The big ol' Buddies - Jambos double header.

[Tony Wonder]

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

I don't think you are getting me. Just to be clear here, Tony, to avoid confusion, I'm not suggesting Fraser shouldn't get a red, I'm just saying the guy wouldn't have been landed on if he wasn't lying on the ground after making the decision to lie on the ground.

btw, thanks for the "it's obvious he's seen the red mist and jumped in with intent" comment, not only is it quite clear if there was intent he would have done a "better job than he did", it only underlines how Hearts fans seem to see things differently to other people...

 

I'm perfectly clear, you're saying if Grant doesn't go to ground, he can't get landed on. Which is a stupid line to take. Players go to ground all the time, they can do so without a player landing on their leg. He can lie wherever he wants, it's pretty easy not to jump on people.

I genuinely don't know what that last paragraph means tbh. I already said I think he pulled out a bit on the way down while realising how stupid it is. But I have no idea how you can claim he's done that accidentally or without intent. He's jumped his own player and brought his feet together when coming down, that not unintentional.

[Tony Wonder]

I'm genuinely not even bothered about the red. Was too late to make an impact on the game and Grant was ok so no effect on us at all really, just genuinely baffled how anyone can watch it and say he never intended to do what he did.

If he's simply hurdling his own player to get into the space why is he bring his feet down together in a stamp?

Edited January 8, 2023 by Tony Wonder

[Molotov]

40 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Hearts fans are generally quite good at these tributes to dead people  but, admittedly, not always 

Your insensitive comments kicked off a lot of shite on this thread. Away and crawl back under a rock you horrible cnut.

[paranoid android]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

I think it's pretty obvious what he's trying to do, he's hurdling Olysana, and the space where he's going to land has now been taken up by a Hearts player who decides to go to ground. Now, could Fraser have made more of an attempt to not land on him? Probably, I mean... I think I would have been able to. You know what it's like when you are falling, you have cat-like reflexes. I am pretty sure he could have twisted his body so that he still landed on the lad but not feet first. None of us are Fraser, so who knows exactly what he sees and in turn decides to do.

What we can see is a player who clearly doesn't dive in with intent, it's just not a stamp in the Roy Keane sense, but imo.. we also see a player that isn't 100% committed to not landing on the opponent. As I say, there is no real arguing the red.

 

Please tell us why Fraser chose to hurdle the boy on the ground? 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

15 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

So, let me get this straight - Grant saw Fraser in mid air, and thought 'I'm totally going to put my leg under that boy's studs' ? 

I think the case being made is that Grant’s leg wasn’t at the landing site when Fraser launched into the air so he’s not to blame

which kind of boils down to “How was he supposed to anticipate that Grant would try to play that ball as well?”

which isn’t the strongest of arguments  but St Mirren are free to risk a grand appealing it

[Ric]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wonder said:

Players go to ground all the time, they can do so without a player landing on their leg. He can lie wherever he wants, it's pretty easy not to jump on people.

I mean you are half way there, so some progress. We both agree Fraser could probably have done better to avoid contact with his feet.

The idea that players can throw themselves with impunity to the ground is just not the case, though. Do that in the penalty box and an opposition player tripped over you, you'd give away a penalty. That's not the case here of course, the foul is by Fraser, but it shows that intentionally placing yourself in any position other than "standing normally" is not without it's risks.

[paranoid android]

1 minute ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

I think the case being made is that Grant’s leg wasn’t at the landing site when Fraser launched into the air so he’s not to blame

which kind of boils down to “How was he supposed to anticipate that Grant would try to play that ball as well?”

which isn’t the strongest of arguments  but St Mirren are free to risk a grand appealing it

I'd love them to appeal the red card - see where that gets them .

[Ric]

12 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

Please tell us why Fraser chose to hurdle the boy on the ground? 

For crying out loud, that's literally the first sentence of the text you quoted.

8 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

I think the case being made is that Grant’s leg wasn’t at the landing site when Fraser launched into the air so he’s not to blame

If that's aimed at me, then I think Fraser is to blame, and he was carded for it, my point is that he's not totally at fault.

5 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

I'd love them to appeal the red card - see where that gets them .

I very much doubt we will. I'm not sure if such an appeal could be rushed through, but seeing as we are pretty much at the limit of our budget just now (until one of Shaughnessy, Erhahon or Baccus, leaves us) and it would have to be a generous panel to revoke that one.

I don't think there is a single St Mirren fan that thinks we should appeal.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Ric

[paranoid android]

@Ric

Here's what you said, pal:

"I think it's pretty obvious what he's trying to do, he's hurdling Olysana, and the space where he's going to land has now been taken up by a Hearts player who decides to go to ground. Now, could Fraser have made more of an attempt to not land on him? Probably, I mean... I think I would have been able to. You know what it's like when you are falling, you have cat-like reflexes. I am pretty sure he could have twisted his body so that he still landed on the lad but not feet first. None of us are Fraser, so who knows exactly what he sees and in turn decides to do.'

