Jump to content

St. Mirren & Craig Thomson v R*ngers


Captain_Sensible

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 691
  • Created
  • Last Reply

In summary:

- the disallowed goal was an utterly baffling decision;

- Weiss should have been sent off for throwing a punch at Van Zanten. McGowan was sent off for a similarly petulent outburst at Kilmarnock:

- Boughera (sp?) handled the ball in the lead up to their second goal. It wasn't given, so it goes;

- Naismith was offside when he scored. It wasn't given, ho hum;

- Papac looked OS for one of the goals, but it could be argued that he wasn't interfering with play. I wouldn't take that view - surprise, surprise;

- Wardlaw was not OS when clean-through;

- Our penalty award was very soft, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been given if Rangers hadn't already been 3-0 up;

- We competed well enough in the first half but individual errors cost us;

- Rangers weren't very good but were better than us where it counted, so deserved to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In summary:

- the disallowed goal was an utterly baffling decision; - Agree

- Weiss should have been sent off for throwing a punch at Van Zanten. McGowan was sent off for a similarly petulent outburst at Kilmarnock: - Agree he rasied his hand but hardly a punch! But he could have gone is the bottom line.

- Boughera (sp?) handled the ball in the lead up to their second goal. It wasn't given, so it goes; - Wrong

- Naismith was offside when he scored. It wasn't given, ho hum; - wrong

- Papac looked OS for one of the goals, but it could be argued that he wasn't interfering with play. I wouldn't take that view - surprise, surprise; Agree

- Wardlaw was not OS when clean-through; - wrong

- Our penalty award was very soft, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been given if Rangers hadn't already been 3-0 up; Agree

- We competed well enough in the first half but individual errors cost us; Sat in and defended well - I thought the boy on Loan from Celtic looked quite good

- Rangers weren't very good but were better than us where it counted, so deserved to win. Agree

Agree with more than I disagree with blink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We shot ourselves in the foot with some of our defending at times.

The first goal could of been avoided had we kept our heads but Rangers were turning the screw and put a bit of pressure on us and we couldnt handle it.

The 2nd goal was poor to lose and the 3rd was a disgrace.

Not much point blaming the ref as you look like a complete paranoid daftie and we lost fair and square.

I'm assuming Higdon was carrying a knock? We looked a far greater threat when he came on.Lets hope he starts on wednesday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with more than I disagree with blink.gif

On the Weiss incident, it was no less a case of violent conduct than that which McGowan received a red card for. He was fortunate to stay on. This, along with the disallowed goal, were the two biggest decisions made in error by the referee/assts. The others were typical calls that could have gone either way

Naismith was offside IMO, and Papac was standing in or around the 6 yard box, and, as such, could have been regarded as interfering with play. It's a matter of interpretion.

Wardlaw was in-line. Even so, it would have been an opportunity at best. Not a big decision.

All in all, I'm not whining about it. We didn't deserve anything from the match. The result is a fair reflection.

Anyway, back on 'ignore' for you ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naismith was offside IMO, and Papac was standing in or around the 6 yard box, and, as such, could have been regarded as interfering with play. It's a matter of interpretion.

Not really - "interfering with play" is specifically defined in the laws of the game as "playing or touching the ball passed ortouched by a team-mate". Neither was he "interfering with an opponent" - he was the other side of the opponents so was not "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision".

Of course whether the rules are "right" is open for debate but Papac was by definition not active, and therefore could not be penalised.

Naismith was behind the ball when Lafferty played it, and so was not offside. Bougherra could have had handball against him though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really - "interfering with play" is specifically defined in the laws of the game as "playing or touching the ball passed ortouched by a team-mate". Neither was he "interfering with an opponent" - he was the other side of the opponents so was not "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision".

Of course whether the rules are "right" is open for debate but Papac was by definition not active, and therefore could not be penalised.

Naismith was behind the ball when Lafferty played it, and so was not offside. Bougherra could have had handball against him though.

Fair enough. The rules of the game can be a bit of a mystery to me, so I'm happy to go with what you're saying. I'd assumed that a player who is potentially occupying the 'keeper or defence (ie - standing in an area where he requires covering) could be deemed as interfering with play. I stand corrected.

On Naismith, I'd need to look at it again. I was pretty sure he looked OS.

As I've already said, these were not the big calls IMO, so no greetin' on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Weiss incident, it was no less a case of violent conduct than that which McGowan received a red card for. He was fortunate to stay on.

Indeed. Wondering whether this was why he was hooked. Lafferty did very well when he came on, but Weiss was probably the biggest threat Rangers had in the first place so it's not as if it was a strictly offensive change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. The rules of the game can be a bit of a mystery to me, so I'm happy to go with what you're saying. I'd assumed that a player who is potentially occupying the 'keeper or defence (ie - standing in an area where he requires covering) could be deemed as interfering with play. I stand corrected.

On Naismith, I'd need to look at it again. I was pretty sure he looked OS.

As I've already said, these were not the big calls IMO, so no greetin' on my part.

Yeah, by any reasonable interpretation you would say that Papac was "active" in that he was waiting for the ball to reach him, and not away out on the wing or whatever. In reality, the keeper and McAusland would have been aware of his presence and arguably distracted. The rules are actually clear though, which kind of annoys me every time a pundit goes on about how confusing they've become.

We really just crumbled when Rangers stepped it up, McAusland was perhaps unlucky with the first goal (although I think we need to expect better) and made a total mess of the third, not sure what was going through his head there. We do look a lot better organized in the last couple of games though and the shape of the team is a lot better. We have a hard few games but I'd like to think we can get more points from the next 11 games than we did from the first round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, by any reasonable interpretation you would say that Papac was "active" in that he was waiting for the ball to reach him, and not away out on the wing or whatever. In reality, the keeper and McAusland would have been aware of his presence and arguably distracted. The rules are actually clear though, which kind of annoys me every time a pundit goes on about how confusing they've become.

We really just crumbled when Rangers stepped it up, McAusland was perhaps unlucky with the first goal (although I think we need to expect better) and made a total mess of the third, not sure what was going through his head there. We do look a lot better organized in the last couple of games though and the shape of the team is a lot better. We have a hard few games but I'd like to think we can get more points from the next 11 games than we did from the first round.

Aye, it wasn't too bad, and what is noticeable is that we now seem to have clear tactics and, as you say, better shape to the team. Earlier in the season, I'd have struggled to describe exactly what formation and tactics we were attempting to play (I suspect Lennon would have too, if he was being totally honest).

McAusland had a bad afternoon. These things happen. We can only hope that he'll learn from his errors as opposed to letting his confidence take a knock, and his head to go down.

I agree that we should start to compete more effectively over the next round of matches. This season was always going to be a struggle, but if we can get a few players back into contention and settle into a reasonable pattern, we could have enough to hang in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. Wondering whether this was why he was hooked. Lafferty did very well when he came on, but Weiss was probably the biggest threat Rangers had in the first place so it's not as if it was a strictly offensive change.

:lol:

Yeah so much of a threat he was subbed. Weiss was playing with an injury and was abysmal in the first half. Are your eyes painted on? As for being sent off, even Thomson would have struggled to justify that.

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...