Queens v Morton

[Dunning1874]

10 minutes ago, Rudolph Hucker said:

That second para didn't seem right to me so I've had a quick  trawl through the Morton thread from before Gus was bagged till after Dougie was appointed. There isn't a single post from any Morton fan sticking up for Gus or saying he should've been given more time or shouldn't have been dumped. Not one. Can't be arsed trawling through the Morton board in the same way, but if anyone was backing him on there then that's where you should've posted that stuff. 

You're just trying to rewrite history yet again in order to stir things up. What you get out of peddling  this sort of nonsense I do not know. Care to explain?

 

None of those people were on P&B, but there were several on twitter with that view after MacPherson was sacked. Some of those same people were actively revelling in losing 6-1 under the caretakers as they thought it proved them correct.

[Fae_the_'briggs]

31 minutes ago, Otis Blue said:

Trouble with that is ... you're now applying common sense ... remember this is Scottish fitba'!   

That crossed my mind as I posted. Assistant Referees in the Scottish diddy leagues are just one step up from using club members as linesmen/women like  the Amateur Leagues do. It's actually quite insulting to the Clubs and fans that they get fairly well paid for just agreeing with what the referee thinks and not being more active in helping with decisions. 

[Monkey Tennis]

3 hours ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

Isn't that where his assistant with a better view helps the Referee out?

I'm not convinced the ref got it wrong though.

I really didn't see the glaring injustice you seemed to.

[Fae_the_'briggs]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I'm not convinced the ref got it wrong though.

I really didn't see the glaring injustice you seemed to.

Did you not say earlier that you wouldn't have been surprised if he had produced a red card so it must have crossed your mind it was merited. My original point was to query the difference between a goalkeeper taking the legs from an opponent thus deliberately stopping a clear goal scoring opportunity (which from my vantage point he clearly did) and staying on and an outfield player deliberately bringing down an opponent in on goal. I would have felt more of an injustice if Hamilton had saved the penalty when he maybe shouldn't have been on the park. In my opinion the referee got it wrong, you obviously feel otherwise, or are uncertain if you do or not. 

[vikingTON]

15 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Bollocks.

Our first came against the run of play.

The others didn't.

The third goal came at the start of the second half, straight after we had opened by winning a corner and putting pressure on at the other end. It was hardly the siege of Leningrad, but we did start the second half with intent to get back in the game. 

The backpass was a sucker punch and after that the game was done. 

[vikingTON]

FWIW Queens were clinical - at least when they needed to be in the first 50 minutes - and it was an excellent execution of the pass, run and finish for Fitzpatrick's goal. Yesterday demonstrated that goals change games though and when you cough them up cheaply then you'll get rightly punished by every team in the division at the moment. 

[die hard doonhamer]

2 hours ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

That crossed my mind as I posted. Assistant Referees in the Scottish diddy leagues are just one step up from using club members as linesmen/women like  the Amateur Leagues do. It's actually quite insulting to the Clubs and fans that they get fairly well paid for just agreeing with what the referee thinks and not being more active in helping with decisions. 

It’s very insulting to the assistant referees that this viewpoint exists. I think it’s the downside of the comms kits that the refereeing team wear these days, that there communication isn’t visible to the casual observer. However, they are in constant communication, and the assistant will definitely have had an input on the final decision. 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

In my opinion the referee got it wrong, you obviously feel otherwise, or are uncertain if you do or not. 

It's more the very last bit.

I think a justification could be offered for either card.  There is clearly a move away from the double jeopardy thing though, and I don't see that as a problem.

We should maybe leave it there though.  Fortunately, the decision was of no great consequence.  We can maybe revisit it if we eventually get relegated on goal difference by a tiny margin.

[19QOS19]

It’s very insulting to the assistant referees that this viewpoint exists. I think it’s the downside of the comms kits that the refereeing team wear these days, that there communication isn’t visible to the casual observer. However, they are in constant communication, and the assistant will definitely have had an input on the final decision. 

Yeah I've given linesmen their fair share of pelters over the years but I do agree that the comms have probably made them receive unfair criticism from the crowd. I was leaving the ground one day and standing in the corner. The linesman was in constant communication with the ref like you say.

[Fae_the_'briggs]

2 hours ago, die hard doonhamer said:

It’s very insulting to the assistant referees that this viewpoint exists. I think it’s the downside of the comms kits that the refereeing team wear these days, that there communication isn’t visible to the casual observer. However, they are in constant communication, and the assistant will definitely have had an input on the final decision. 

There is definetely a better working relationship between match officials in the English Leagues, assistants seem to take some responsibility and actually assist. I get what you say about them being mic'd up so communication isn't as obvious to the spectator but the number of times I've seen well positioned  assistant referees standing like stookies waiting to see the referees decision before raising their flag in agreement is laughable. 

