Aberdeen vs Rangers - 1st of August

[afc_blockhead]

11 hours ago, TonyFerrino said:

Thanks.  It's not that hard when communicating with you though chief.  

If its not hard you should have made a better job than "mince". Poor

[Green Day]

8 hours ago, wingnut said:

Darren is a Celtic fan,his mum and dad stay up the road from me.

Might be a stereotype of Rangers/Celtic fans outside of Glasgow but I would have a bit more respect for DF if he didnt take the same lazy option growing up.

Supporting a team that plays 50 miles from your home simply because he/you went to an RC school would be a headscratcher anywhere but Scotland..............................

[RandomGuy.]

8 hours ago, Snifter Pee Rot said:

O'Halloran's first booking at Tannadice looked much the same as Considine's red, didn't have a pair of Brother Madden goggles on mind. 

 

8 hours ago, RussellAnderson said:

it was worse!

And he shouldve been sent off for it. A horrendous tackle that ticks every single box for a straight red.

Not sure why Clancy being incompetent means Considine shouldn't have been sent off for a stonewall red hours earlier tbh.

[KnightswoodBear]

13 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

And he shouldve been sent off for it. A horrendous tackle that ticks every single box for a straight red.

Not sure why Clancy being incompetent means Considine shouldn't have been sent off for a stonewall red hours earlier tbh.

Because Sevco. 

[bennett]

11 hours ago, Jute said:

Both Boyd and McCoist said the same on Sky after the game.

On sky they mentioned Arfield going off the ground and why he would've done that, a huge difference from sportscene....

 

 

 

[kent_don]

10 hours ago, RussellAnderson said:

Never a red for Considine in a million years. A hard tackle aye, but one footed, not off the ground, gets the ball, doesnt really get the man. not even a foul. 

Will get plenty of pelters for using a still photo to evaluate the card. But your description is spot on.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

Sadly, that type of tackle...straight leg, with force, studs up.....will always be red card (or should be). 

I've no doubt that there was no malice from Andy and he was just desperately trying to win the ball, but it's a stick on red. 

[RandomGuy.]

4 minutes ago, kent_don said:

Will get plenty of pelters for using a still photo to evaluate the card. But your description is spot on.

And he goes over the ball and through into Arfields shin.

You cant tackle like that head on anymore.

[Jute]

24 minutes ago, bennett said:

On sky they mentioned Arfield going off the ground and why he would've done that, a huge difference from sportscene....

 

 

 

McCoist said in post game stuff on Sky that Arfield was lucky as if he had arrived at the ball first it would have been him that was red carded. Boyd then agreed with him. 

[Green Day]

13 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Sadly, that type of tackle...straight leg, with force, studs up.....will always be red card (or should be). 

I've no doubt that there was no malice from Andy and he was just desperately trying to win the ball, but it's a stick on red. 

There will be tackles like that one in any season where some fans will scream "FFS ref,  he got the ball" without understanding that it is dangerous and should always be a red.

The obvious differences are "Old Firm" matches where crunching, illegal tackles are deemed all part of the fun - like kicking the shite out of the wife - and for a ref to brandish a red for that tackle would be tantamount to admitting membership of The Lodge / Priesthood (delete as appropriate).

[Savage Henry]

44 minutes ago, kent_don said:

Will get plenty of pelters for using a still photo to evaluate the card. But your description is spot on.

He’ll get “plenty of pelters” because it’s a terrible challenge that clearly deserved a red card, and he’s only defending it because it’s an Aberdeen player.   And a still shot is absolutely no evidence of a foul one way or the other.  Considine was out of control, went over the ball (despite what the photo appears to show) and made contact with Arfield.  It’s a red card all day long.

[RussellAnderson]

its not a terrible challenge. I must have missed the memo that you cant tackle with a straight leg anymore? seems to be the description given for this one and the explanation for why it is a red. i will say, he did use some force in getting the ball, but it wasnt excessive by anyones standard. 

Im not even trying to be confrontational or contrarian here, its not really my style. I am just  genuinely baffled!!

[RussellAnderson]

52 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

And he goes over the ball and through into Arfields shin.

You cant tackle like that head on anymore.

he doesnt go over the ball! hes not over the ball in the picture youve put up to demonstrate hes over the ball!!

[Clockwork]

Initial thought was that Arfield had also ‘jumped’ into the tackle with both feet off the ground and just came off worse?

On seeing the reply several times (which the ref didn’t have the benefit of), did Arfield raise both feet in anticipation of Considine coming right through the ball with his studs up? I think he probably did on balance and in which case these days, even without malice, it’s a straight Red.

The other possibility of course is Considine raised his leading leg, ‘studs up’ going through the tackle as a protective reaction to Arfield going in with both feet??

The Ref had an immediate decision to make on the timing of both actions, and think he got it right.

 

 

 

[DukDukGoose]

1 hour ago, Green Day said:

There will be tackles like that one in any season where some fans will scream "FFS ref,  he got the ball" without understanding that it is dangerous and should always be a red.

The obvious differences are "Old Firm" matches where crunching, illegal tackles are deemed all part of the fun - like kicking the shite out of the wife - and for a ref to brandish a red for that tackle would be tantamount to admitting membership of The Lodge / Priesthood (delete as appropriate).

Come on now. Referees have to understand the magnitude of the game.

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

And he goes over the ball and through into Arfields shin.

You cant tackle like that head on anymore.

I agree it was a definite red for going in studs up but can you please stop saying it was over the ball? It clearly wasn't and you are implying a level of malice that simply wasn't there. 

[kingjoey]

2 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

And he goes over the ball and through into Arfields shin.

You cant tackle like that head on anymore.

Absolute nonsense saying he went over the ball. In that still, Arfield's foot is past Considine's boot which is behind the ball, and there was no contact between Considine's boot and Arfield's leg. Don't get so precious about your Saintee players. No sensible person is saying that Considine shouldn't have been sent off, and every sensible person is saying that the Saints player should also have been sent off for his first yellow. 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Arfield dived.

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, kingjoey said:

No sensible person is saying that Considine shouldn't have been sent off, and every sensible person is saying that the Saints player should also have been sent off for his first yellow. 

They literally are saying it shouldve been a yellow if O'Hallorans was a yellow.

If you could read then you'd be able to see I've been saying O'Halloran shouldve been sent off for his tackle. An abysmal challenge and probably worse than Considines due to the pace he goes into it at.

[kingjoey]

I obviously don’t read as much as you, as I haven’t seen anyone saying that Considine should have received a yellow because the Saints player only received a yellow. The complete opposite is what most folk are saying in that because both challenges were red card offences, both players should have been sent off.