I have the fear again

[Buddist Monk]

3 minutes ago, Howlin' Wilf said:

Looks to me like he went in with the elbow up. Absolutely crazy thing to do in the middle of the park with nothing at stake. Red card no doubt.

It's a really daft thing to post a static image and claim that in some way it proves anything. If anything it devalues your argument.

[Howlin' Wilf]

It's a really daft thing to post a static image and claim that in some way it proves anything. If anything it devalues your argument.

It’s a screen grab from Sons TV and shows the player going in with the elbow. There is no argument to be devalued. It’s a red card.

[CamaroSaint]

It was ridiculous and a clear red.  Intent doesn't come into it.  If he meant it it's a clear red.  If he didn't mean it he shouldn't be playing football at this level and it's still a clear red.  I honestly can't see him playing for us again.  I don't think Jack got on very well with him before this.  It was a well deserved win for Dumbarton.  I thought (goal aside) our defence looked good today - Baird has stepped right up next to Harry.  We desperately missed Cammy Smith and I'm sure Jack will be looking at strengthening there in January.  Onwards and hopefully upwards.

[Buddist Monk]

Just now, Howlin' Wilf said:

It’s a screen grab from Sons TV and shows the player going in with the elbow. There is no argument to be devalued. It’s a red card.

It might be a screen grab but why do that when the video of the incident, something that shows it in much greater clarity, was available?

As I say, it weakens your case. I for example could argue that the Dumbarton player is the one showing aggression. He is looking directly at the player while Stellios is not. Your natural response would be, "that's not true, look at the video" and thus this is my point.

Posting a static image of something we already have moving footage for does nothing but reduce the amount of evidence available and conversely increases the conjecture available.

Do I need to state that I don't disagree that it was both stupid and that the referee gave a red card? I'm not arguing over that, just the granular

[Buddist Monk]

4 minutes ago, CamaroSaint said:

Intent doesn't come into it. 

Sorry but like the previous poster, you're not correct in that assumption, intent most certainly does come into it.

However I agree with the rest of your comment regarding the timeline left for Stellios at the club, and I wonder if perhaps his lack of game time maybe made him more motivated in making an impact. Not excusing him in any way, just thinking about the motivations.

[Howlin' Wilf]

9 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

It might be a screen grab but why do that when the video of the incident, something that shows it in much greater clarity, was available?

As I say, it weakens your case. I for example could argue that the Dumbarton player is the one showing aggression. He is looking directly at the player while Stellios is not. Your natural response would be, "that's not true, look at the video" and thus this is my point.

Posting a static image of something we already have moving footage for does nothing but reduce the amount of evidence available and conversely increases the conjecture available.

Do I need to state that I don't disagree that it was both stupid and that the referee gave a red card? I'm not arguing over that, just the granular

OK, here's a video

[flyingscot]

It was a clear red. The crowd reaction summed it up. There was a bit of niggle between them which Dallas didn't sort out. He saw an opportunity and took it.

And yes Livi, Toderov in particular, got away with it, but it was a wrong call and he should have walked too.

Stelios is a strange player. He won't be leaving in Jan, because if L. Smith or Eckersley get injured we will need him. Presumably Jack didn't realise which Smith was injured when he put him in the team. Should have been a 4-4-2 with Stewart or Sutton coming in.

[Jan Vojáček]

Is 'Buddhist Monk' suggesting that red cards should only be given if there is intent?

There isn't intent in the majority of red card offences. Most of them are just poorly timed and/or judged.

To judge it on a player's motive would make the job impossible for referees. Absolutely impossible.

Stelios endangered Sam Wardrop. He could've seriously hurt him quite easily. Only he will know if he meant it. It's therefore a red.

[DumbartonTheSons]

Having just seen the highlights again, it's a clear red card.

Stelios has had at least one look if not two, at Sam Wardrop, which to me, would signal intent. Only stelios will actually know.

But he's led with his elbow. End of. Therefore a red card.

[Howlin' Wilf]

Just in case there is any remaining doubt, here it is in slow motion.

[Howlin' Wilf]

And here is the goal (no more gifs ed)

[Rock Hudson]

This is a direct quote from the current FIFA Laws of the Game book.

“Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off”, no mention of intent there.
Hopefully this clears up your argument Buddhist Monk.

I don’t think this has been mentioned yet, but I thought it was poor that St Mirren (Eckersley?) didn’t return the ball to us after we had put it out when Froxy went down injured. Especially after the roles were reversed earlier in the half and we returned it to them.

