St J v Livi - 30th Sept

[RandomGuy.]

You dont need to make contact these days, but even then its just a stupid tackle from someone who was clearly rattled from the penalty. 

Hes had a 12 months or so much like Zander Clark did, hopefully he can work his way through it eventually.

[Steve McQueen]

Jephcott has to score that chance 1st half. That's literally what we signed him for.

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

33 minutes ago, DukDukGoose said:

I remember Livi fans were very upset when I said Nouble goes down easily.

That's not a one off. He goes down in installments.

I'll get the same pelters but it was chronic today. 

He spent more time on the deck today than standing up. Went over 4-5 times under a tickle of contact. 

[livilion53]

That was the worst first half I have witnessed, no passion ,no drive, just slow going nowhere build up from back. Martindale insists in shoe horning Sean Kelly into the team , when he is a complete liability , his hesitation cost us the goal today. Another player who contributes next to nothing is Shinnie, consistently turns back with the ball slowing the game down. If Devlin in out, why not go with a back 4 instead of Kelly and would also like to see Steven Bradley get a chance with his direct play and willingness to shoot. 

[Monkey socks]

Shinnie is not a footballer

[Menga Bus]

5 hours ago, Theyellowbox said:

A draw probably fair in the end, but a truly woeful performance from the ref. VAR decisions aside, which by the sounds of it might be right, he was just all round very poor.

On the penalty, Gordon should have just cleared it when it wasn't obvious it would go out. Just another example of poor individual mistakes that have cost us this season. 

Fair play to Livi as they looked well off it in the first half, but changed it around in the 2nd. Only blot for them is De Lucas. What an arse, throwing himself down like he'd been two footed when the saints player barely touched him and trying to get May sent off later holding his face. Should have been booked himself there. Tell tale sign that someone is at it when they get back up and don't one rub their face etc. Decent player, doesn't need to be doing that nonsense. 

The second one when he went down holding his face he did get cracked a belter by someone’s elbow, but with his earlier antics it came across as a bit of the boy who cried wolf. 

[Radford]

I'm glad folk can still find positives every week but we are really talking baby steps when we have a lion hunting us down.

Costelloe was better through the middle and Jephcott was better in a two.

Sprangler and Phillips won a lot of good potential turnover balls but (negative) we rarely made the most of the transition situations, as the manager would call them. 

Back to three at the back but it wasn't horrendous and didn't feel like we had that extra defender/missing attacker balance wrong as was the case under Davidson at home once Kerr wasn't a part of it. Robinson is enthusiastic, if limited.

Pulling just these sort of positives every week isn't going to take us up the table. A win yesterday would have been great but that team selection was never one we could move forward with.

Finally, move on etc... but I still look at this side most weeks and can't believe that David Wotherspoon wouldn't have enhanced it with a proper pre-season behind him.

[RandomGuy.]

3 hours ago, Radford said:

I'm glad folk can still find positives every week but we are really talking baby steps when we have a lion hunting us down.

Aye, it kind of feels like we're still in August. Just out of pre-season, working out our best side and seeing what weaknesses we can address with the final weeks of the window.

Guess time will tell if effectively writing off 2 months of the season, and 7 games, is deadly or not to this squad, but im unsure the qualitys in it to now do whats required.

Take out Celtic/Rangers games and we likely need to pick up around 32-35pts from 27 games. So 9-10 wins, a handful of draws, and probably no more than 12 losses.

We need to start motoring soon.

[Radford]

First chance to see the Liam Gordon tackle again this morning. Have we now moved past the "winning the ball isn't enough" directive to "you don't even need to make contact" now?

It's a red every day of the week if the tackling leg makes contact but when it doesn't? Is that really a thing?

Also mental when you remember what he avoided a second yellow (on field) or red (VAR) for against Ross County a few weeks ago. So very fortunate that wasn't his second red of the season. Kind of shows where he unfortunately is right now.

Folk will say VAR hasn't overturned the penalty because it isn't a clear and obvious error, or whatever the nonsense is, and it wouldn't have been given as one if the referee hadn't pointed to the spot. Fine in theory but we all know there will be situations this season where they do overrule such decisions.

It's everything I feared it would be.