The question I'm asking is 'why was he hurdling the boy'?

[Ric]

Just now, paranoid android said:

@Ric

Here's what you said, pal:

"I think it's pretty obvious what he's trying to do, he's hurdling Olysana, and the space where he's going to land has now been taken up by a Hearts player who decides to go to ground. Now, could Fraser have made more of an attempt to not land on him? Probably, I mean... I think I would have been able to. You know what it's like when you are falling, you have cat-like reflexes. I am pretty sure he could have twisted his body so that he still landed on the lad but not feet first. None of us are Fraser, so who knows exactly what he sees and in turn decides to do.'

The question I'm asking is 'why was he hurdling the boy'?

Momentum.

I mean if you are trying to make the claim that Fraser had watched your lad, lined up his sights, then waited for him to go to ground and pounced then, I have to say, that is quite the sell.

It is what we all can see, someone who hasn't intended on landing on the lad, found out that he was and effectively ended between the two camps of "properly injuring the player" and "flipping like a falling cat to avoid all contact". Pre VAR, I feel that would have been pulled up by a midweek panel as the TV cameras caught it in action, despite the linesman and/or referee not calling it at the time. In the time of VAR these things are more immediate. 

 

[Tony Wonder]

16 minutes ago, Ric said:

I mean you are half way there, so some progress. We both agree Fraser could probably have done better to avoid contact with his feet.

The idea that players can throw themselves with impunity to the ground is just not the case, though. Do that in the penalty box and an opposition player tripped over you, you'd give away a penalty. That's not the case here of course, the foul is by Fraser, but it shows that intentionally placing yourself in any position other than "standing normally" is not without it's risks.

Frankly I think you're waffling. 

Respectfully agree to disagree.

[Ric]

1 minute ago, Tony Wonder said:

Frankly I think you're waffling. 

Respectfully agree to disagree.

That's fine, just don't think I am coming from the position that the red isn't merited. It leaves us pretty short in the defence but for the reasons I said earlier, I very much doubt we'll appeal.

[AW saint]

Stupid decision by Fraser. There was no need for him to jump Olusanya. He had time to stop. I can fully understand the red card. 

Time to move on to next Friday which will be a far harder game

[Bobby_F]

Haven’t seen Sportscene.  

Did they clear up why the free kick was given to Hearts?

[VincentGuerin]

34 minutes ago, Ric said:

The idea that players can throw themselves with impunity to the ground is just not the case

 

[jimmy boo]

2 minutes ago, Bobby_F said:

Haven’t seen Sportscene.  

Did they clear up why the free kick was given to Hearts?

Nope.

[paranoid android]

10 minutes ago, Ric said:

I mean if you are trying to make the claim that Fraser had watched your lad, lined up his sights, then waited for him to go to ground and pounced then, I have to say, that is quite the sell.

It is what we all can see, someone who hasn't intended on landing on the lad, found out that he was and effectively ended between the two camps of "properly injuring the player" and "flipping like a falling cat to avoid all contact". Pre VAR, I feel that would have been pulled up by a midweek panel as the TV cameras caught it in action, despite the linesman and/or referee not calling it at the time. In the time of VAR these things are more immediate. 

 

The fact is, Ric, that Fraser has left the ground, vaulted over a team mate, and landed on Grant's leg.

As someone else has said, no one really cares about an inconsequential red card that was given in the fifth minute of injury time.

The reason st mirren won't be appealing the red card is because it's nailed-on - it's not Grant's fault - its Fraser's fault. 

[paranoid android]

2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

 

This.

Grant threw himself to the ground with impunity!

f**k me rigid! 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

27 minutes ago, Ric said:

 

If that's aimed at me, then I think Fraser is to blame, and he was carded for it, my point is that he's not totally to blame.

It wasn’t aimed at you in particular I was summing up a general sentiment 

listening on the radio the comms team all described it as a definite red but “stupid” rather than “malicious” and I’ve not seen an angle that contradicts that

Players being so committed and fired up that they risk getting themselves carded isn’t great but it’s probably preferable  to them  tacitly settling for a draw especially if you’re only reduced to 10 men for a few minutes 

As red cards against your team go ones like that should be easier to shrug off

[Bobby_F]

11 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

The fact is, Ric, that Fraser has left the ground, vaulted over a team mate, and landed on Grant's leg.

As someone else has said, no one really cares about an inconsequential red card that was given in the fifth minute of injury time.

The reason st mirren won't be appealing the red card is because it's nailed-on - it's not Grant's fault - its Fraser's fault. 

He’s going to be missing 2-3 games as a result of this, at a time where our defence is decimated with injuries and other suspensions.  

So we definitely care.