Queens v Hearts

[outsider]

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Not really.

You do some interesting, knowing things with form and grammar.

It's quite effective in portraying the poetic persona as a gormless fool.  Well played.

Ah, you lose the argument and then play the man instead of the ball. Why did you feel the need to get insulting? Note I haven't stooped to your level.  We have a difference of opinion, no more that that, keep your insults for when you are face to face with folk.

[Dirty Debbie Harry]

You'd certainly never see someone like Gary Mackay-Steven doing anything, that's for sure...

Fixed

[19QOS19]

Fixed

He's certainly fell very far. Was a player I used to rate pretty highly but he was anonymous last night. The only time Gibson has looked out of his depth this season was when faced with a pacey player. I feared GMS could have had him on toast last night but Gibson had him comfortably in his pocket as did Maxwell after he changed sides.

[lennyzer0]

11 hours ago, Tony Wonder said:

The Queen's penalty wasn't a penalty, done to death but he's kicked his own leg out and fell over. 

And the Halkett one was never a red. 

I'm a bit gobsmacked anyone is suggesting the Halkett one was a red, tbh.

[Distant Doonhamer]

When you are running at the pace Jones does .
How the hell would Jones at his pace think to stick his leg into a defender to try and win a pen .

 

Behave. That’s exactly what Jones does.

[19QOS19]

I'm a bit gobsmacked anyone is suggesting the Halkett one was a red, tbh.

I'd liked to have seen it again tbh. I can remember there was another defender more central but from memory I can't recall if he was further back or not. Dapo had Halkett well beaten and the latter made no attempt to play the ball. If the other defender wasn't getting to Dapo then Halkett is stopping a clear goalscoring opportunity and an argument for a red isn't that ridiculous tbh.

[Distant Doonhamer]

I'm a bit gobsmacked anyone is suggesting the Halkett one was a red, tbh.

The ref clearly made the decision that the more central defender was going to get back to cover. Given that the only real risk Halkett had of getting a red at the incident was if he got a second yellow for dissent. Him complaining about the decision was frankly ridiculous.

[die hard doonhamer]

19 minutes ago, lennyzer0 said:

I'm a bit gobsmacked anyone is suggesting the Halkett one was a red, tbh.

The challenge was a textbook yellow. The dissent was also a clear yellow. Rare to see the ref give both of them though.

[Distant Doonhamer]

Look at the match thread from last week, I think every single Hearts fan said we were lucky to get the penalty we got.

My response to Always Hearts was really driven by his moralising re the pen being as clear an example of cheating as he has seen for a long time. Such incidents are very common in the game. Some are given as penalties some not. It’s hardly an unusual event.

[SUPERSOUTH]

35 minutes ago, lennyzer0 said:

I'm a bit gobsmacked anyone is suggesting the Halkett one was a red, tbh.

Irving could easily have seen RED  synical challenge no attempt to play the ball high & reckless... 

[19QOS19]

The challenge was a textbook yellow. The dissent was also a clear yellow. Rare to see the ref give both of them though.

The dissent baffled me. Did he genuinely believe that was anything other than the most blatant foul you're likely to see in fitba?

Irving could easily have seen RED  synical challenge no attempt to play the ball high & reckless... 

I thought that was as a yellow all day long tbh. Because Jones is that quick it looked worse than it was but I didn't think the challenge was high and he didn't go out his way to hurt Jones.

[Skyline Drifter]

41 minutes ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

The ref clearly made the decision that the more central defender was going to get back to cover. Given that the only real risk Halkett had of getting a red at the incident was if he got a second yellow for dissent. Him complaining about the decision was frankly ridiculous.

I saw it live from the Main Stand and haven't seen it again on tv. I'll try to watch it again later but from the opposite angle of the stand I didn't think there was any chance Popescu was getting across to prevent a shot. Neither did Halkett or he wouldn't have done what he did presumably. At the time I thought it was a red card but I accept the tv angle may show something different and I fully expected the vague presence of another defender to be used as an excuse not to send him off.

