How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got the 
ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red card not 
have been rescinded?

"Stevio"  wrote in message 
news:A71qj.994$nG4.831@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got the 
> ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red card 
> not have been rescinded?

Because it was a red card offence!

JB

"Jonbhoy"  wrote
> "Stevio"  wrote in message
>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got 
>> the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red 
>> card not have been rescinded?
>
> Because it was a red card offence!

He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball matters 
is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the ball first in a 
tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you say otherwise then you 
really are going down the road to a non-contact sport. If you want to get 
technical, since McGregor played the ball last before the two players legs 
hit each other, it should actually be a free kick to Rangers! How the ref 
cannot rescind the red card is beyond comprehension.

"Stevio"  wrote in message 
news:ah6qj.1313$wH5.1173@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> "Jonbhoy"  wrote
>> "Stevio"  wrote in message
>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got 
>>> the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red 
>>> card not have been rescinded?
>>
>> Because it was a red card offence!
>
> He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball 
> matters is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the ball 
> first in a tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you say 
> otherwise then you really are going down the road to a non-contact sport. 
> If you want to get technical, since McGregor played the ball last before 
> the two players legs hit each other, it should actually be a free kick to 
> Rangers! How the ref cannot rescind the red card is beyond comprehension.

Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been 
screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise it 
would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it on the 
day but didnt he slide out with studs showing? That combined with last man 
is enough for a sending off even if he connected fully with the ball first! 
(Is there a clip on the net?) . There was contact but ill agree it wasnt a 
huge amount,also agree that its getting silly the amount of contact that 
seems to injury a player in regards to say 15 years ago !

JB

"Jonbhoy"  wrote
> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been 
> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise it 
> would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it on the 
> day but didnt he slide out with studs showing?

Just because some people say if it was Boruc then this, that or the next 
thing, does that mean they are right? No. So ignore them. If it was Boruc, 
Craig Gordon, Paddy Bonner or Alan Rough it wouldn't matter, it should not 
have been a red card. The laws do not state that winning the ball in a 
tackle is a red card offence! The ref was wrong at the time and he was wrong 
in not overturning it.

> That combined with last man is enough for a sending off even if he 
> connected fully with the ball first!

Denying a goalscoring opportunity (last man whatever) is only a red card 
offence IF YOU COMMIT A FOUL! (Shouting intentional lol.)

If a goalkeeper does a great save to "deny a goalscoring opportunity" is it 
a red card? Of course not! But that is almost equivalent to the argument you 
are making (except for the bit about studs showing, which I am pretty sure 
they were not, and I do not believe studs showing is why the ref sent him 
off).

> (Is there a clip on the net?) . There was contact but ill agree it wasnt a 
> huge amount,also agree that its getting silly the amount of contact that 
> seems to injury a player in regards to say 15 years ago !

The amount of contact doesn't really matter, he played the ball and it even 
changed the direction of the ball. As I say before, if we are really going 
down the route of playing the ball doesn't actually matter if you happen to 
make contact with the man afterwards, then Platini is going to get his wish 
of many years ago when he suggested tackling should be banned. Football will 
become non-contact.

As I said before, if someone plays the ball in a tackle, that means that any 
contact immediately afterwards technically would be a foul to him. A foul is 
not given but that is why people say that if you get the ball first it 
doesn't really matter if you go through the man afterwards. It makes perfect 
sense. Are there exceptions? Yes. I saw a guy on the TV last week clear a 
ball (Robert Huth I'm sure) and then follow through with a straight leg into 
the guy's midriff. Tackles that are dangerous (the common two footed 
straight legged lunge) are also exceptions, but not what McGregor did.

"Stevio"  wrote in message 
news:tV6qj.2752$NL3.2612@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> "Jonbhoy"  wrote
>> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been 
>> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise it 
>> would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it on the 
>> day but didnt he slide out with studs showing?
>
> Just because some people say if it was Boruc then this, that or the next 
> thing, does that mean they are right? No. So ignore them. If it was Boruc, 
> Craig Gordon, Paddy Bonner or Alan Rough it wouldn't matter, it should not 
> have been a red card. The laws do not state that winning the ball in a 
> tackle is a red card offence! The ref was wrong at the time and he was 
> wrong in not overturning it.

The Boruc thing i said firmly tongue in cheek!!! But its not about just 
winning the ball is it,if an outfield player went chest high with a flying 
karate kick and kicked the ball before connecting with a player would that 
not be a foul?

>> That combined with last man is enough for a sending off even if he 
>> connected fully with the ball first!
>
> Denying a goalscoring opportunity (last man whatever) is only a red card 
> offence IF YOU COMMIT A FOUL! (Shouting intentional lol.)

He took the player out who was in a goal scoring oppurtunity,hence red card.

