Aberdeen v Rangers - 10th Jan

[G51]

2 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

If Hedges hadn’t been red carded, the Main incident doesn’t happen.

And if Rangers hadn't scored two goals, Aberdeen would have won the match.

[bennett]

3 wins out of 3 so far against the sheep with 2 wins at Pittodrie,  that's pretty decent going tbf.

 

Joey unusually not handling the loss very well.

 

[Falcor Roar]

Can't believe Aberdeen fans have the brass neck to blame the ref in this game. Rangers were the far better side and Main should have walked. it was a deserved pen and a red card for hedges. Have some dignity and move on.Sevco fans will be loving this.

[kingjoey]

9 minutes ago, G51 said:

And if Rangers hadn't scored two goals, Aberdeen would have won the match.

Correct.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

To be honest, I didn't think Beatson did much wrong today. 

The 2 minutes at the end was a bit weird. It looked like he just wanted to get it over and done with and get away, but aside from that I don't think he got much wrong. 

The penalty was a penalty, and it was a red card. Hedges was just fucking stupid, and he knew it. 

[tarapoa]

10 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

The penalty was a penalty, and it was a red card. Hedges was just fucking stupid, and he knew it. 

It was a penalty and by the letter of law it was a red card.

If Hedges had tried to tackle Morelos, and given away a penalty that way, it would have been a yellow. By trying to avoid that, and accidentally clipping him in the process, it was a red.

Michael Stewart stated correctly that IFAB could have just worded the triple jeopardy ruling better...............deliberate foul for preventing goalscoring opportunity in box = penalty and red card - anything else = penalty and yellow card.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

10 minutes ago, tarapoa said:

It was a penalty and by the letter of law it was a red card.

If Hedges had tried to tackle Morelos, and given away a penalty that way, it would have been a yellow. By trying to avoid that, and accidentally clipping him in the process, it was a red.

Michael Stewart stated correctly that IFAB could have just worded the triple jeopardy ruling better...............deliberate foul for preventing goalscoring opportunity in box = penalty and red card - anything else = penalty and yellow card.

I think the fact that he put his hand on Morelos' back didn't help him. I realise that  it wasn't much, but at first view it looked like he was trying to grab him, and trip him. 

The referee just couldn't interpret that as accidental. 

[afc_blockhead]

2 hours ago, Sheep62 said:

 

C'mon min, seriously you expected an answer.

Kinky will be in a gin infused coma by this time on a Sunday evening

You are right !

[Left Back]

8 minutes ago, tarapoa said:

If Hedges had tried to tackle Morelos, and given away a penalty that way, it would have been a yellow. By trying to avoid that, and accidentally clipping him in the process, it was a red.

Sigh.

An attempted tackle does not equal a genuine attempt to play the ball.  An attempt at a tackle (a tackle has to be within the laws of the game to be a genuine attempt) under the laws as currently written, should still have seen him red carded as there was no way he could actually get to the ball.  It was yards away from him.  Any tackle should have been viewed as a deliberate trip and therefore still a red card.

[10menwent2mow]

So we've established that only some laws should be applied some of the time, glad we've cleared that up.

[DukDukGoose]

3 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

Sorry Craig. Go give yourself a pat on the back. 

Surprising amount of Sevco white knights out in force today.

[coprolite]

The two main reasons we lost are because sevconians have better players amd because Derek hasn't figured out how to stop them playing this season. 

We went in to the game with a slim chance and it's infuriating to see that reduced to no chance because of a nothing foul. 

At least we had a go today a couple of times when we had the ball. 

[Ginaro]

6 minutes ago, tarapoa said:

Michael Stewart stated correctly that IFAB could have just worded the triple jeopardy ruling better...............deliberate foul for preventing goalscoring opportunity in box = penalty and red card - anything else = penalty and yellow card.

The wording is basically: yellow card if it's an attempt to play the ball, red card in all other circumstances. How much more clear does it need to be?

Adding "deliberate foul" just confuses matters, as referees are not mind readers so they can't know whether someone accidentally fouled someone or not.

[tarapoa]

29 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

The wording is basically: yellow card if it's an attempt to play the ball, red card in all other circumstances. How much more clear does it need to be?

Adding "deliberate foul" just confuses matters, as referees are not mind readers so they can't know whether someone accidentally fouled someone or not.

It is clear, but it is stupid - a red card, penalty kick and one-match suspension is far too harsh for a foul of the non-cynical variety, especially if it's not even intentional - hence why IFAB looked at the triple jeopardy thing.

