Ayr United v Queen of the South - multi club forum match thread

[19QOS19]

Is this not a mute point. The rules changed in 2016 to say that you don't get a pen and a red card.

Yes but the news rules applied to what happened here on Saturday therefore the penalty and red should have been the outcome.

 

If the defender was attempting to play the ball and caught Buchanan it would have been a penalty but not a red.

 

If the defender didn't make any attempt to play the ball and only had hold of Buchanan then it's a penalty and a red.

 

In this instance, scenario 2 is what (should have) happened.

 

[Skyline Drifter]

6 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

I didn't say a penalty was correct I said it was fair. The rules aren't often fair. There is a difference between correct and fair. 

I have no doubt that Buchanan was using his arms as was Baird and they've wrestled one another to the ground. In that context I feel it would be harsh on Queens to award Ayr a freekick as they've lost out. Equally I think it would have been harsh on Ayr to send Baird off. Hence I thought a penalty was fair.

Ok. But you accept then what you have decided is 'fair' is completely irrelevant? 

Under the rules its a foul one way or the other and if he gives a penalty a red card must follow.

[Raith Against The Machine]

That's a clear red card, lads.

[pandarilla]

A huge call by the ref for our second penalty claim, resulting in a sending off.
On that evidence, I think he got it right though.

Aye, agreed.

At the time i thought we'd got very lucky as it looked a penalty. On second viewing, i think it's a great decision, and you have to ask the striker why he's going down there. He's beat the man.

Unfortunately if it’s a penalty then it’s a red card. Genuinely no idea what Baird is doing - he is goal side so is able to clear the ball. 

Aye if that's the rule (and I'm sure it is) then we've got lucky there.



The biggest concern for me is the performance though. We were dominated for large spells, and struggle to create, even against ten men.

[Trogdor]

Just now, Skyline Drifter said:

Ok. But you accept then what you have decided is 'fair' is completely irrelevant? 

Under the rules its a foul one way or the other and if he gives a penalty a red card must follow.

I've not disputed the laws or even cited them. I was trying to offer an alternative view as to how McLean arrived at his decision. 

As you state if he gives a penalty it is a red assuming its a clear goal scoring opportunity and the defender makes no attempt to play the ball. (At least that's my recollection of the rule). 

[Trogdor]

19 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

The biggest concern for me is the performance though. We were dominated for large spells, and struggle to create, even against ten men.

Yeah, we were pretty dreadful for long spells of that match. We could barely string two passes together and were shelling long balls which is never a good sign.

I'll take the three points but we'll need to play significantly better than that to finish top 4.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Trogdor

[Homer Thompson]

The rules are exactly what I said they were, only thing that’s open to interpretation is whether the defender makes an attempt to play the ball and if the foul was deliberate or accidental.
It’s a jostle in the box, Buchanan has his hands over the defender to begin with and pushes him with 2 hands to begin with. The defender then loses his footing and falls, flattening Buchanan on his way down.
Penalty yes, red card definitely not. By rights it should have been  booking for the defender, I’m not sure if he was booked.
 
 
 
 

Exactly what you said they were apart from the bit you clearly didnt know anything about.

Well done on still getting it wrong. The only bit that's up for interpretation is whether buchanan has a clear goal scoring opportunity. Any reasonable interpretation would be that he does.

[itzdrk]

So we're all agreed Buchanan should have been sent off along with McCowan then? Motion passed. 

[Hazbart]

1 minute ago, Mr X said:

 

 

Exactly what you said they were apart from the bit you clearly didnt know anything about.

Well done on still getting it wrong. The only bit that's up for interpretation is whether buchanan has a clear goal scoring opportunity. Any reasonable interpretation would be that he does.

 

10 hours and that’s the best you can come up with?

[Homer Thompson]

I've not disputed the laws or even cited them. I was trying to offer an alternative view as to how McLean arrived at his decision. 
As you state if he gives a penalty it is a red assuming its a clear goal scoring opportunity and the defender makes no attempt to play the ball. (At least that's my recollection of the rule). 

