Livingston v St.Mirren.Wednesday.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Cptn Hooch said:

Pittman's appeal will be heard today so will only be available for the Motherwell game if it's overturned

Ah, ok. Shinnie, Omeonga and the Kellys all still available for centre mid, at least.

[Cptn Hooch]

On 29/12/2022 at 13:00, btb said:

IMO the Pittman sending off shoulda been yellow but you can see why the ref changed his decision to red. 

It'll be interesting to see if this becomes the new criteria for a sending off, if so we're gonna see a lotta them.

Only for certain teams I would imagine...can't see Lundstram or Mcgregor being sent off on Monday for a tackle like Pittman's or Holt's....even the hearts player's assault on Nicky Devlin a few weeks ago was worse than both our red cards yet the outcome was a throw in to Hearts. It's becoming harder and harder NOT to believe there's a vandetta against some clubs

[houston_bud]

Pittman's appeal rejected. Can't say I'm surprised. I thought a yellow was about right but it was a bit high and looked to be out of control.

[Torfason]

2 hours ago, Cptn Hooch said:

It's becoming harder and harder NOT to believe there's a favoritism towards some clubs.

FIFY

All VAR has done is amplify it. 

[Munoz]

Never in doubt,  it was a terrible challenge. 

 

[ATLIS]

Games gone. Shocking decision. Bacchus is the one that kicks Pittman.

 

That’s about 7-8 major decision that have gone against us. Hard not to believe there’s some folk that want us relegated within the SFA/SPFL

[houston_bud]

3 hours ago, ATLIS said:

Games gone. Shocking decision. Bacchus is the one that kicks Pittman.

 

That’s about 7-8 major decision that have gone against us. Hard not to believe there’s some folk that want us relegated within the SFA/SPFL

The other possibility is that ... you could be wrong?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, houston_bud said:

The other possibility is that ... you could be wrong?

The only contact between the players is Baccus kicking the inner ankle of Pittman. Presumably the red was given because at one point (while grounding his foot) Pittman's studs were showing and that was deemed wreckless and potentially endangering an opponent. Pittman had actually managed to plant his foot onto the ground before Baccus kicked him. Baccus was swinging in from the side. The ref probably thought "well if Baccus had kicked at a straighter angle then his foot would've gone straight into the sole of Pittman's boot, which could've hurt him". So there was no dangerous contact, it was only Baccus kicking Pittman's ankle, but the ref felt there hypothetically could've been danger to Baccus if his foot had come in at a different angle. That's how the "reckless" or "endangering an opponent" rule is often applied by refs. It's that hypothetically the player could've hurt an opponent not always that they actually did. Pittman took care to avoid Baccus' swinging foot when planting his own back to the ground but that wasn't enough to show his action was controlled, the refs judged.

The footage of it is quite early into this.

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by FreedomFarter

[Coventry Saint]

48 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said:

The only contact between the players is Baccus kicking the inner ankle of Pittman. Presumably the red was given because at one point (while grounding his foot) Pittman's studs were showing and that was deemed wreckless and potentially endangering an opponent. Pittman had actually managed to plant his foot onto the ground before Baccus kicked him. Baccus was swinging in from the side. The ref probably thought "well if Baccus had kicked at a straighter angle then his foot would've gone straight into the sole of Pittman's boot, which could've hurt him". So there was no dangerous contact, it was only Baccus kicking Pittman's ankle, but the ref felt there hypothetically could've been danger to Baccus if his foot had come in at a different angle. That's how the "wreckless" or "endangering an opponent" rule is often applied by refs. It's that hypothetically the player could've hurt an opponent not always that they actually did. Pittman took care to avoid Baccus' swinging foot when planting his own back to the ground but that wasn't enough to show his action was controlled, the refs judged.

The footage of it is quite early into this.

 

Not sure what you're looking at, but none of that is true. Pittman goes in on Baccus's standing/planted foot. (His left foot.) Claiming the only contact is Baccus kicking his shin is just absolute nonsense.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said:

Not sure what you're looking at, but none of that is true. Pittman goes in on Baccus's standing/planted foot. (His left foot.) Claiming the only contact is Baccus kicking his shin is just absolute nonsense.

You'll need to go and watch the footage. You have that wrong.

Pittman is penalised not for the contact (Baccus kicking into his inner ankle) but for his action preceding it where he is grounding his foot, deemed reckless and endangering (a valid interpretation by the ref).

[Coventry Saint]

10 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said:

You'll need to go and watch the footage. You have that wrong.

Pittman is penalised not for the contact (Baccus kicking into his inner ankle) but for his action preceding it where he is grounding his foot, deemed reckless and endangering (a valid interpretation by the ref).

That isn't the contact. You need to watch it again.

I know still images are problematic with this stuff, but I hope the below helps.

At this point in the image, contact is about to be made. Baccus's left foot is on the ground, and Pittman is going in on it. Baccus's right foot is swinging - and you're correct, he does kick Pittman's shin - but that is not the main contact and is not what Pittman is sent off for.

Pittman's studs make first contact with Baccus's standing left leg. That's the offence. 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said:

That isn't the contact. You need to watch it again.

I know still images are problematic with this stuff, but I hope the below helps.

At this point in the image, contact is about to be made. Baccus's left foot is on the ground, and Pittman is going in on it. Baccus's right foot is swinging - and you're correct, he does kick Pittman's shin - but that is not the main contact and is not what Pittman is sent off for.