 

[Ginaro]

11 minutes ago, tarapoa said:

It is clear, but it is stupid - a red card, penalty kick and one-match suspension is far too harsh for a foul of the non-cynical variety, especially if it's not even intentional - hence why IFAB looked at the triple jeopardy thing.

Yes IFAB looked at it and rightly decided the only exception to the red card and penalty is when a player attempts to play the ball - because how does a referee decide what is a non-cynical or unintentional trip by a defender just as an attacker is about to go through on goal?

[Clockwork]

Some sympathy with what Stewart was trying to go with. There isn’t an attempt to win the ball but there also isn’t any intention or attempt to impede the player. Does the ruling explicitly cover a completely unintentional and accidental contact? I think that was his point wasn’t it?
A penalty yes, but a harsh red and additional punishment, reducing one side to 10 men for 60 minutes of a competitive contest? Think MS is usually pretty fair on SS for what it’s worth.
Also thought McInnes was measured and reasonable in his response to post match questions on the incident. A decision that certainly strengthened the way the match was already turning perhaps, in favour of the league leaders.
Two well taken goals from a rejuvenated Morelos and an uncharacteristic lapse in concentration to give the Dons a glimmer of hope, offered a worthwhile viewing spectacle. A fair 2-1 scoreline to the away side all in all though. The less said about Main’s reckless challenge the better.

[wastecoatwilly]

28 minutes ago, Clockwork said:

Some sympathy with what Stewart was trying to go with. There isn’t an attempt to win the ball but there also isn’t any intention or attempt to impede the player. Does the ruling explicitly cover a completely unintentional and accidental contact? I think that was his point wasn’t it?
A penalty yes, but a harsh red and additional punishment, reducing one side to 10 men for 60 minutes of a competitive contest? Think MS is usually pretty fair on SS for what it’s worth.
Also thought McInnes was measured and reasonable in his response to post match questions on the incident. A decision that certainly strengthened the way the match was already turning perhaps, in favour of the league leaders.
Two well taken goals from a rejuvenated Morelos and an uncharacteristic lapse in concentration to give the Dons a glimmer of hope, offered a worthwhile viewing spectacle. A fair 2-1 scoreline to the away side all in all though. The less said about Main’s reckless challenge the better.

As people got confused about this, here is the information given when this "rule" was changed:

In case of a foul inside the box/a penalty being awarded, the player who fouls the attacker while making a ‘fair and reasonable’ attempt to play the ball will only get a yellow card, whereas previously the player to concede the foul would have been sent off under the "triple-punishment" rule, which sanctioned the offence with a red card, suspension and a penalty kick.

So, in the new laws a player who commits a foul while tackling in a "fair and reasonable" attempt to play the ball will only receive a yellow card for this offence, because it is considered that the penalty kick recreates the goalscoring opportunity that was lost by the foul.

The difference is the foul is a penalty, there is no attempt to play the ball but also no attempt to foul the player.
It's a penalty no matter what but the colour of card is down to the referee whether he sees it as fair or reasonable.

[Dons_1988]

8 hours ago, G51 said:

I explicitly said that the red card did affect the game. What I said is that Rangers were pretty much in charge of the game before that because Aberdeen were unable to adjust.

Hmm you said we lost some discipline until half time after the red card. You seem to think it pales into insignificance behind this ‘tactical tweak’ that gave you territory for 10 minutes in the build up to the red card. 

Ultimately the game was decided the moment hedges was sent off. Every dons fan knew it and I think you do too. The red was fair and rangers deservedly won but it’s a source of huge frustration that we weren’t able to see it play out at 11v11. The likelihood is we still lose but There was enough in that first 20 minutes to suggest we’d make it an uncomfortable afternoon for you at least. I don’t accept that gerrards tactical masterstroke on 20 minutes had effectively nullified us anyway. 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

7 hours ago, Merkland Red said:

Surprising amount of boring c***s out in force today.

FTFY 

[kingjoey]

9 hours ago, bennett said:

3 wins out of 3 so far against the sheep with 2 wins at Pittodrie,  that's pretty decent going tbf.

 

Joey unusually not handling the loss very well.

 

I wouldn’t say that I didn’t handle the defeat well, these days are long gone, but my gripe is that people see some of the laws of the game as “ no option but to apply” and others as “optional”. That can’t be right.