> If a goalkeeper does a great save to "deny a goalscoring opportunity" is 
> it a red card? Of course not! But that is almost equivalent to the 
> argument you are making (except for the bit about studs showing, which I 
> am pretty sure they were not, and I do not believe studs showing is why 
> the ref sent him off).

Oh come on,its hardly a great save! It was a last ditch attempt! As i said 
though id like to see a replay clip as im only going by what i saw on sunday 
with a nasty bout of flu clearing so would like to see it again.

>> (Is there a clip on the net?) . There was contact but ill agree it wasnt 
>> a huge amount,also agree that its getting silly the amount of contact 
>> that seems to injury a player in regards to say 15 years ago !
>
> The amount of contact doesn't really matter, he played the ball and it 
> even changed the direction of the ball. As I say before, if we are really 
> going down the route of playing the ball doesn't actually matter if you 
> happen to make contact with the man afterwards, then Platini is going to 
> get his wish of many years ago when he suggested tackling should be 
> banned. Football will become non-contact.
>
> As I said before, if someone plays the ball in a tackle, that means that 
> any contact immediately afterwards technically would be a foul to him. A 
> foul is not given but that is why people say that if you get the ball 
> first it doesn't really matter if you go through the man afterwards. It 
> makes perfect sense. Are there exceptions? Yes. I saw a guy on the TV last 
> week clear a ball (Robert Huth I'm sure) and then follow through with a 
> straight leg into the guy's midriff. Tackles that are dangerous (the 
> common two footed straight legged lunge) are also exceptions, but not what 
> McGregor did.

But as you said he may have moved the ball but he didnt clear it and had the 
guy been able to carry on his run would have scored , its simple as that!

JB

"Jonbhoy"  wrote in message 
news:scSdnS7J4-8FaDXanZ2dnUVZ8t6inZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Stevio"  wrote in message 
> news:ah6qj.1313$wH5.1173@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>> "Jonbhoy"  wrote
>>> "Stevio"  wrote in message
>>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got 
>>>> the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red 
>>>> card not have been rescinded?
>>>
>>> Because it was a red card offence!
>>
>> He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball 
>> matters is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the ball 
>> first in a tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you say 
>> otherwise then you really are going down the road to a non-contact sport. 
>> If you want to get technical, since McGregor played the ball last before 
>> the two players legs hit each other, it should actually be a free kick to 
>> Rangers! How the ref cannot rescind the red card is beyond comprehension.
>
> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been 
> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise it 
> would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it on the 
> day but didnt he slide out with studs showing? That combined with last man

Where in the rules does it say anything about "last man"?

"Jonbhoy"  wrote
> The Boruc thing i said firmly tongue in cheek!!! But its not about just 
> winning the ball is it,if an outfield player went chest high with a flying 
> karate kick and kicked the ball before connecting with a player would that 
> not be a foul?

That isn't what McGregor did, not even close. He won the ball fairly. Are 
you seriously saying that from now on you can only tackle someone as long as 
there is no physical contact afterwards? Everyone who has played the game 
knows that a good tackle is when you win the ball first. If in the process 
you get the man too, that doesn't matter, because you played the ball. As I 
said before, if you want to get technical, the reason why if you get the man 
afterwards is because by playing the ball last, you had possession of the 
ball (in a sense) and it is therefore really the responsibility of the 
player you just tackled to get out the way. If anything, the player that 
lost the ball has fouled the defender by not getting his legs out the way of 
the tackler who is playing the ball (if you want to get technical).

>>> That combined with last man is enough for a sending off even if he 
>>> connected fully with the ball first!
>>
>> Denying a goalscoring opportunity (last man whatever) is only a red card 
>> offence IF YOU COMMIT A FOUL! (Shouting intentional lol.)
>
> He took the player out who was in a goal scoring oppurtunity,hence red 
> card.

It doesn't matter if you deny a goal scoring opportunity if you do it 
legally! That was the tongue in cheek point I was trying to make below.

>> If a goalkeeper does a great save to "deny a goalscoring opportunity" is 
>> it a red card? Of course not! But that is almost equivalent to the 
>> argument you are making (except for the bit about studs showing, which I 
>> am pretty sure they were not, and I do not believe studs showing is why 
>> the ref sent him off).
>
> Oh come on,its hardly a great save! It was a last ditch attempt! As i said 
> though id like to see a replay clip as im only going by what i saw on 
> sunday with a nasty bout of flu clearing so would like to see it again.

If McManus gets a header in at goal against McGregor in an Old Firm game, 
and McGregor catches it, McGregor has "denied a goal scoring oppurtunity", 
but it's not a red card. If McDonald is running through on goal with only 
Weir to beat, and Weir takes the ball of him, Weir has "denied a goal 
scoring oppurtunity", but it's not a red card. It's only a red card if they 
commit an offence while "denying a goal scoring oppurtunity" lol!

