Hibs v Livi

[StellarHibee]

Just now, VincentGuerin said:

This is an absolutely ludicrous take.

Why is it so hard to just say you caught a break? What are you so insecure about?

I'm simply stating what the rules are. Why is it so hard just to say that you're annoyed about a correct decision that went in favour of your rival club?

[The Other Foot]

Studs are stupid anyway. Let them play in jelly shoes. That’ll sort the wheat from the chaff. 

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

I'm simply stating what the rules are. Why is it so hard just to say that you're annoyed about a correct decision that went in favour of your rival club?

The rules don't support what you're saying at all.

If you're arguing that Holt's challenge was using excessive force or endangering an opponent, then I think every single neutral observer of this incident I've heard has disagreed with you. He played the ball and then an un-seen opponent basically came into his path and caught his studs.

Your argument possibly supports a yellow card for a careless challenge (if you want to blame him for not seeing an opponent coming in quickly from his blind-side, still harsh, imo), but to say the rules support a red is just silly.

Fitba fans are daft.

[StellarHibee]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

The rules don't support what you're saying at all.

If you're arguing that Holt's challenge was using excessive force or endangering an opponent, then I think every single neutral observer of this incident I've heard has disagreed with you. He played the ball and then an un-seen opponent basically came into his path and caught his studs.

Your argument possibly supports a yellow card for a careless challenge (if you want to blame him for not seeing an opponent coming in quickly from his blind-side, still harsh, imo), but to say the rules support a red is just silly.

Fitba fans are daft.

Did you watch the Sunderland/Blackburn game today?

Sunderland were awarded a penalty when a Blackburn defender left a trailling leg out in the box. He had no awareness of the oncoming Sunderland player who proceeded to run into his trailling leg and go down. The referee wasted no time pointing to the spot.

The fact that he had no awareness of the oncoming player was completely irrelevant.

[Valentino Bolognese]

4 hours ago, Dav nan Gael said:

Don't know what DM saw in him,not the 1st time either he's brought some goat in,that couldn't kick his arse from his elbow. 

 

Not sure that's a fair ask on a football player. A contortionist maybe?

[VincentGuerin]

8 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

Did you watch the Sunderland/Blackburn game today?

Sunderland were awarded a penalty when a Blackburn defender left a trailling leg out in the box. He had no awareness of the oncoming Sunderland player who proceeded to run into his trailling leg and go down. The referee wasted no time pointing to the spot.

The fact that he had no awareness of the oncoming player was completely irrelevant.

Was he sent off?

The issue here is that Holt can be sent off for using excessive force or endangering an opponent. He did neither of those things.

The fact that Hibs (not for the first time) reacted in the referee's face and made a big fuss does not make it a terrible tackle.

That's not really a criticism of Hibs' players specifically, it's how pros act now. But we've seen it a few times from their players in the last year or so, and it works.

Your definition of endangering an opponent (which is what I think you're getting at) could see a player sent off for kicking the ball, following through with his leg, then catching an opponent who runs into the stride of his foot following through. That's exactly what happened in this incident.

That's an accident, not endangering an opponent. Some people seem obsessed with this idea that every incident of contact or someone getting hurt on the fitba pitch has to result in a foul and/or a card. Sometimes things like this just happen.

But you bash on.

Quick question for the gallery. Would you be making the same point had it been a Hibs player sent off?

Edited December 26, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[StellarHibee]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

That's an accident, not endangering an opponent. 

It's dangerous to an opponent whether it's an accident or not. The vast majority of sending offs for dangerous play are not the player intentionally trying to injure another player. When players use excessive force to win the ball, it doesn't matter if they get the ball first or have no intentions of injuring another player, it is still excessive force. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is the modern rules of the game. It's something he would have got away with 20 years ago, but not now.

There's really no point of contention here. The referee made the correct decision within the rules as they exist now. The red would not be overturned on an appeal and I doubt Livingston will even go to the hassle of attempting to appeal it, because they know what the modern rules are.

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

It's dangerous to an opponent whether it's an accident or not.

 

This is a school-playground 'Well, TECHNICALLY...' argument. It's nonsense.

We can all read the rules, and it's obviously a poor decision. You'll have some go against you, but this week it went for you.

As I said, your argument could apply to a player simply standing and kicking the ball. It's a (I think deliberately) confusing interpretation of the rules.

[StellarHibee]

5 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

 

This is a school-playground 'Well, TECHNICALLY...' argument. It's nonsense.

We can all read the rules, and it's obviously a poor decision. You'll have some go against you, but this week it went for you.

As I said, your argument could apply to a player simply standing and kicking the ball. It's a (I think deliberately) confusing interpretation of the rules.

Well if you're correct, you can be sure that Livingston will appeal the red card and the red card will be rescinded.

(Or course, it won't be. Because you're not correct.)

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

Well if you're correct, you can be sure that Livingston will appeal the red card and the red card will be rescinded.

(Or course, it won't be. Because you're not correct.)

Not necessarily. We've seen plenty of poor decisions backed up by VAR and we often see baffling appeal decisions.

Do you just think Hibs are in the right on every issue and every decision that goes Hibs' way is right?

[StellarHibee]

6 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Not necessarily. We've seen plenty of poor decisions backed up by VAR and we often see baffling appeal decisions.