[Jamie_B]

It is clear and obvious that Gordon's touch on Nouble's back is not enough to send him sprawling to the ground. Despite that, the ref isn't invited to look at the screen and confirm his decision.

It is not clear and obvious that Gordon actually makes any contact whatsoever with Nouble for the red card. The referee had an excellent view of the tackle and I don't think anyone - maybe with the exception of Nouble himself - was looking for a foul, never mind a red card, when play stopped. Despite that, the referee is asked to look at the screen and presumably given a very misleading still image in the first instance to overrule himself with.

The whole system is garbage and we end up with two game changing moments going against the same player, when they very easily could, and in at least one instance should, have gone the other way.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Jamie_B

[Cptn Hooch]

For the penalty, Gordon's hand is on Nouble's back but there also appears to be contact between their legs which knocks Nouble's stride off. Coupled with the push in the back it's a penalty all day long. The red card is harsh as the only contact seems to be from his trailing foot which isn't high or dangerous. 

[RandomGuy.]

The reds a red for me, absolutely zero idea what Gordons thinking with it. Contact or not, and i think there was contact but also not enough for Nouble to react the way he did, you just cant launch into a tackle like that. If he does catch Nouble its a genuine leg breaker as hes catching him at shin height.

Murray Davidson called it right when he said he would be sent off most weeks with VAR, but Gordons tackle was worse than what Muzz would do.

[tree house tam]

Liam clips Noubles legs while touching him on the back, there's contact so he gives the ref an option. If he had just shepherded him out without getting too close there isn't any option for a penalty. The red is dangerous play even if he does win the ball first.

Liam is a fanny, there is no doubt. 

[Theyellowbox]

1 hour ago, Jamie_B said:

It is clear and obvious that Gordon's touch on Nouble's back is not enough to send him sprawling to the ground. Despite that, the ref isn't invited to look at the screen and confirm his decision.

It is not clear and obvious that Gordon actually makes any contact whatsoever with Nouble for the red card. The referee had an excellent view of the tackle and I don't think anyone - maybe with the exception of Nouble himself - was looking for a foul, never mind a red card, when play stopped. Despite that, the referee is asked to look at the screen and presumably given a very misleading still image in the first instance to overrule himself with.

The whole system is garbage and we end up with two game changing moments going against the same player, when they very easily could, and in at least one instance should, have gone the other way.

If the touch on the back from Gordon is anywhere else on the park, the ref doesn't give a foul. If Nouble goes down like that whoever there is a touch of that level, he'd never be off the grass. There may have been a coming together, but it's never a penalty. However, seeing where the ball is and Nouble being ahead of him, Gordon should have just slowed down and let Nouble get to the ball first. If he stops it going out, he is on the byline facing away from goal. A more confident player let's the striker get there first.

On the red card, if we are giving red cards for 'intent' when the player wins the ball, then you might as well give a goal for a shot on target. Either you make contact with the player and you give away the foul and get carded or you don't. In the same way, you hit a shot on target and you score or you don't.

Saints not being able to see a winnable game, out aside. The big issue yesterday was the refs performance. The yellow in the first couple of minutes was a joke and from then on in, he struggled to get a hold on both teams. Not that it was a dirty game, but the lack of consistency or control was obvious. 

[RandomGuy.]

10 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

On the red card, if we are giving red cards for 'intent' when the player wins the ball, then you might as well give a goal for a shot on target. Either you make contact with the player and you give away the foul and get carded or you don't. In the same way, you hit a shot on target and you score or you don't.

I'm fairly sure he does catch Nouble, but surely its obvious why its red?

Considering this is slowed down and he still looks like hes going in too fast. Its a horrendous attempt at a tackle and Nouble, and Gordon, are incredibly fortunate hes not even any good at being a clogger as hes breaking Noubles leg if he does fully connect.

Just a moronic tackle.

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by RandomGuy.

[Theyellowbox]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

I'm fairly sure he does catch Nouble, but surely its obvious why its red?

Considering this is slowed down and he still looks like hes going in too fast. Its a horrendous attempt at a tackle and Nouble, and Gordon, are incredibly fortunate hes not even any good at being a clogger.

