Afro Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Bizarre after a 4-1 defeat but didn’t think there was much in it today - Dundee took their chances, albeit which we laid on a plate for them, and we spurned ours. Our penalty record must be verging on some form of world record, I can’t recall any run of it’s kind elsewhere but it’s very much the fleck of sweetcorn on top of an enormous cake of shite for us right now. 4-2-3-1 has to be the way to go - looked infinitely more enjoyable to watch in large spells than we have since late summer. Go with that front four and give them a run and we’ll maybe have half a chance - provided something can be done at the back. McCowan the pick of those in Dark Blue for me today, caused us no end of hassle and his daft second yellow the only black mark on the day for him. Sums up the adequately competent type of player Dundee seem to have now throughout their squad which seems quite a departure from previously (disappointingly so for us tbf). Tuesday was enormous beforehand but it’s beyond that now - anything other than a win there and it’s away from us I reckon. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Play Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 23 minutes ago, Afro said: Bizarre after a 4-1 defeat but didn’t think there was much in it today - Dundee took their chances, albeit which we laid on a plate for them, and we spurned ours. Our penalty record must be verging on some form of world record, I can’t recall any run of it’s kind elsewhere but it’s very much the fleck of sweetcorn on top of an enormous cake of shite for us right now. 4-2-3-1 has to be the way to go - looked infinitely more enjoyable to watch in large spells than we have since late summer. Go with that front four and give them a run and we’ll maybe have half a chance - provided something can be done at the back. McCowan the pick of those in Dark Blue for me today, caused us no end of hassle and his daft second yellow the only black mark on the day for him. Sums up the adequately competent type of player Dundee seem to have now throughout their squad which seems quite a departure from previously (disappointingly so for us tbf). Tuesday was enormous beforehand but it’s beyond that now - anything other than a win there and it’s away from us I reckon. Good luck on Tuesday. Even though logically I should be hoping Livingston are further stranded in 12th to hopefully guarantee Dundee are not automatically relegated, I’d much rather you stayed up than Ross County. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dundee-FC92 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 48 minutes ago, Afro said: Bizarre after a 4-1 defeat but didn’t think there was much in it today - Dundee took their chances, albeit which we laid on a plate for them, and we spurned ours. Our penalty record must be verging on some form of world record, I can’t recall any run of it’s kind elsewhere but it’s very much the fleck of sweetcorn on top of an enormous cake of shite for us right now. 4-2-3-1 has to be the way to go - looked infinitely more enjoyable to watch in large spells than we have since late summer. Go with that front four and give them a run and we’ll maybe have half a chance - provided something can be done at the back. McCowan the pick of those in Dark Blue for me today, caused us no end of hassle and his daft second yellow the only black mark on the day for him. Sums up the adequately competent type of player Dundee seem to have now throughout their squad which seems quite a departure from previously (disappointingly so for us tbf). Tuesday was enormous beforehand but it’s beyond that now - anything other than a win there and it’s away from us I reckon. Good post. Hope you lot beat the Dingwall on Tuesday and drag them down aswell. Thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Would love to see this Livi mob go down the toilet, load of shite going on in the background/boardroom as well? Thank you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rambling syd rumpo Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 5 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: That's a brilliant save by Sharp. That's awfy late with the offisde call for Mellon's goal. Linesmen only flag for offside at a goal when the ref tells them. The linesman spots the offside and tells the ref via his mic. If the ref decides the offside player would have been interfering with the keeper's view he tells the linesman to put his flag up. VAR then takes over. If the VAR team confirm the player was offside the final decision is passed back to the referee. In the circumstances I thought the linesman's flag today was up pretty quickly. The process worked well, if it did take rather a long time from the point when the flag went up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanPartridge Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 In the minority here but I think both penalty decisions were right, especially the second one. Mellon was also lucky to get away with push for 3rd goal but about time we had one go in our favour. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pens_Dark Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 46 minutes ago, AlanPartridge said: In the minority here but I think both penalty decisions were right, especially the second one. Mellon was also lucky to get away with push for 3rd goal but about time we had one go in our favour. Im not convinced that Dodgson wins the ball for the second and there wasn’t any definitive angle for VAR to go against the referee’s decision so no real complaints about that one. For the first, there’s an argument that it isn’t even in the box. Notwithstanding that there’s not anywhere near enough contact for that to be deemed a penalty. Just as pathetic as the one given against us v Hearts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam899 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Thought Livi played well. We were clinical aided by some unforced errors. Thought we defended really well and were ruthless. Totally in love with The Doc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanPartridge Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 2 minutes ago, Pens_Dark said: Im not convinced that Dodgson wins the ball for the second and there wasn’t any definitive angle for VAR to go against the referee’s decision so no real complaints about that one. For the first, there’s an argument that it isn’t even in the box. Notwithstanding that there’s not anywhere near enough contact for that to be deemed a penalty. Just as pathetic as the one given against us v Hearts. He was on the line when Macowan pushed him, meaning he was inside. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 14 minutes ago, AlanPartridge said: He was on the line when Macowan pushed him, meaning he was inside. Watched both penalties again - the first one is definitely more of a penalty than the second one. Don't know why McCowan did that for the first as the player was going away from the box. For the second I think Dodgson got the ball. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee jeemie Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 The first one definite pen , second one not a pen , 3rd goal should’ve been chalked off , 4th goal good goal , overall var 50/50 right Docs team selection had me boiling , but hay that’s why he’s a manager and I’m sat in the hoose 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thruthenight Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Both penalties in the 'technically the correct decision but not really in the spirit of the game' decisions. First one is a push, and it starts in the box. Soft in terms of contact, soft in terms of position, but an infringement that starts in the box is a penalty. The second one, yes it looks like he gets a lot of the ball, but there's no angle good enough to overrule the original decision, particularly as he's coming in from behind and is likely to have caught some of the man as well. 3rd goal should have been chopped off, but we were so shit defensively I'm quite glad it wasn't just to make the point of how we've gone from one of the best mentalitites in the league to massive bottlers in the space of a calendar year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanPartridge Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 34 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: Watched both penalties again - the first one is definitely more of a penalty than the second one. Don't know why McCowan did that for the first as the player was going away from the box. For the second I think Dodgson got the ball. He didn’t, Nouble touched it away first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Dodgson wins the ball.IMO. Think Nouble nutmegs him as well just before it. Not good enough from him overall, got caught out quite a few times. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam899 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) 8 hours ago, thruthenight said: Both penalties in the 'technically the correct decision but not really in the spirit of the game' decisions. First one is a push, and it starts in the box. Soft in terms of contact, soft in terms of position, but an infringement that starts in the box is a penalty. The second one, yes it looks like he gets a lot of the ball, but there's no angle good enough to overrule the original decision, particularly as he's coming in from behind and is likely to have caught some of the man as well. 3rd goal should have been chopped off, but we were so shit defensively I'm quite glad it wasn't just to make the point of how we've gone from one of the best mentalitites in the league to massive bottlers in the space of a calendar year. The first penalty is very harsh. How does VAR distinguish between contact and when it develops into an actual foul? It does happen very quickly but to have your body contacting a players back isn’t a foul - I get that it quickly becomes a foul with a push but when does the contact become a push? Does that even make sense? My point is that just because the contact begins on the line doesn’t mean the foul was committed on the line? Edited January 28 by Liam899 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu2910 Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 12 hours ago, Liam899 said: The first penalty is very harsh. How does VAR distinguish between contact and when it develops into an actual foul? It does happen very quickly but to have your body contacting a players back isn’t a foul - I get that it quickly becomes a foul with a push but when does the contact become a push? Does that even make sense? My point is that just because the contact begins on the line doesn’t mean the foul was committed on the line? This was my thinking too - he doesn’t start to fall until he’s at least a yard outside the box, which suggests that’s when the push happened. It’s not like a shirt pull that is a foul the second it starts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pens_Dark Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 1 hour ago, stu2910 said: This was my thinking too - he doesn’t start to fall until he’s at least a yard outside the box, which suggests that’s when the push happened. It’s not like a shirt pull that is a foul the second it starts. And if he falls from a push a yard outside of the box that he feels inside the box then it is a dive. Either way, it really is minimal contact and penalties should have a higher threshold for contact. If we're giving penalties for that then might as well pack up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu2910 Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 10 minutes ago, Pens_Dark said: And if he falls from a push a yard outside of the box that he feels inside the box then it is a dive. Either way, it really is minimal contact and penalties should have a higher threshold for contact. If we're giving penalties for that then might as well pack up. Not necessarily, it’s probably a foul, we just don’t know at what point the contact becomes a push. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pens_Dark Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 1 minute ago, stu2910 said: Not necessarily, it’s probably a foul, we just don’t know at what point the contact becomes a push. FWIW, I don't think it's a dive. There isn't ever a push - it's a shoulder barge and Holt makes the most of it. If that happened to Dundee I wouldn't be shouting for a penalty but now that's been given against us I expect every scenario like that to now be a penalty. SFA & consistency don't go well together though so I won't hold my breathe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meeniedee Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Livi 1st penalty was less than a foul than our 3rd goal..it's as if the var team are just making it up as they go along 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.