Do you just think Hibs are in the right on every issue and every decision that goes Hibs' way is right?

I think you're interpreting the rules as you see fit and would be making a different argument had Livingston been playing Hearts instead. It's easy to jump into full scale conspiracy mode when making an argument from a position that you know yourself to be completely nonsensical.

It won't get overturned on appeal (which Livingston won't even appeal anyway), because the referee made the correct decision under the modern interpretation of the rules. That's all there is to it really.

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

I think you're interpreting the rules as you see fit and would be making a different argument had Livingston been playing Hearts instead. It's easy to jump into full scale conspiracy mode when making an argument from a position that you know yourself to be completely nonsensical.

It won't get overturned on appeal (which Livingston won't even appeal anyway), because the referee made the correct decision under the modern interpretation of the rules. That's all there is to it really.

Nah, I'm quite happy to call it as I see it when Hearts get a good break. Frequently do on here. Soft penalty for us on Saturday, for example.

I enjoy reading folk like you. 'Well, TECHNICALLY...'

You're misinterpreting the rules to an extent that would make the game unplayable if they were applied like that consistently.

Good luck to you.

[StellarHibee]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

Nah, I'm quite happy to call it as I see it when Hearts get a good break. Frequently do on here. Soft penalty for us on Saturday, for example.

I enjoy reading folk like you. 'Well, TECHNICALLY...'

You're misinterpreting the rules to an extent that would make the game unplayable if they were applied like that consistently.

Good luck to you.

So in your view. I'm misinterpreting the rules, the referee misinterpreted the rules, the review board would misinterpret the rules and even Livingston who won't appeal the decision are therefore misinterpreting the rules as well? That's a whole lot of "misinterpreting" going on. 

I enjoy reading folk like you, 'I'm right and it's the world that's wrong'.

[VincentGuerin]

5 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

So in your view. I'm misinterpreting the rules, the referee misinterpreted the rules, the review board would misinterpret the rules and even Livingston who won't appeal the decision are therefore misinterpreting the rules as well? That's a whole lot of "misinterpreting" going on. 

I enjoy reading folk like you, 'I'm right and it's the world that's wrong'.

It's been a busy few days for non-fitba stuff, but I've not seen many non-Hibs people expressing the view that it should have been a red card.

You're also failing to understand how decisions work these days. I'm not saying it was a horrendous decision that is completely unfathomable. It's the kind of thing that VAR won't over-turn, but I doubt VAR would have suggested a red had the ref let it go either.

It's just a bit harsh, and it ultimately had a huge bearing on the game. Hibs caught a break. That's life.

Edited December 26, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[Cptn Hooch]

26 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

Well if you're correct, you can be sure that Livingston will appeal the red card and the red card will be rescinded.

(Or course, it won't be. Because you're not correct.)

Livingston won't appeal the decision as it costs to submit the appeal. We didn't appeal Montano being sent off against Aberdeen earlier in the season when it was another player who was involved in the scuffle

[StellarHibee]

5 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

but I've not seen many non-Hibs people expressing the view that it should have been a red card.

Naturally. It's extremely rare for any team to pick up a red card against Hibs. So much so, that people are convinced that no team should ever get a red card against Hibs. 

[ATLIS]

5 hours ago, Crawford Bridge said:

"He won the baw".

Wow, there's really still people that think that's still a thing? Contact with studs = dangerous play. It's not hard to understand and the ref is well within his/her rights to show a red card.

It's not even a tackle in the first place anyway, never a red

[ATLIS]

4 hours ago, StellarHibee said:

I think you're interpreting the rules as you see fit and would be making a different argument had Livingston been playing Hearts instead. It's easy to jump into full scale conspiracy mode when making an argument from a position that you know yourself to be completely nonsensical.

It won't get overturned on appeal (which Livingston won't even appeal anyway), because the referee made the correct decision under the modern interpretation of the rules. That's all there is to it really.

Lol. 

We've just announced that we've appealed it so I guess we'll find out

[crispy]

2 hours ago, ATLIS said:

It's not even a tackle in the first place anyway, never a red

I’m of this view, too. He didn’t “win the ball” because it wasn’t a challenge; he wasn’t going to lose it. He’s kicked it with his laces/toe I think and Nisbet, perhaps still a yard off it, arrives late into his path. No doubt that his acting is fully match fit.

That said, they goals we conceded were all pretty amateur. I’d say the jury is still out on whether Hibs are actually any good: a quick scan of the results shows that Hibs 7 wins include 5 where the opponents have had 10 men for some portion.

Edited December 26, 2022 by crispy

[VincentGuerin]

36 minutes ago, crispy said:

I’m of this view, too. He didn’t “win the ball” because it wasn’t a challenge; he wasn’t going to lose it. He’s kicked it with his laces/toe I think and Nisbet, perhaps still a yard off it, arrives late into his path. No doubt that his acting is fully match fit.

That said, they goals we conceded were all pretty amateur. I’d say the jury is still out on whether Hibs are actually any good: a quick scan of the results shows that Hibs 7 wins include 5 where the opponents have had 10 men for some portion.

I think there's a reasonable case to be made that they will only stay up this season because of opposition red cards.

They're a very poor side.