> But as you said he may have moved the ball but he didnt clear it and had 
> the guy been able to carry on his run would have scored , its simple as 
> that!

That's a wee shame for the guy, that he wasn't smart enough to get out the 
way of the tackle then isn't it? He shouldn't have ran into McGregor's legs 
while McGregor was in the process of playing the ball :-)

Was the tackle dangerous? No.
Did McGregor play the ball? Yes.
Was it a red card? No.
Has the referee made a mess of it? Yes (twice now).

This is as basic as it gets. It shouldn't even be a debate. As soon as the 
appeal was looked at the red card should have been rescinded.

"Moody Marco"  wrote in message 
news:SIudnU9ulbWg_jTanZ2dnUVZ8q6onZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Jonbhoy"  wrote in message 
> news:scSdnS7J4-8FaDXanZ2dnUVZ8t6inZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Stevio"  wrote in message 
>> news:ah6qj.1313$wH5.1173@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>> "Jonbhoy"  wrote
>>>> "Stevio"  wrote in message
>>>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got 
>>>>> the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red 
>>>>> card not have been rescinded?
>>>>
>>>> Because it was a red card offence!
>>>
>>> He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball 
>>> matters is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the ball 
>>> first in a tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you say 
>>> otherwise then you really are going down the road to a non-contact 
>>> sport. If you want to get technical, since McGregor played the ball last 
>>> before the two players legs hit each other, it should actually be a free 
>>> kick to Rangers! How the ref cannot rescind the red card is beyond 
>>> comprehension.
>>
>> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been 
>> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise it 
>> would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it on the 
>> day but didnt he slide out with studs showing? That combined with last 
>> man
>
> Where in the rules does it say anything about "last man"?

If the last man between player and goal commits a foul on the player with 
the ball thought it was classified as an auto red and not a yellow.

JB

"Jonbhoy"  wrote in message 
news:3MydnZfWeZ-oVjTaRVnytQA@giganews.com...
>
> "Moody Marco"  wrote in message 
> news:SIudnU9ulbWg_jTanZ2dnUVZ8q6onZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Jonbhoy"  wrote in message 
>> news:scSdnS7J4-8FaDXanZ2dnUVZ8t6inZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Stevio"  wrote in message 
>>> news:ah6qj.1313$wH5.1173@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>>> "Jonbhoy"  wrote
>>>>> "Stevio"  wrote in message
>>>>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He 
>>>>>> got the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can 
>>>>>> the red card not have been rescinded?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it was a red card offence!
>>>>
>>>> He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball 
>>>> matters is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the 
>>>> ball first in a tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you say 
>>>> otherwise then you really are going down the road to a non-contact 
>>>> sport. If you want to get technical, since McGregor played the ball 
>>>> last before the two players legs hit each other, it should actually be 
>>>> a free kick to Rangers! How the ref cannot rescind the red card is 
>>>> beyond comprehension.
>>>
>>> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been 
>>> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise 
>>> it would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it on 
>>> the day but didnt he slide out with studs showing? That combined with 
>>> last man
>>
>> Where in the rules does it say anything about "last man"?
>
> If the last man between player and goal commits a foul on the player with 
> the ball thought it was classified as an auto red and not a yellow.
>
> JB
>

I think it's something about denying a clear goal scoring opportunity and 
not to do with the last man. Not 100% sure though.

"Angof"  wrote in message 
news:13qjjsh6vmv9v31@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jonbhoy"  wrote in message 
> news:3MydnZfWeZ-oVjTaRVnytQA@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Moody Marco"  wrote in message 
>> news:SIudnU9ulbWg_jTanZ2dnUVZ8q6onZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Jonbhoy"  wrote in message 
>>> news:scSdnS7J4-8FaDXanZ2dnUVZ8t6inZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Stevio"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:ah6qj.1313$wH5.1173@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>> "Jonbhoy"  wrote
>>>>>> "Stevio"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He 
>>>>>>> got the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can 
>>>>>>> the red card not have been rescinded?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it was a red card offence!
>>>>>
>>>>> He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball 
>>>>> matters is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the 
>>>>> ball first in a tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you 
>>>>> say otherwise then you really are going down the road to a non-contact 
>>>>> sport. If you want to get technical, since McGregor played the ball 
>>>>> last before the two players legs hit each other, it should actually be 
>>>>> a free kick to Rangers! How the ref cannot rescind the red card is 
>>>>> beyond comprehension.
>>>>
>>>> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been 
>>>> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise 
>>>> it would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it 
>>>> on the day but didnt he slide out with studs showing? That combined 
>>>> with last man
>>>
>>> Where in the rules does it say anything about "last man"?
>>
>> If the last man between player and goal commits a foul on the player with 
>> the ball thought it was classified as an auto red and not a yellow.
>>
>> JB
>>
>
> I think it's something about denying a clear goal scoring opportunity and 
> not to do with the last man. Not 100% sure though.