16 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

I thought that was as a yellow all day long tbh. Because Jones is that quick it looked worse than it was but I didn't think the challenge was high and he didn't go out his way to hurt Jones.

i don't think he tried to hurt Jones, I think he tried to cynically trip him and stop the break. But he raised his foot a lot higher than he heeded to, took him directly rather than raising a leg for him to trip over and also taking account the speed he came in at I thought it was clear Serious Foul Play. Again, it was about 10 feet in front of me and I was able to hear the contact too which maybe affects my opinion. It happened the way it did because Jones is so quick and Irving got his timing wrong but that doesn't make it not a red card. I thought it was a clear red to be honest.

Edited February 13, 2021 by Skyline Drifter

[19QOS19]

i don't think he tried to hurt Jones, I think he tried to cynically trip him and stop the break. But he raised his foot a lot higher than he heeded to, took him directly rather than raising a leg for him to trip over and also taking account the speed he came in at I thought it was clear Serious Foul Play. Again, it was about 10 feet in front of me and I was able to hear the contact too which maybe affects my opinion. It happened the way it did because Jones is so quick and Irving got his timing wrong but that doesn't make it not a red card. I thought it was a clear red to be honest.

My first thought was 'I'll need to see the replay to see if he was high'. I really didn't think it was. Perhaps another look at the highlights will change my mind though.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

It's never a red

[Distant Doonhamer]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I saw it live from the Main Stand and haven't seen it again on tv. I'll try to watch it again later but from the opposite angle of the stand I didn't think there was any chance Popescu was getting across to prevent a shot. Neither did Halkett or he wouldn't have done what he did presumably. At the time I thought it was a red card but I accept the tv angle may show something different and I fully expected the vague presence of another defender to be used as an excuse not to send him off.

It's uncertain in my view whether Popescu would have got across or not. The ref makes a decision, possibly with input from his assistant, and called it as a yellow. I think it's a reasonable call given they had a single view of it.

Halkett's dissent was ludicrous.

Edited February 13, 2021 by Distant Doonhamer

[Skyline Drifter]

9 minutes ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

It's never a red

??

I'm wary of calling anything based on a still. I'll watch the pictures later, but that looks a red to me. Mebude's already on the ground and the 2nd defender (is it Popescu) is still about 10 yards away and at least a couple of yards further from goal. He's never in a  million years stopping Mebude from getting a shot off.

[die hard doonhamer]

Folk arguing the Halkett one is a red are at it. The referee had to consider a few different things when deciding if it's denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The most important here are position of other defenders, position on the pitch and direction of travel. Mebude was headed more towards the corner than goal when the challenge was made, and there was another defender in the area (whether he'd have got there is debatable, but it clearly wasn't out of the question). There are plenty factors there to say that it wasn't DOGSO, and yellow was clearly the correct call.

Similarly the tackle on Jones later on looked bad, but it's a yellow card every day of the week. 

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

6 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

??

I'm wary of calling anything based on a still. I'll watch the pictures later, but that looks a red to me. Mebude's already on the ground and the 2nd defender (is it Popescu) is still about 10 yards away and at least a couple of yards further from goal. He's never in a  million years stopping Mebude from getting a shot off.

The criteria isn't getting a shot off.  It's denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity, which that quite clearly isn't.  He's down 25 yards out at an angle with a covering CH.

Clear yellow

[Skyline Drifter]

17 minutes ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

It's uncertain in my view whether Popescu would have got across or not. The ref makes a decision, possibly with input from his assistant, and called it as a yellow. I think it's a reasonable call given they had a single view of it.

Halkett's dissent was ludicrous.

I've just gone and watched it again. I don't think he's near getting back to stop him getting a shot in. It would have been a shot from a wide angle right enough but I think it's a pretty clear goalscoring opportunity. I still think it's a red card. Popescu is a couple of steps behind and across. And Mebude is definitely quicker than him.

As I said before I didn't have much doubt that Popescu would be used as a justification for it not to be a red card but for me it should have been.

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

The criteria isn't getting a shot off.  It's denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity, which that quite clearly isn't.  He's down 25 yards out at an angle with a covering CH.

Clear yellow

It's not a clear yellow. It's contentious and debatable. The criteria is denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity for a player heading towards goal. All the boxes are ticked for me. It doesn't have to be square in front of goal to be an obvious goalscoring opportunity.