[optimistic]

You can’t even defend stelios, full of intent, judging by the amount of times he looks at wardrop. I don’t even remember any niggles between the two before hand, just saying that Sam was best man on the park up to that stage, until dowie, Hutton, and Walsh took over

[sonsanorak]

Stelios appeared to go down off the ball near Wardrop, holding his privates just before the incident.

Aye, but Sam tapped him on the shoulder on the way by, said something to him and then took enough time about getting to the ball and preparing for the throw in to allow him to get up again.

I think there was a healthy level of aggression and respect from Sam.

[Buddist Monk]

1 hour ago, Howlin' Wilf said:

OK, here's a video

1 hour ago, Howlin' Wilf said:

Just in case there is any remaining doubt, here it is in slow motion.

These two comments only underline how pointless it was to show a still image.

52 minutes ago, Rock Hudson said:

“Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off”, no mention of intent there.

Actually it does, just indirectly. The game has laws which are interpreted, part of that interpretation is where the intent comes in.

I am not defending Stellios here, btw, please don't assume that is the case here. What I am stating is that as the referee interprets and not just implements them, then intent, context and all other sorts of metrics are applied. It's pretty much why every refereeing decision is open to debate.

The ref sees it as a red card, as a Saints fan I accept that decision.

[lionel wickson]

2 hours ago, Buddist Monk said:

If there was a game to miss, it seems like it was this one, so in that sense I'm glad I avoided this mess.

From reports it seems like we were just off the pace all day long, with the red card simply changing the outcome from a likely draw and possible victory to a likely loss.  Dumbarton should get a lot of credit though, as you can only beat what is put in front of you, and it doesn't matter if that is a team at the top or the bottom of the league.

I've looked at the sending off a couple of times and I know that people will think that I am being bias but I see that far more as just a clumsy challenge with trailing arms than anything else. The ref gave a red and I can see why, but look at the replay he's not even looking at the player, his eyes are on the ball all the time. I need a different angle but I'd put it down to bad judgement than necessarily malicious. I could talk more about Stellios but I'll be surprised if he's still with us come the end of the January window. At his best he is a great asset - in short doses - yet at his worst he is a game loser.

Now, the red card shouldn't be used as the cause of our defeat, albeit it's clearly a catalyst. It just seems like we weren't at the races. We are not Celtic, no matter how many signs we put up , so we should not expect long unbeaten runs but, all in all, I'm still a lot happier at the way this season is going than last. I'd much prefer this game being looked at as a missed chance to turn the screw on United rather than a huge pothole in the road that will cause instability in the team.

 

If you had been at the game, you would realise that that would have been unpossible.

2 hours ago, GAD said:

That was because one of our players (can't remember who) rattled them with the ball. Wardrop was basically just up Stelios' arse, getting into him and niggling. Stelios lost the plot and deserved his red, it was a cheap shot.

Spot on. At no time was there any off-the ball contact between Wardrop and Stelios' gonads.

[Bobby_F]

48 minutes ago, Rock Hudson said:

This is a direct quote from the current FIFA Laws of the Game book.

“Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off”, no mention of intent there.
Hopefully this clears up your argument Buddhist Monk.

I don’t think this has been mentioned yet, but I thought it was poor that St Mirren (Eckersley?) didn’t return the ball to us after we had put it out when Froxy went down injured. Especially after the roles were reversed earlier in the half and we returned it to them.

The way I saw that Eckersley DID throw it back to you, but for some reason a Dumbarton player knocked it back out and we took the next throw in normally?

On the game, truly awful performance from us.

Boy did we miss Cammy Smith.  Morgan also off his game. We looked pretty solid defensively, but had very little creativity going forward.

Don’t feel we were under any great pressure at any point, even when down to 10. But we never really looked like scoring either.

Aside from the stramashes in the last couple of minutes can only really remember Magennis hitting one just past the post, McShane ballooning one over when in a great position, and Morgan doing similar.

Not good enough by a long way if we’ve any hopes of actually winning this league.

[Buddist Monk]

Just now, lionel wickson said:

If you had been at the game, you would realise that that would have been unpossible.

unpossible and imlikely?

[lionel wickson]

1 minute ago, Buddist Monk said:

unpossible and imlikely?

Ralph Wiggum fan as well, by any chance?

[Buddist Monk]

6 minutes ago, lionel wickson said:

Ralph Wiggum fan as well, by any chance?

I'll be honest, I didn't recognise the quote.