Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2023/24

[DukDukGoose]

5 minutes ago, G51 said:

  Hide contents

"Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible."

8gamestoRed.

He's not challenging for the ball. It's clear and obvious for all to see.

[18May1991]

2 hours ago, AJF said:

 

The best decision in my opinion. This way he only misses 1 league match which has to be our main focus this month.

The game at the weekend v Motherwell? 

[G51]

Just now, Merkland Red said:

He's not challenging for the ball. It's clear and obvious for all to see.

He's clearly challenging the ball. He jumps for the header. Just because he doesn't win it doesn't mean he isn't challenging for it.

Dundee Utd had an almost identical incident later in the game, where the player was miles off winning the ball, but jumped to try and win it and ended up forearm smashing Arfield in the face. These things happen the whole time in football.

But as I said before, a) it's academic now because we decided to accept it, and b) there is almost nothing duller than arguing about the interpretation of a rulebook with the type of people who enjoy these things.

[Dons_1988]

Brass neck actually defending that challenge

[G51]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

Brass neck actually defending that challenge

Already said I thought it was a borderline yellow/red. Not that surprised Rangers have accepted it. I'm simply pointing out it isn't violent conduct.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, G51 said:

Already said I thought it was a borderline yellow/red. Not that surprised Rangers have accepted it. I'm simply pointing out it isn't violent conduct.

You’re pointing out an opinion. I would say he makes a clear movement to strike Connolly which is no longer challenging for the ball. you’re right though, it is dull.

[G51]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

You’re pointing out an opinion. I would say he makes a clear movement to strike Connolly which is no longer challenging for the ball. you’re right though, it is dull.

This is why it's a judgement call, and why we probably don't want to be re-refereeing decisions that a referee decided in real time was a yellow.

[DukDukGoose]

4 minutes ago, G51 said:

He's clearly challenging the ball. He jumps for the header. Just because he doesn't win it doesn't mean he isn't challenging for it.

Dundee Utd had an almost identical incident later in the game, where the player was miles off winning the ball, but jumped to try and win it and ended up forearm smashing Arfield in the face. These things happen the whole time in football.

But as I said before, a) it's academic now because we decided to accept it, and b) there is almost nothing duller than arguing about the interpretation of a rulebook with the type of people who enjoy these things.

He swings his arm at the player after the player had headed the ball away. It was a cowards 'challenge' if that's what you're intent on calling it.

It's not academic. Dundee United missed the chance to play against 10 men for the majority of the game. Rangers are now missing a good player for the game against Motherwell who are one point ahead of United.

[Dons_1988]

Tbh I just watched it again and I think it’s laughable to argue it’s not violent conduct. In my opinion, obviously. 

[G51]

Just now, Merkland Red said:

He swings his arm at the player after the player had headed the ball away. It was a cowards 'challenge' if that's what you're intent on calling it.

It's not academic. Dundee United missed the chance to play against 10 men for the majority of the game. Rangers are now missing a good player for the game against Motherwell who are one point ahead of United.

Again, players getting caught with late arms swung towards them in aerial challenges happens very regularly, including within this match. Some folk are losing the run of themselves over this, as often happens when Morelos does almost anything in football. You'd think he stamped on Connolly given the hysteria generated over it. It's not the slam-dunk red card that some are desperate to make it.

Dundee Utd missed the chance to play against 10 men in a game that they were absolutely dominated in. They had two shots from open play the entire match, and one of those was from several light years away. Maybe the red card would have made a difference, but I think it's significantly more likely that the outcome would have been the exact same. Dundee Utd didn't lose that game cause Morelos stayed on the park, they lost that game because they couldn't even build a counter attack.

Rangers could easily have had two penalties in that game that weren't given. There are what if's on both sides. That's refereeing and that's football, and the inability of people to accept that is what has caused VAR.

[DukDukGoose]

Just now, G51 said:

Again, players getting caught with late arms swung towards them in aerial challenges happens very regularly, including within this match. Some folk are losing the run of themselves over this, as often happens when Morelos does almost anything in football. You'd think he stamped on Connolly given the hysteria generated over it. It's not the slam-dunk red card that some are desperate to make it.

Dundee Utd missed the chance to play against 10 men in a game that they were absolutely dominated in. They had two shots from open play the entire match, and one of those was from several light years away. Maybe the red card would have made a difference, but I think it's significantly more likely that the outcome would have been the exact same. Dundee Utd didn't lose that game cause Morelos stayed on the park, they lost that game because they couldn't even build a counter attack.

Rangers could easily have had two penalties in that game that weren't given. There are what if's on both sides. That's refereeing and that's football, and the inability of people to accept that is what has caused VAR.

 

[ewan14]

2 hours ago, kingjoey said:

He did initially challenge for the ball, but two seconds after that he stuck his forearm into Connelly’s throat/jaw.

Watch the clip featuring Morelos . His eyes are always on the Dundee Utd. player , never the ball

It was a premeditated assault

[G51]

1 minute ago, Merkland Red said:

 

Down like a sack of tatties. Soft.

This is how a real defender responds to getting smashed by a forearm.

https://twitter.com/billytf/status/1338571188243664898?s=20

 

 

[DukDukGoose]

2 minutes ago, G51 said:

Down like a sack of tatties. Soft.

This is how a real defender responds to getting smashed by a forearm.

https://twitter.com/billytf/status/1338571188243664898?s=20

 

 

What am I supposed to be looking at here? 

[G51]

6 minutes ago, G51 said:

Some folk are losing the run of themselves over this, as often happens when Morelos does almost anything in football. You'd think he stamped on Connolly given the hysteria generated over it.

 

 

4 minutes ago, ewan14 said:

It was a premeditated assault

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, G51 said:

 

Arguing it was a genuine challenge is more embarrassing. 

[Jacksgranda]

35 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Brass neck actually defending that challenge

Brass neck to survive it, Shirley?

[G51]

5 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Arguing it was a genuine challenge is more embarrassing. 

lol

[Ira Gaines]

Morelos deliberately elbows him in the face. It's clear violent conduct. Not borderline and not a judgement call. It's a clear red card.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, G51 said:

lol

^^^ Kens it