago is being used to excuse Liam Gordon's idiotic decisions, it's a soft penalty from a situation that was completely avoidable. Gordon can either win the footrace, get in front of Nouble and let the ball run our/buy a foul or let Nouble chase a dead ball without getting touch tight. 

[Durnford]

1 hour ago, Radford said:

Wonder what the Livingston fans thought about the decision not given first up in this clip?

Still time to go back and delete the posts...

Unfortunately my first though was there were about 8 or 9 player out there that could easily walk into the first team.

 

[Durnford]

1 hour ago, Cptn Hooch said:

Keeper wins the ball fairly and the contact from Brown is outside the box...no penalty and VAR wouldn't intervene if it was a thing back then

There would be an argument that Brown should have received a straight red though (denying a clear goal scoring opportunity and not exactly a shoulder charge as he definitely changes direction.

I still prefer the one where Ambrose and another Saints player collided in the box and Anderson (I think) went through to score. Nowadays it'd be 50/50 that the ref would have stopped play for a head knock.

[ATLIS]

2 hours ago, Radford said:

Wonder what the Livingston fans thought about the decision not given first up in this clip?

Still time to go back and delete the posts...

100% a foul, he even looks at the striker to make that tackle. Outside the box though, only question is if it's denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity or not? Is he in control enough of the ball and likely enough to get there before McCrorie?

[LIVIFOREVER]

4 hours ago, The Marly said:

So it's a pen because he may or may not have been fouled in a previous game?

That must be a new rule. 

Dunno where you get that from, the post i was replying to seemed to think Nouble was admitting it wasn't a foul because he was surprised he got it, i, and other Livi fans, were explaining the reason he was surprised at getting it is because he isn't used to getting decisions when he's being fouled. 

 

[LIVIFOREVER]

2 hours ago, Radford said:

Wonder what the Livingston fans thought about the decision not given first up in this clip?

Still time to go back and delete the posts...

That's as pointless as putting up the clip of a Sevco player getting away with a push on Brandon in our cup game last week, which they then went on and scored a goal. Then in the same game we got a foul later for a push that wasn't anywhere near as forceful as the one they got away with. And saying because the first one wasn't given the second one shouldn't have been given either, when both were pushes and fouls.

Did you look through old match footage till you got a clip of us getting away with a foul on your player?

[PSJ.84]

1 hour ago, Durnford said:

I still prefer the one where Ambrose and another Saints player collided in the box and Anderson (I think) went through to score. Nowadays it'd be 50/50 that the ref would have stopped play for a head knock.

O’Halloran. Says a lot for our season that that wasn’t the only time we conceded after he collided with a team mate. 

[LIVIFOREVER]

55 minutes ago, ATLIS said:

100% a foul, he even looks at the striker to make that tackle. Outside the box though, only question is if it's denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity or not? Is he in control enough of the ball and likely enough to get there before McCrorie?

That's like shielding the ball when it's running in the other direction and you move away from it towards the opposition player, and the ref lets it go, how far away from the ball do you need to be before you're obstructing the player and not shielding the ball, gets on my tits when fouls aren't given for that.

Players are also often allowed to deliberately step into the path/obstruct an oncoming opposition player from running towards the keeper when they've just passed it back to him, to give him a bit more time to clear it.

Same when player back into an opponent and fall down, some just chuck themselves down and don't even initiate contact and still get fouls. Marvin Bartley was an absolute expert at buying those type of fouls to take pressure off us in defence, even does it in that footage, Holt is good at it too. Refs fall for it all the time.

Edited October 3, 2023 by LIVIFOREVER

[gingermunkie]

1 hour ago, PSJ.84 said:

O’Halloran. Says a lot for our season that that wasn’t the only time we conceded after he collided with a team mate. 

Was it not McCart that repeatedly collided with fellow saints folk?

Edited October 3, 2023 by gingermunkie

[PSJ.84]

1 hour ago, gingermunkie said:

Was it not McCart that repeatedly collided with fellow saints folk?

Was definitely O’Halloran and Ambrose that day, can remember speaking to him about it at that book signing the following day. McCart was at fault for the other comical goal. Pass from Clark hit his heels and landed at the feet of Anderson(?). Fairly sure it was O’Halloran and Ciftci away at Hearts too? 

[RandomGuy.]

 

[Durnford]

15 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

Thanks for that - was starting off as a bit of a cr@p day but now things seem a little brighter.

 

[Honest Saints Fan]

Fair play winning the appeal. Was not expecting that.

[PauloPerth]

On 01/10/2023 at 13:14, thruthenight said:

 

Red card is valid. Nouble get clipped, Gordon's just an idiot as he's flying in recklessly with a straight leg. Michael Stewart going 'but he didn't touch him' is the daftest opinion that's come out of his mouth in a while, and it's got some contenders. He's millimeters away from a leg break. It's not 1920 any more, it's dangerous and reckless and he got lucky.

 

On 01/10/2023 at 13:43, Cptn Hooch said:

After seeing the video posted of the VAR angles, I retract my "red was harsh" statement....he definitely catches Nouble with his studs and the big guy is lucky he's not on the end of a bad injury. 

 

On 01/10/2023 at 13:56, LiviLion said:

Just watched the highlights there, clear penalty and clear red card. 

I understand football fans can have this weird bias, but disagreeing with those decisions is just deliberately being wrong. 

 

Edit: to be clear I'm meaning folk who have watched it back and still think otherwise

 

On 01/10/2023 at 14:26, ATLIS said:

Red is an absolute stonewall red card, no idea how anyone can argue otherwise.

 

On 01/10/2023 at 14:44, ATLIS said:

Is Eric Nicolson known for his greeting faced ramblings? His article about the great injustice St Johnstone faced at a red card and a penalty is laughable given both were the correct decision.

 

On 01/10/2023 at 15:15, LIVIFOREVER said:

Aye they just sat there smirking giving stupid opinions. It made me wince seeing how close Nouble came to getting his leg broken, you'd be jumping over that if you saw it coming to avoid a leg breaker, and by their logic that would mean it isn't a red card for endangering an opponent, fucking idiots.

 

 

[Cptn Hooch]

30 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely incredible that's been overturned after Holt's and Pittman's last season