Loon From Outta Toon Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 But, now Josh has returned, so no chance off seeing Coxy, play up front. Be interesting to see what he does because last season Josh & Jim just didn't work up front together.Will this maybe mean See & Peters up top?But then where does Easton go? Cause he'd wasted out on the wing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bernardblack Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 So happy Josh is back. Him just behind Lister for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jupiter Jazz Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Chuffed to see Josh back, the lad clearly knows where the goal is. I'd throw him straight in. Hopefully Marc Scott is fit again, he was missed at Raith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bernardblack Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 That front four of: Cox Josh Scott Lister That works for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wet Wullie Posted August 23, 2017 Author Share Posted August 23, 2017 Just now, bernardblack said: That front four of: Cox Josh Scott Lister That works for me It works if Cox can start to influence games in that wide right position the same way Scott does on the left. Not done enough so far. Another member of the undroppable squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jupiter Jazz Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 It's all got a bit tricky all of a sudden. Easton has to play as far as i'm concerned and not on the wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotTakesForDays Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 It's all got a bit tricky all of a sudden. Easton has to play as far as i'm concerned and not on the wing. why? he does nothing but p**s about with the ball and try and buy fouls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buchan30 Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 It all hinges on whether he got the slightest of touches and going by this clip it looks like he does. The touch is faint, will depend how lenient the ref/panel are feeling. Even seeing it as it happened, the boy made a genuine attempt to play the ball, was maybe a bit unfortunate to see red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_the_rover Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Cox always hurts the Rovers. We should have solved the problem years ago: by signing him. We tried couldn't compete with the deal forfar offered him, same script with lister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_the_rover Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Just for the record I think it's a straight red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jupiter Jazz Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 He gets a wee touch on the ball, he can't then disappear!? So - even if he doesn't get a touch - that game is ruined and then there is a suspension on top. For something like that? Crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_the_rover Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 For me it doesn't matter if he got a touch it looks like his other leg that catches the player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buchan30 Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 If thats after though, you could say it was momentum. Think what the appeal will focus on will whether he touched the ball. Ive watches the replay several times, and even I'm unsure. Depends what the ref sees as well, to everyone in real time it looked like a straight red, suppose the ref, like the probably everyone in the stadium seen the guy take the buchanan out. And the ball doesnt change direction. The ref has a split second decision to make and by the letter of the law he had to go. Suppose that is where they are hoping this VAR thing will come in useful in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jupiter Jazz Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Whether he touches is it or not a suspension on top is just daft and the rule should be looked at. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksteinson Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Be interesting to see what he does because last season Josh & Jim just didn't work up front together.Will this maybe mean See & Peters up top?But then where does Easton go? Cause he'd wasted out on the wing! True, very much, a play maker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksteinson Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 For me it doesn't matter if he got a touch it looks like his other leg that catches the player It would, if he tumbles, to ground. There was no, intent, to bring player down.Could, argue that Raith player, played for foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buchan30 Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 It would, if he tumbles, to ground. There was no, intent, to bring player down.Could, argue that Raith player, played for foul. Are intent and whether he plays the ball not what the appeal will be based on? Intent? Nah, it's a genuine attempt to tackle and get the ball. The big question the panel will have to deal with is did he touch it? Can see why they have appealed, but whether it's successful is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_the_rover Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Whether he touches is it or not a suspension on top is just daft and the rule should be looked at. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. What do you mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_the_rover Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 It would, if he tumbles, to ground. There was no, intent, to bring player down.Could, argue that Raith player, played for foul. But if it's a foul it's a foul played for it or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_the_rover Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Are intent and whether he plays the ball not what the appeal will be based on? Intent? Nah, it's a genuine attempt to tackle and get the ball. The big question the panel will have to deal with is did he touch it? Can see why they have appealed, but whether it's successful is another matter. Even if he does touch it, the laws of the game state he must touch the ball with the same part of the body that touches the man. What I'm saying is it looks like his trailing leg and body bring the man down so it's a foul. The fact he is running clean through towards the goal means it's a clear goal scoring opportunity thereof a red card. Ad a neutral in this situation for me it's a clear red card and can't understand what forfar see contrary to that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.