[Homer Thompson]

Did you not say earlier that you wouldn't have been surprised if he had produced a red card so it must have crossed your mind it was merited. My original point was to query the difference between a goalkeeper taking the legs from an opponent thus deliberately stopping a clear goal scoring opportunity (which from my vantage point he clearly did) and staying on and an outfield player deliberately bringing down an opponent in on goal. I would have felt more of an injustice if Hamilton had saved the penalty when he maybe shouldn't have been on the park. In my opinion the referee got it wrong, you obviously feel otherwise, or are uncertain if you do or not. 

Under the new rules it was never going to a red card.

There's no difference between a challenge by the keeper. If Junior had tried to go round a defender and they'd slid in and brought him down it would still have been a yellow card

[Fae_the_'briggs]

1 minute ago, Homer Thompson said:

 

 

Under the new rules it was never going to a red card.

There's no difference between a challenge by the keeper. If Junior had tried to go round a defender and they'd slid in and brought him down it would still have been a yellow card

 

That's what I asked in my original post on the incident, if the double whammy of penalty and sending-off had been done away with or were goalkeepers exempt from the double whammy. If the rules have changed then that's fair enough, well done to the officials. 

[MOTD Wannabee]

 

[die hard doonhamer]

1 hour ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

There is definetely a better working relationship between match officials in the English Leagues, assistants seem to take some responsibility and actually assist. I get what you say about them being mic'd up so communication isn't as obvious to the spectator but the number of times I've seen well positioned  assistant referees standing like stookies waiting to see the referees decision before raising their flag in agreement is laughable. 

That’s generally what the referee instructs them to do. Verbal communication over the mics, then referee signal first and assistant follows. 

[Monkey Tennis]

3 hours ago, Fae_the_'briggs said:

That's what I asked in my original post on the incident, if the double whammy of penalty and sending-off had been done away with or were goalkeepers exempt from the double whammy. If the rules have changed then that's fair enough, well done to the officials. 

But it's neither.

Goalkeepers haven't been made exempt and your double whammy hasn't been done away with.  However, the double whammy applies less often because the foul must now be deemed deliberate for it to lead to a red card.

I was going to leave it, as well.

[Fae_the_'briggs]

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

But it's neither.

Goalkeepers haven't been made exempt and your double whammy hasn't been done away with.  However, the double whammy applies less often because the foul must now be deemed deliberate for it to lead to a red card.

I was going to leave it, as well.

As you may have gathered I thought it was deliberate, just my view of it obviously. Anyway subject closed and onto Partick next. 

[die hard doonhamer]

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

But it's neither.

Goalkeepers haven't been made exempt and your double whammy hasn't been done away with.  However, the double whammy applies less often because the foul must now be deemed deliberate for it to lead to a red card.

I was going to leave it, as well.

I think this is an important distinction, it doesn’t have to be deliberate. There needs to be a genuine attempt to play the ball to avoid the red. If the defender brought the attacker down by accidentally tripping them, then that would still be a red card. 

[Monkey Tennis]

7 hours ago, die hard doonhamer said:

I think this is an important distinction, it doesn’t have to be deliberate. There needs to be a genuine attempt to play the ball to avoid the red. If the defender brought the attacker down by accidentally tripping them, then that would still be a red card. 

It's certainly a subtle distinction, but fair enough, it does exist.  

I don't think it applies here though.  In going to ground and catching Soares-Junior, the goalkeeper was either trying to get the ball or deliberately tripping him.  The former seems likelier to me.

It's not a complete accident, where the ball is irrelevant, like a tangling of legs or something.

[QOSQOS]

Couple of observations on the game  (after rewatching).

Early on, we cleared one off the line after a corner - because we had a man on the post. We seem to have stopped doing that, glad to see it reinstated.

For the second goal, Fitz took off from well inside his own half and burst a gut to get there (leaving a Morton player well behind). It was a perfect ball from Todd, and a great finish, but it was just good to see the hunger to get there. 

 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

Highlights confirm just how easy it is for a game to slip away: no less than four good chances for us early on, then Hamilton chucks one in, slips, and the game is gone.

Fair play to Queens for capitalising; they look as though they're at least going to give themselves a chance, which absolutely wasn't the case before Gibson got the gig (although keep an eye on him if things don't go your way as we get to the sharp end).

Can't believe there's been so much discussion of a potential red card for Hamilton at the penalty; he makes a despairing attempt to get a ball he's probably not going to make, but that is never ever a red card; he's entitled to do what he did... in fact, you'd be raging if your keeper didn't at least try.

Other thing to say is you've lost Fitzpatrick for at least 4 weeks; not the worst hamstring injury, but he won't be sprinting any time soon.