Jump to content

Dumbarton V Queens


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Sonsteam of 08 said:


I wouldn't have said it was incorrect, harsh, aye, but you can see why he gave it. Especially from behind the goal. It was more stupidity from Hamill to barge Thomson under no pressure.
 

Agree with this. I initially thought it wasn't a penalty but from behind the goal it was a needless barge. If Hamill hadn't done it, there would have been no decision to make.

There was no injustice in that game. We lost one goal due to inept defending and another due to stupidity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply
14 minutes ago, Flash said:

Agree with this. I initially thought it wasn't a penalty but from behind the goal it was a needless barge. If Hamill hadn't done it, there would have been no decision to make.

There was no injustice in that game. We lost one goal due to inept defending and another due to stupidity. 

Totally agree with this.

The first set of highlights made it look like there was nothing much, but the ones from behind the goal showed an unnecessary barge.

I said as much on the relevant thread at the time.

It felt like an 'injustice' in that it would be hard to argue that Dumbarton were the better side that day.  In terms of genuine unfairness attached to wrongful application of the rules though, there was none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, DumbartonTheSons said:

Queens in scoring more than us yesterday deserved their win but an extreme oddity that they claim not to see any of the manhandling of Nade, but see something that made the penalty decision at Palmerston an 'injustice'.

Whether it's soft or not is by the by, it was a penalty all day long.

Very strange.

Oh it was not. Behave. You got a break.

Edited to add: It was as soft an award as you're going to see. I'm not saying it's not a foul but nobody could seriously claim the contact there was caused Thomson to go down as he did. I don't think most referees would have given it. Some would. You got a decision. It's still not a "penalty all day long" though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh it was not. Behave. You got a break.
Edited to add: It was as soft an award as you're going to see. I'm not saying it's not a foul but nobody could seriously claim the contact there was caused Thomson to go down as he did. I don't think most referees would have given it. Some would. You got a decision. It's still not a "penalty all day long" though.


You're a very measured poster and even when disagreeing about something you give reasoned argument, which is rare on here.

But we'll agree to disagree. I think most referees would give it. Such was the lack of attempt in going for the ball. Whether Thomson goes over 'too easily' for some people's likings is a bit of a moot point, the foul is committed and genuinely, without any tinted specs on, I'd be raging if my side didn't get a penalty for that should the situation arise again.

But that was a good while ago now, surely there's things we can disagree on about yesterday instead? :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooops! Sorry, everybody, I didn't mean to start this hare running again. I agree, Hamill was asking the ref to make a decision. It's just that he made the wrong one imho. Whenever we get these  physicals with big strong guys tumbling over, I ask myself, as a non- religious person, not what Jesus would have given but what would Willie Young have done. On that occasion I suspect he would have told both of them to grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tam said:

Ooops! Sorry, everybody, I didn't mean to start this hare running again. I agree, Hamill was asking the ref to make a decision. It's just that he made the wrong one imho. Whenever we get these  physicals with big strong guys tumbling over, I ask myself, as a non- religious person, not what Jesus would have given but what would Willie Young have done. On that occasion I suspect he would have told both of them to grow up.

That is the point. Because there are different opinions on here and different refs would probably make different decisions, the intelligent thing to do is to not barge in the first place. Doing that when you know that players these days will often make a meal of it and you know that refs are inconsistent is the height of stupidity. Different thing if the guy is in with a chance of scoring. But presenting the opposition with as easy a goalscoring chance as you can get, just because you think you can get away with a needless foul is mental. And there is no injustice involved just because a ref applies the strict letter of the law when others don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Oh it was not. Behave. You got a break.

Edited to add: It was as soft an award as you're going to see. I'm not saying it's not a foul but nobody could seriously claim the contact there was caused Thomson to go down as he did. I don't think most referees would have given it. Some would. You got a decision. It's still not a "penalty all day long" though.

Major irony alert here, from a supporter of a team that until a few months ago contained Ian Russell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the point. Because there are different opinions on here and different refs would probably make different decisions, the intelligent thing to do is to not barge in the first place. Doing that when you know that players these days will often make a meal of it and you know that refs are inconsistent is the height of stupidity. Different thing if the guy is in with a chance of scoring. But presenting the opposition with as easy a goalscoring chance as you can get, just because you think you can get away with a needless foul is mental. And there is no injustice involved just because a ref applies the strict letter of the law when others don't.


Yes that sums it up neatly.

When a high ball is played into a striker with his back to goal the chances of a goal being scored are not high. As you say many defenders at all different levels (even top notch) seem to think that they can take huge risks with barging and wrestling relatively safe in the knowledge that most referees will give them the benefit of the doubt. Same things apply at corner wrestling.

On the rare occasions that a penalty is awarded you feel absolutely cheated because you have effectively given the opposition a freebie.

Good central defenders know that you cannot go and win every header in the pen box but some see it as a sign of weakness if they are not seen to be challenging strongly at every opportunity.

Going back to Hamill he is the type that I am referring to - went for a ball that was very high risk and gave the Ref a decision to make. I don't think it warranted a penalty but I blame Hamill more than the Ref.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dougie Mills said:

Russell was widely condemned by several Queens fans on here for his pathetic diving antics.

 

Speak for yourself, Iain Russell drawing mass seethe from the opposition by going down at the slightest contact was a highlight of watching him play. Not to mention the shit eating grin when he pulled it off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sloop John B said:

 

Speak for yourself, Iain Russell drawing mass seethe from the opposition by going down at the slightest contact was a highlight of watching him play. Not to mention the shit eating grin when he pulled it off...

Two reasons to dislike him then, Sorry three reasons, he plays for Airdrie now I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tam said:

Ooops! Sorry, everybody, I didn't mean to start this hare running again. I agree, Hamill was asking the ref to make a decision. It's just that he made the wrong one imho. Whenever we get these  physicals with big strong guys tumbling over, I ask myself, as a non- religious person, not what Jesus would have given but what would Willie Young have done. On that occasion I suspect he would have told both of them to grow up.

I'm pretty sure Hamill was suspended so would think it was impossible for him to have committed said foul 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Trollied said:

I'm pretty sure Hamill was suspended so would think it was impossible for him to have committed said foul 

Nah! This is the history class, discussing Palmerston 2016; you want modern studies next door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Oh it was not. Behave. You got a break.

Edited to add: It was as soft an award as you're going to see. I'm not saying it's not a foul but nobody could seriously claim the contact there was caused Thomson to go down as he did. I don't think most referees would have given it. Some would. You got a decision. It's still not a "penalty all day long" though.

I suggest you dry your eyes and move on from an incident that happened weeks ago. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

I suggest you dry your eyes and move on from an incident that happened weeks ago. 

 

I moved on from it weeks ago too. Wasnt me that brought it back up in this thread but since the subject was raised I am going to take issue with it when its suggested it was a definite penalty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...