[OneJamesMcCarthy]

http://news.bbc.co.u...irk/8566479. stm

Wouldnt be surprised if hes reported to SFA for the comments.

[Ned Nederlander]

OneJamesMcCarthy, on 14 March 2010 - 08:26, said:

http://news.bbc.co.u...irk/8566479.stm

Wouldnt be surprised if hes reported to SFA for the comments.

This has already been largely ignored elsewhere - he's just going through the motions, talking the talk - coming in this late he's not been able to bring in any players but he seems to be trying to make up for it by seeking absolutley any advantage he can in any other way,

like Hughes before him he'll get the rap on the knuckles his comments deserve - if it puts even a modicom of pressure on the referee for our next big call I'd say it was worth while.


How the point is put across and how other managers are dealt with by the authorities is another thread.

[ScottyC]

Former SFA employee, Mr Pressley will get away with a slap on the wrist. A four match touchline ban would sort the fanny out.

[Johnny van Axeldongen]

He's right though.

[FFC_GJS]

I don't know what he's complaining about I thought it was a penalty. I think he'll be sent to the stand during a game before the end of the season.

[Fife Saint]

"It was a game-changing decision, a big call and a decision he gets wrong," fumed Pressley.

In your opinion Steven. I can imagine exactly the same comments if roles had been reversed and Falkirk had not been given the decision. Hot air and shite players is a bad mix Elvis, fortunately you have the opprtunity to try do something more positive to change both of these.

[KiwiDB]

I've just watched the replay over and over on the Falkirk website, it's an atrocious decision, no intent whatsoever.

[KiwiDB]

And Smith was a lucky boy, that's a very cynical trip on Flynn.

[Kyle]

Frank Abagnale Jr., on 14 March 2010 - 15:10, said:

I've just watched the replay over and over on the Falkirk website, it's an atrocious decision, no intent whatsoever.

But it still stopped the ball going into a dangerous position. Is it a foul if a player is accidently tripped over by an opponent when running for the ball? I'd suggest yes, and this situation is no different IMO. I can understand why people were upset though. There was absolutely no intention in it.

[Fife Saint]

Don't worry lads i'll settle this matter, once and for all, at 6pm promptly after reviewing the BBC's footage.

[tweed275]

Kyle, on 14 March 2010 - 15:24, said:

But it still stopped the ball going into a dangerous position. Is it a foul if a player is accidently tripped over by an opponent when running for the ball? I'd suggest yes, and this situation is no different IMO. I can understand why people were upset though. There was absolutely no intention in it.

Its entirely different. The only infringement that has to be deliberate to be an infringement is hand ball - thats the rules of the game. I saw it on Goals on Sunday this morning though and am not sure about the call. Probably was an accident but his hands were so high it makes refs err on the side of penalty as they shouldn;t be there. Think its one of those ones that no matter what the ref did he was damned.

[Widge]

Its a handball that stopped the ball going into the six yard box, where several of our players were waiting, for a potential tap in, so it is stopping a goal scoring opertunity, therefore it is a penalty, its not like he turned his back with his hands by his side, he had them raised infront of him.

Also Smith's tackle was clearly not a sending off, Flynn was on the touchline, with about 5 saints players between him and the goal, it was no worse than Scoobies, which stopped Miller from going one on one with teh last defender.

[craigkillie]

I haven't seen the handball yet, so I can't really comment on whether I thought it was a penalty or not.

However, it doesn't matter a jot whether or not the ball was going into the six-yard box. That is not one of the decisive factors as to whether the referee should give a handball.

The referee's only concern is whether or not it was deliberate. Some of the contributing factors would be whether the player's hand was in an unnatural position and whether he was intentionally making his body wider. It sounds as though this may have been why it was given yesterday.

This post has been edited by craigkillie: 14 March 2010 - 17:59

[Fife Saint]

Just had a look at it on the highlights and he is kind of spinning in the air with his arm flailing which blocks the ball.

[saintjfc]

craigkillie, on 14 March 2010 - 17:58, said:

However, it doesn't matter a jot whether or not the ball was going into the six-yard box. That is not one of the decisive factors as to whether the referee should give a handball.

this part is spot on, it doesnt matter a flying f**k wether it prevents a throwing or potential goal scoring oppertunity.

the decision was made entirely on where his hands/arms were at the time of contact, not wether it was deliberate or not, if they were right by his side then it wouldnt have been given. it was the same with the penalty against hibs, miller i think it was that handled it, wasnt deliberate but his hands were high. simple.

[ggr]

Just watched the highlights. Never a penalty.

The laws of the game are quite clear. The handball has to be deliberate for a penalty to be given.

http://www.fifa.com/...softhegame.html

"A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences...
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)"

"A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by
a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball,
provided it is in play."

The referee obviously thought it was deliberate.
I think he was wrong.

This post has been edited by ggr: 14 March 2010 - 18:26

[Jamie_Beatson]

I haven't seen it yet ggr-but that part of the rules isn't the whole story. There's a section on interpretation which talks about hands in unnatural positions etc. By all accounts that's what happened.

[discopants]

As I said in the post match forum, the ref shat it for sending the keeper off, that's twice that has happened down in that corner, Showumni and now Flynn both cynical not even going to play for the ball. Definetly not a penalty because you see that McLean is turning away from the ball and it hit's his arm and the shouts influence the decision.

[Widge]

I'm sorry, Smith was nowhere near the last man, yes it was cynical, but there was no clear goalscoring oppertunity and therefore no rule that stats he should be sent off, you are just bitter.

As for teh penalty, his hand was in an unatural position, therefore again penalty.

[keithgy]

Widge, on 14 March 2010 - 19:06, said:

I'm sorry, Smith was nowhere near the last man, yes it was cynical, but there was no clear goalscoring oppertunity and therefore no rule that stats he should be sent off, you are just bitter.

As for teh penalty, his hand was in an unatural position, therefore again penalty.

No such rule exists as last man,It is denying a goal scoring opportunity.

[Widge]

keithgy, on 14 March 2010 - 19:11, said:

No such rule exists as last man,It is denying a goal scoring opportunity.

In the last man case, the player is free to shoot, therefore its a goalscoring oppertunity.

Flynn was nowhere near the goal, half our team was in the way and therefore not a clear goalscoring oppertunity, therefore no red card.

[Szamo's_Ammo]

I don't like him.

[Kyle]

Szamo, on 14 March 2010 - 19:17, said:

I don't like him.

Neither do I. He looks like a hobo.

[Tubbs]

Dont know the exact way the rules are applied but we have been victim of similiar incidents

1) Paixao took a fresh air shot and the ball hit his hand behind his back, the ball sat up by luck and he scored at parkhead
2) In the cup Elliot was punished after the ball hit his hand in the penalty box, he had fallen and the weight was on his arm, Rangers played the ball at him and he couldn't get out of the way.

After it the incident it was stated that the refs are told to take into consideration the impact of the handball over and above the 'deliberate' position.

ie in the 2 cases above Accies got an advantage not deliberate but it is still a foul.........................apparantly.

[SJ1210]

If McLeans arms were by his side it wouldn't have been a penalty, but he has put his out wide trying to "make himself big" and referees are always going to give penalties when the arms are in an "un-natural position".