Jump to content

Jordan Jones


Bobby14

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CBFC said:

I am going to stand up for referees here. Slate me if you want.

the Ref gets one look at it.

He sees it from where he is standing, not from every camera angle.

Having watched Stallone putting his Rocky fights together, you can see from the side that he isn’t touched by the glove. However from behind it looks like he has taken a hit.

Finally, Referees will get it wrong sometimes. We have already had some above saying that Morelos dived and some saying he was clipped. Having watched Sportscene, for me, he was clipped by Penny and in doing so he kicked his own leg, tripping himself. Still a penalty though, in my mind.

When referees get it wrong, you expect the SFA to right the wrong if possible. However, the problem for me is not the Referees, but the blazers at the SFA who have shown incompetence and not for the first time.

I think the media have a lot to do with perception. Take our game. Watching Sportscene and reading papers post match it’s all about contentious decisions. Why don’t they use the tools at their disposal to put things to bed. 

There is a photo on the official club site and this website which appear to show the ball over the line but no media source has used it to praise the official for a good call. Sportscene had a wee line which looked to prove Jackson offside at the disallowed goal but no one else has picked up on it. Today’s papers still printing the St Mirren view he was a yard onside. 

It fits the narrative for too many people to make Scottish officials look bad even when they haven’t been. They don’t cover themselves in glory all the time but there is no need to hang them out to dry for no reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my old-timer's view here, but when did it become a penalty ALWAYS when someone gets knocked over/tripped etc. Used to be penalties were for DELIBERATE trips or handballs etc. Indirect free kicks used to be given for 'accidental' incidents. Now it seems we have a binary choice - penalty or it's a dive. Was less contentious back in the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, piffer said:

I think the media have a lot to do with perception. Take our game. Watching Sportscene and reading papers post match it’s all about contentious decisions. Why don’t they use the tools at their disposal to put things to bed. 

There is a photo on the official club site and this website which appear to show the ball over the line but no media source has used it to praise the official for a good call. Sportscene had a wee line which looked to prove Jackson offside at the disallowed goal but no one else has picked up on it. Today’s papers still printing the St Mirren view he was a yard onside. 

It fits the narrative for too many people to make Scottish officials look bad even when they haven’t been. They don’t cover themselves in glory all the time but there is no need to hang them out to dry for no reason. 

IMG_0139.jpg.2eae7ea94da245245db1deb8d9e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lonewolfie said:

Just my old-timer's view here, but when did it become a penalty ALWAYS when someone gets knocked over/tripped etc. Used to be penalties were for DELIBERATE trips or handballs etc. Indirect free kicks used to be given for 'accidental' incidents. Now it seems we have a binary choice - penalty or it's a dive. Was less contentious back in the day.

Good point - you rarely see indirect free kicks given anywhere on the pitch these days. Unintentional obstruction is one offence which certainly used to lead to an indirect free kick and surely unintentional clipping of heels just when you are running alongside or behind an opponent should be another. I guess that it all comes back to the subjective decision of a referee, which is where the problems start...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jimmy Superscot said:

….you rarely see indirect free kicks given anywhere on the pitch these days. Unintentional obstruction is one offence which certainly used to lead to an indirect free kick....

There are still a lot of offended punishable by an indirect free kick.

Sadly, the concise offence of obstruction has disappeared from the laws, replaced by "impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made"!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, skygod said:

There are still a lot of offended punishable by an indirect free kick.

Sadly, the concise offence of obstruction has disappeared from the laws, replaced by "impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made"!

 

Exactly... which always makes me wonder how you can get away with "shepherding" the ball out for a goal kick - attacker plays the ball forward; defender gets between attacker and ball; defender doesn't make contact with the ball or attacker but "impedes the progress" of the attacker; ball goes out and goal kick awarded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Covered in the wording "Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player."

As long as the "shepherding" player has the ball within playing distance, it's okay by the laws.

I agree that it's a bit of an aberration though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrTumnus said:

Been away for a few days and just saw the BBC highlights. A blatant dive by Morrelos on Sunday . Did I also miss the SFA charge of simulation?

 

No. Sadly a high % of  people on here subscribe to the ‘modern’ interpretation that as there was a fleeting touch on his heel from the defender he was entitled to flop down like a diseased toad creature that’s just been pole-axed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are entitled to support whoever they support but they should not be rubbing it in people's faces on "public" social media when they are Killie players. If they post bigoted stuff - which none of these boys have but which I think one of our ex-youth players was doing - then they should be disciplined just the same as if you or me posted that kind of stuff and the work found out.

Going to games is hardly a crime. I remember Locke at a Hearts cup final when he was a Killie player. What is he supposed to do, miss it? The guy was a well known lifelong rabid Jambo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, steve101 said:

As long as they support and give their commitment to us in the matches they play, and when representing the club, I don't think what they do in their personal time matters. 

Correct. 

We've had a thread on this before. 

Kris Boyd is a Rangers fan. 

Tommy Burns was a Celtic fan. 

They are and were 100% Killie men in the stripes and in Tommy's case as manager. 

Edited by stewarty66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MrTumnus said:

Been away for a few days and just saw the BBC highlights. A blatant dive by Morrelos on Sunday . Did I also miss the SFA charge of simulation?

 

He never dived, there’s definite contact between the knee and heel. Might not be a penalty in everyone’s eyes but it was contact which made him fall, so not a dive, and therefor no charge of simulation. Take off the blue glasses and look at it objectively. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Bryan said:

Define dive?!

Does the contact make him throw him self through the air like he did.  No it would make him fall over naturally.  He over exaggerated the fall, which in my view is a dive to enhance his chance of being awarded a penalty.

Agree 100% with this but we are dinosaurs for thinking this way. If a molecule of a defender's breath contacts Alfredo's warty toad-like skin he is entitled to throw himself through the air and spiral to the ground. The modern vernacular dictates there was contact so it was a penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, david mcbeth said:

Agree 100% with this but we are dinosaurs for thinking this way. If a molecule of a defender's breath contacts Alfredo's warty toad-like skin he is entitled to throw himself through the air and spiral to the ground. The modern vernacular dictates there was contact so it was a penalty.

No one said you were a dinosaur ..... clown maybe but not a dinosaur.

 

His trailing foot was caught by the defender and this caused him to kick his right leg .... THAT caused him to fall.  Definitely contact from the defender which led to him falling ... very soft penalty to get but we'd all be claiming for it if it was Brophy going down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...