 

 

Disagree. If he catches him, it's not with the leading leg. If he caught him studs up with the leg, then yeah, it's a red, but he doesn't.

You could view the intent two ways. If Gordon makes contact, it's red, but IF Gordon wins the ball and Nouble kicks him on the calf then it's a red for him. Neither of those happened, so it's not a red.

When you look at it, he both doesn't make contact with the leading leg AND he deflects the ball with the knee of the trailing leg before the trainling leg makes contact with Nouble. If you remove the 'intent' argument, it's not even a foul, which presumably is what the ref saw on the pitch. 

It's just not a red card. Not a good tackle, but it's not a red.

 

[RandomGuy.]

2 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Disagree. If he catches him, it's not with the leading leg. If he caught him studs up with the leg, then yeah, it's a red, but he doesn't.

You could view the intent two ways. If Gordon makes contact, it's red, but IF Gordon wins the ball and Nouble kicks him on the calf then it's a red for him. Neither of those happened, so it's not a red.

When you look at it, he both doesn't make contact with the leading leg AND he deflects the ball with the knee of the trailing leg before the trainling leg makes contact with Nouble. If you remove the 'intent' argument, it's not even a foul, which presumably is what the ref saw on the pitch. 

It's just not a red card. Not a good tackle, but it's not a red.

 

Im sure his studs glance Nouble, you see his foot rebound on the final angle.

And a "you break someone leg you're sent off, you miss you're fine" isn't right to me. Its a reckless leg breaking challenge and he gets nowhere near cleanly winning the ball. Even if he does connect with the ball, his only real intention there is to hurt Nouble as he can't actually do anything else in that situation and its all any player who lunges straight at an opponent with their studs up has ever intended.

Genuinely staggered you've even suggested it shouldn't even be a foul.

Footballs gone soft and some fouls shouldn't be given that are, but that doesn't mean every challenge that doesn't connect shouldn't be a red. 

[Theyellowbox]

8 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Im sure his studs glance Nouble, you see his foot rebound on the final angle.

And a "you break someone leg you're sent off, you miss you're fine" isn't right to me. Its a reckless leg breaking challenge and he gets nowhere near cleanly winning the ball. Even if he does connect with the ball, his only real intention there is to hurt Nouble as he can't actually do anything else in that situation and its all any player who lunges straight at an opponent with their studs up has ever intended.

Genuinely staggered you've even suggested it shouldn't even be a foul.

Footballs gone soft and some fouls shouldn't be given that are, but that doesn't mean every challenge that doesn't connect shouldn't be a red. 

Need to agree to disagree then. I can't see anywhere there his leading leg makes contact at all. He doesnt win or block the ball with his leading leg, nor does he hit Nouble. If Nouble kicks the ball off Gordon's outstressed foot, we all say its a great block.

Unless there is contact, all 'intent' is all ifs, what's and maybes.

The fact it is even debatable and there is talk of a 'glance' means any on field decision isn't a clear and obvious error.

VAR in itself isn't the issue, it's how the refs and the reviewers are using it. You could slow down any tackle and show an angle that makes it look horrific. 

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, Theyellowbox said:

If Nouble kicks the ball off Gordon's outstressed foot, we all say its a great block.

No we don't, as if Gordons that half yard closer to the ball enough to do that, he'll have caught Nouble in the shin with his studs as a follow through.

You just cannot lunge straight towards a player with your foot up like that without trying to seriously hurt them.

Its just a stupid fucking tackle and Gordon needs to know that without all the blame being passed to the ref. He got incredibly fortunate v County to avoid a red for a similar moronic lunge in and if hes going to add regular red cards to his game then theres zero question he'll need punted from the club.

[LIVIFOREVER]

That's a horrendous tackle on Nouble, by good fortune it doesn't connect fully or it would've broken his leg, that doesn't excuse it though, shouldn't be going in like that. Winning the ball doesn't excuse it either, going in like that you're taking the ball, the player, and not stopping as you're out of control.

 

Also if you see someone coming in at you like that and have time, you'd not go for the ball because you're getting your leg broken, so intent has to come into it, even when no contact is made, so the he didn't actually break his leg, it wasn't a red card logic doesn't add up for me.

Edited October 1, 2023 by LIVIFOREVER