Pittman's studs make first contact with Baccus's standing left leg. That's the offence. 

 

Ok, well I'm happy to concede that as the details of the footage isn't why I jumped in. My initial reply to houston_bud above was trying to explain how a couple of Livi fans in this thread and Kettlewell on Sportscene interpreted the incident and that it was an incident relying on subjective interpretation. For me personally, I think there was scope for the ref's interpretation so I'm not here complaining about it.

[Leith Green]

Neither Pittman or Holt (v us) went into their respective challenges intending to hurt the opponents.

However in both cases the movement ended with studs above the boot and on the ankle of Nisbet and Bachus.

Its unfortunate (and certainly with the Holt one I thought harsh at the match) but by the laws of the game both can be deemed a red card.

Thats why both appeals were shitcanned.

[Silvio]

I think Martindale was correct in the post match interview I saw "Has the referee made a clear and obvious error" with the initial yellow? 

I genuinely don't think VAR should have got involved at all.

[Coventry Saint]

17 minutes ago, Silvio said:

I think Martindale was correct in the post match interview I saw "Has the referee made a clear and obvious error" with the initial yellow? 

I genuinely don't think VAR should have got involved at all.

To be fair, I still hate VAR, and want it gone. Even though we've now been on the receiving end of a couple favourable decisions. It's shite.

[djchapsticks]

15 minutes ago, Silvio said:

I think Martindale was correct in the post match interview I saw "Has the referee made a clear and obvious error" with the initial yellow? 

I genuinely don't think VAR should have got involved at all.

This, rather than 'is it or isn't it a red card' is the crux of the matter for me.

I said as much last week at the Aberdeen game and the three penalties. The first penalty warranting a look is fair enough as the ref had pointed to the spot but we put the ball down for a free kick. It was borderline and needed clearing up.

The second two penalties were clear and obvious decisions by the referee and the VAR folk stepped in on every case to ratify. I'm not sure this is something that VAR does at the top levels of the game and if so, that ratification happens quickly and below the radar.

We need to use it for clear and obvious errors. Wednesday wasn't that in my opinion. The ref judged it as yellow at full speed.

 

[FTOF]

Did refs get it right? The VARdict reviews big calls - BBC Sport

The former referee in this explains it quite clearly as to why it was a dangerous challenge, as opposed to the plum that is Richard Foster.

If Pittman slides in without his studs showing at ground level and wins the ball with the top of the boot, which, let's face it, is the way that most successful slide tackles are made, then there's not really a decision to be made.

However, by following through in recklessly on Baccus' standing foot after contact being made by the sole of the boot with studs fully showing and off the ground, then you only have yourself to blame.

The fact that Baccus kicks Pittman's other foot is complete whataboutery of the highest order.

Here's a wee video for Pittman and Holt to watch during their suspensions.

Happy to help.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by FTOF

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Did refs get it right? The VARdict reviews big calls - BBC Sport

The former referee in this explains it quite clearly as to why it was a dangerous challenge, as opposed to the plum that is Richard Foster.

If Pittman slides in without his studs showing at ground level and wins the ball with the top of the boot, which, let's face it, is the way that most successful slide tackles are made, then there's not really a decision to be made.

However, by following through in recklessly on Baccus' standing foot after contact being made by the sole of the boot with studs fully showing and off the ground, then you only have yourself to blame.

The fact that Baccus kicks Pittman's other foot is complete whataboutery of the highest order.

Here's a wee video for Pittman and Holt to watch during their suspensions.

Happy to help.

 

 

@Coventry SaintThe footage in that BBC video with Foster and Dougal shows it far clearer than the Youtube or Sportscene highlights do. There is indeed contact from Pittman on Baccus' standing (left) foot, you're right. 

[Bobby_F]

7 hours ago, Coventry Saint said:

That isn't the contact. You need to watch it again.

I know still images are problematic with this stuff, but I hope the below helps.

At this point in the image, contact is about to be made. Baccus's left foot is on the ground, and Pittman is going in on it. Baccus's right foot is swinging - and you're correct, he does kick Pittman's shin - but that is not the main contact and is not what Pittman is sent off for.

Pittman's studs make first contact with Baccus's standing left leg. That's the offence. 

 

It also shows that, albeit momentarily, both his legs are off the ground.

It was a dangerous, out of control, tackle.

Even Elvis thought it the decision should have gone to Livvy.

So not sure why there have been so many posts trying to defend it.

[Bobby_F]

 

7 hours ago, Silvio said:

I think Martindale was correct in the post match interview I saw "Has the referee made a clear and obvious error" with the initial yellow? 

I genuinely don't think VAR should have got involved at all.

I absolutely agree with the clear an obvious error part of VAR.

I can only think the VAR official thought the ref hadn't properly seen the contact and asked him to go look again.

What SHOULD have happened there is that if the replay should what the ref gave the yellow for, it stays as yellow.  If it shows the ref something he missed, and that if he'd seen it was a red, then he should change the decision.

I've no idea if that's how it went, but it feels like that's how it should work.

The fact refs very rarely stick with their original decision suggests that VAR are indeed highlighting things the ref missed.

We've got to remember that (love them or loathe them) VAR is being looked at by professional referees who know a lot more about the laws and their interpretation than fans (and even players and managers) do.