Since when did referees give decisions based on what was fair rather than what the rules said?

[Homer Thompson]

10 hours and that’s the best you can come up with?

Lol wut?

I don't need to come up with anything. You're the one scrabbling around justifying a decision by quoting rules you clearly don't understand

[Finlay21]

39 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

48 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

Personally I think Buchanan is using his arms you see it all the time. I cant recall one being a straight red and yet the Queens fans are clamouring for it. A penalty was fair in my view.
Also, fwiw some of you seem to be suggesting an attacker can use his arms and a defender can't? That's not even remotely correct.

If it's a penalty (which you agree it is) then it's also, by the letter of the law, a straight red.

Red cards are not compulsory for committing fouls in the box , the referee needs to decide wither he thinks it’s accidental or deliberate , on this case the referee obviously thought it was not deliberate 

 

[19QOS19]

Red cards are not compulsory for committing fouls in the box , the referee needs to decide wither he thinks it’s accidental or deliberate , on this case the referee obviously thought it was not deliberate 
 

Uh huh, and he got the decision wrong. The defender obviously knew what he was doing, he hasn't attempted to play the ball, he's denied a clear goalscoring opportunity, it's a red all day.

[Thereisalight..]

11 hours ago, LeodhasXD said:

Who in your stadium is shouting Dobbie's got a wee Boabie during the penalty?

It was the guys who were standing outside the ground at the fence. Would have been funny if it was someone inside the stadium

[rb123!]

1 hour ago, No_Problemo said:

Unfortunately if it’s a penalty then it’s a red card. Genuinely no idea what Baird is doing - he is goal side so is able to clear the ball. 

Yeah not really sure what Baird was doing tbh, got in a right mess for no reason tbh

[Monkey Tennis]

16 minutes ago, Robbo63 said:

Red cards are not compulsory for committing fouls in the box , the referee needs to decide wither he thinks it’s accidental or deliberate , on this case the referee obviously thought it was not deliberate 

 

No Queens fans in this discussion fail to grasp how this rule has been altered.  Why are you posting that as if it's a trump card?

The point is that the foul could not be described as accidental.  Indeed, as quoted in your rules, yesterday's scenario is specifically, explicitly catered for as a red card offence:

"Deliberate fouls will still incur a red card.  Those include holding, pulling or pushing, not playing the ball". 

This could not be clearer.

[die hard doonhamer]

22 minutes ago, Robbo63 said:

Red cards are not compulsory for committing fouls in the box , the referee needs to decide wither he thinks it’s accidental or deliberate , on this case the referee obviously thought it was not deliberate 

 

Let's maybe look at the actual laws of the game, rather than a BBC article.

Given that it's clearly holding/pushing/pulling, then the law states he must be sent off.

[Finlay21]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

No Queens fans in this discussion fail to grasp how this rule has been altered.  Why are you posting that as if it's a trump card?

The point is that the foul could not be described as accidental.  Indeed, as quoted in your rules, yesterday's scenario is specifically, explicitly catered for as a red card offence:

"Deliberate fouls will still incur a red card.  Those include holding, pulling or pushing, not playing the ball". 

This could not be clearer.

If you read a number of post from a number of fans they ALL state conceding a penalty is an automatic red card , my point is proving that it’s not , it depends what the offence is , and I have not aired my view previously, but do I think it was a red card ? Yes I do as I thought it was intentional 

Edited October 18, 2020 by Robbo63

[paulbrucerick]

Us yesterday.

Queens yesterday.

We got lucky. 

Edited October 18, 2020 by paulbrucerick

[die hard doonhamer]

Just now, Robbo63 said:

If you read a number of post from a number of fans they ALL state conceding a penalty is an automatic red card , my point is proving that it’s not 

Can you quote these please? I haven't seen them.