Jump to content

Livi V Rovers


Raith_Raver

Recommended Posts






Perhaps racism has no place in football or life in general? Just because nando has done that, does not make it acceptable behaviour. Its disgusting that racism exists in any form.

There’s nothing racist about the chant at all and the player himself enjoys it and has posted videos of himself and others singing it, but good to see you’ve become offended on his behalf.

Grow up you wee snowflake, bet you were the one who complained about Sammy the Tammy in his tank.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all impressed by our new keeper in the 2nd half - slowed up the play far too much making it easy for Raith to regroup into the shape they wanted, we should have been getting the ball forward much quicker to mix it up.  When he was kicking it out in the 1st half, he was shite!

I have to say that I am fed up watching Lamie and Sibbald constantly give the ball away, but Holt seems very loyal to these guys.

Thanks to the wee handful of Raith neds who gave me the best laugh of the day outside the stadium, the "who are you looking at" patter from a drunk juvenile was priceless!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big question now - black cock and positive racism aside - is ‘will Livi win the cup?’

How many teams is it who have beaten us in recent years then went on to win the cup? Probably helps if it’s a Quarter-Final you beat us in, but still. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laugh it up chump, your team was  pish, if that the standard of the SPL, we as a country football wise are in a sorry state. If the rest of the league kick on Lavvi will be relegated and deservedly so.
Pish team with a tinpot set up and no support, hope your next cash crisis will be the end of it.
I was hoping to see some tears on here. Unfortunately, most of the Raith support have been pretty measured in their comments. True, we've had some lovely displays of ignorance regarding the whole racist chant thing. That was entertaining...but there's nothing like a bit of bitterness from the opposition to sweeten a victory, whether it's against Celtic or Raith Rovers. So, thank you for delivering.

And don't be sad. Your team tried really hard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upon reflection, and a quick Google, is it a case that the law is an ass, rather than the referee? 

"The handball rule now has extra clarity because it does not consider intent by a player. 
 
Another big change is to do with the position of a player's hand/arm.
 
If the ball hits a player who has made their body "unnaturally bigger" then a foul will be awarded.
 
IFAB says that having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a "natural" position and a player is "taking a risk" by having the hand/arm in that position, including when sliding. 
 
It is, however, considered natural for a player to put their arm between their body and the ground for support when falling, so long as the arm is not extended to make the body bigger."
 
The dividing line on a call like yesterday's, as per the laws of the game, is whether "the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger" which is usually a penalty, or "the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger" which usually isn't.
 
It's a really badly worded law. First of all, the idea of "unnatural" is ridiculous, unless a defender's arm suddenly detaches from his body and levitates somewhere near the top corner of the goal. But it's also clearly written to apply to "blocks". Hands by your side? No issue. Hands out wide to try and stop the ball? Penalty. And that's generally fine. But it goes to pieces with situations like yesterday. 

image.png.699c309e2359017d7a61b257cd765369.png

Is Davidson's arm in an "unnatural" position? As above, I wouldn't have said so purely on the basis that the limb is still attached to his body, rather than scuttling across the pitch in the manner of the Addams Family's Thing. But looking at the two examples given in the Law above, which fits better?  

(a) Has the ball touched Davidson’s hand/arm which has made his body unnaturally bigger? Maybe. His arm is sticking out, although it's nowhere near "above his shoulder" which is where the law gets specific, and the ball's probably going to come off his knee anyway. 

Or, (b) Has the ball touched Davidson’s hand/arm which is close to his body and has not made his body unnaturally bigger? Eh, again, maybe? His arm isn't particularly close to his body, he's turning at the moment of that screengrab, and his momentum is taking his arm wide. 

On balance, it's possibly closer to "b" than it is to "a", which the law dictates wouldn't "usually" be a penalty, but it's such a fine line for the referee to judge. Intent is so much easier for a referee to assess. Even when blocking a shot, this new law is still okay. "Would that have gone in if the defender hadn't thrown his arms out like that?" But situations like this, a ball dropping from the air, a defender unsighted, moving away from goal? The rule just makes a referee's life more difficult, because he's assessing largely arbitrary factors like placement of the arm, when (i imagine) most "football people" would look at that and tell you that it shouldn't be a penalty. 

And why should it not be a penalty? Because there's absolutely nothing Davidson can do.  For it to be punishable, there really needs to be something you can point at to say "he shouldn't have done that". The ball comes down over his shoulder, he's visibly looking around trying to see where it's gone, and the first thing he knows about it is when it bounces off his elbow. How does he (or any other defender) prevent that? Defend any loose ball with your hands behind your back, like that spate of weird attempts to block crosses at the 2010 World Cup?

 

Edited by Raith Against The Machine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scary Bear said:

How many teams is it who have beaten us in recent years then went on to win the cup? Probably helps if it’s a Quarter-Final you beat us in, but still. 

To be honest I'm not sure many are really bothered. I imagine that focusing on promotion to the championship is more important to Raith than a couple more cup games and, for Livi, the benefits of finishing in the top[ six far out-weight a cup run unless you make it to the semis or better. Not only is there the increased prize money and five matches which could have a real impact on the final winner and runners up positions (increased gates etc.) but its also a guarantee that we'll be in the premiership next season.

There were huge gaps around me yesterday with seats, normally occupied by season ticket holders, left empty.

Its actually a bit of a mystery to me why more people didn't turn up to this game; playing the same teams 3 or 4 times a year (excluding cup games) sure should mean the opportunity to play someone difference would generate a bit more interest. Certainly by the number of supporters travelling over from Fife; one group got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scary Bear said:

The big question now - black cock and positive racism aside - is ‘will Livi win the cup?’

How many teams is it who have beaten us in recent years then went on to win the cup? Probably helps if it’s a Quarter-Final you beat us in, but still. 

Marvin Bartley mentioned this through the week, he was in the Hibs team that beat Raith and went on to win the cup.

After witnessing us being promoted back up into the top flight through the play offs 2 seasons ago i'm not writing anything off from this Livi team, that was so fucking unbelievable i'll tell you. Still had to pinch myself last season to make sure I hadn't just dreamt it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot how hypersensitive and mummy boy liberal pie and Bovril is. Getting offended on behalf for other people. it’s a joke and a good hearted one. and I bet 90% of who you’re looking out for would tell you to sit your soft touch white boy ass down.
 
^^^ Never has a P&B post screamed "impotence" as loudly as this belter. Fucking hell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upon reflection, and a quick Google, is it a case that the law is an ass, rather than the referee? 
"The handball rule now has extra clarity because it does not consider intent by a player.    Another big change is to do with the position of a player's hand/arm.   If the ball hits a player who has made their body "unnaturally bigger" then a foul will be awarded.   IFAB says that having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a "natural" position and a player is "taking a risk" by having the hand/arm in that position, including when sliding.    It is, however, considered natural for a player to put their arm between their body and the ground for support when falling, so long as the arm is not extended to make the body bigger."   The dividing line on a call like yesterday's, as per the laws of the game, is whether "the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger" which is usually a penalty, or "the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger" which usually isn't.   It's a really badly worded law. First of all, the idea of "unnatural" is ridiculous, unless a defender's arm suddenly detaches from his body and levitates somewhere near the top corner of the goal. But it's also clearly written to apply to "blocks". Hands by your side? No issue. Hands out wide to try and stop the ball? Penalty. And that's generally fine. But it goes to pieces with situations like yesterday.  image.png.699c309e2359017d7a61b257cd765369.png
Is Davidson's arm in an "unnatural" position? As above, I wouldn't have said so purely on the basis that the limb is still attached to his body, rather than scuttling across the pitch in the manner of the Addams Family's Thing. But looking at the two examples given in the Law above, which fits better?  
(a) Has the ball touched Davidson’s hand/arm which has made his body unnaturally bigger? Maybe. His arm is sticking out, although it's nowhere near "above his shoulder" which is where the law gets specific, and the ball's probably going to come off his knee anyway. 
Or, (b) Has the ball touched Davidson’s hand/arm which is close to his body and has not made his body unnaturally bigger? Eh, again, maybe? His arm isn't particularly close to his body, he's turning at the moment of that screengrab, and his momentum is taking his arm wide. 
On balance, it's possibly closer to "b" than it is to "a", which the law dictates wouldn't "usually" be a penalty, but it's such a fine line for the referee to judge. Intent is so much easier for a referee to assess. Even when blocking a shot, this new law is still okay. "Would that have gone in if the defender hadn't thrown his arms out like that?" But situations like this, a ball dropping from the air, a defender unsighted, moving away from goal? The rule just makes a referee's life more difficult, because he's assessing largely arbitrary factors like placement of the arm, when (i imagine) most "football people" would look at that and tell you that it shouldn't be a penalty. 
And why should it not be a penalty? Because there's absolutely nothing Davidson can do.  For it to be punishable, there really needs to be something you can point at to say "he shouldn't have done that". The ball comes down over his shoulder, he's visibly looking around trying to see where it's gone, and the first thing he knows about it is when it bounces off his elbow. How does he (or any other defender) prevent that? Defend any loose ball with your hands behind your back, like that spate of weird attempts to block crosses at the 2010 World Cup?
 
It's certainly borderline.

In simple terms, if it been a Livi defender who had handled it I would guess the Rovers support to a man would've been screaming for a penalty.

It was harsh on Davidson though. I felt sorry for him yesterday, in the grand scheme of red cards and goals he's given away over the years this was right at the top of the forgivable category.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first penalty is just annoying, frankly. It's a penalty though. The absence of going mental about it from a player whose favourite hobby is collecting cards for dissent says it all. 

McKay... fucking hell. Amateur stuff. 

Edited by Michael W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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