Hmmmmm could be seen as the same thing i suppose,if your going to foul the 
guy your going to stop him from scoring . Whenever i played i always played 
it as the last man had to be ultra careful as the ref was always going to 
look for the contact and being fair even sunday league stuff its only ever 
going to be the last guy that ends up in trouble!

JB

It was noted in: (O_adnTNfF_gtSDTanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com),
that Jonbhoy  spouted forth their words of 
wisdom...:

> "Angof"  wrote in message
> news:13qjjsh6vmv9v31@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Jonbhoy"  wrote in message
>> news:3MydnZfWeZ-oVjTaRVnytQA@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Moody Marco"  wrote in message
>>> news:SIudnU9ulbWg_jTanZ2dnUVZ8q6onZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Jonbhoy"  wrote in message
>>>> news:scSdnS7J4-8FaDXanZ2dnUVZ8t6inZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Stevio"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:ah6qj.1313$wH5.1173@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>> "Jonbhoy"  wrote
>>>>>>> "Stevio"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He
>>>>>>>> got the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can
>>>>>>>> the red card not have been rescinded?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it was a red card offence!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball
>>>>>> matters is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the
>>>>>> ball first in a tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you
>>>>>> say otherwise then you really are going down the road to a 
>>>>>> non-contact
>>>>>> sport. If you want to get technical, since McGregor played the ball
>>>>>> last before the two players legs hit each other, it should actually 
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> a free kick to Rangers! How the ref cannot rescind the red card is
>>>>>> beyond comprehension.
>>>>>
>>>>> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been
>>>>> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise
>>>>> it would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it
>>>>> on the day but didnt he slide out with studs showing? That combined
>>>>> with last man
>>>>
>>>> Where in the rules does it say anything about "last man"?
>>>
>>> If the last man between player and goal commits a foul on the player 
>>> with
>>> the ball thought it was classified as an auto red and not a yellow.
>>>
>>> JB
>>>
>>
>> I think it's something about denying a clear goal scoring opportunity and
>> not to do with the last man. Not 100% sure though.
>
> Hmmmmm could be seen as the same thing i suppose,if your going to foul the
> guy your going to stop him from scoring . Whenever i played i always 
> played
> it as the last man had to be ultra careful as the ref was always going to
> look for the contact and being fair even sunday league stuff its only ever
> going to be the last guy that ends up in trouble!
>
> JB

Aye.. but... the argument isn't whether that rule is *valid* or not!

MacGregor played the ball first. You see those tackles ALL the time 
elsewhere on the park.
They look sore ones because there *is* contact, but in the event of the ball 
being taken off of the opponent, most commentators react with a resounding 
"ooph! Good Tackle, but he felt that one!" or words to that effect.

So last man or not it was a GOOD TACKLE, and therefore an oversight by the 
referee.

It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things anyway. If it had 
been overturned you's cellic fans would just have another reason to whinge 
about the 'unfairness' of not winning the league come the end of the 
season... ;-)
Probably surmising that the overturned decision was decided in some 'lodge' 
of some sort  :-P

biz


-- 
 www.bebo.com/bizenya79
 www.myspace.com/bizenya
Lightning strikes about 6,000 times per minute on this planet!

Snipped

>> Hmmmmm could be seen as the same thing i suppose,if your going to foul 
>> the
>> guy your going to stop him from scoring . Whenever i played i always 
>> played
>> it as the last man had to be ultra careful as the ref was always going to
>> look for the contact and being fair even sunday league stuff its only 
>> ever
>> going to be the last guy that ends up in trouble!
>>
>> JB
>
> Aye.. but... the argument isn't whether that rule is *valid* or not!

That was a response to angof,and if the rule is valid then it does matter.

> MacGregor played the ball first. You see those tackles ALL the time 
> elsewhere on the park.

Here we go again!!! But elsewhere on the pitch is hardly going to affect the 
outcome the same way it is if its one on one with the keeper.Some refs would 
give it elsewhere on the pitch,some wouldnt...thats the inconsistency of 
refing sadly.

> They look sore ones because there *is* contact, but in the event of the 
> ball being taken off of the opponent, most commentators react with a 
> resounding "ooph! Good Tackle, but he felt that one!" or words to that 
> effect.

Ok look at it this way,if the other lad had not been touched and was on his 
feet do you think the ball would have been safe and cleared?

> So last man or not it was a GOOD TACKLE, and therefore an oversight by the 
> referee.

Disagree,but you know why so wont type it all again.Its going in 
circles,rangers fans saying its an injustice and everyone else feeling its 
fair enough so never going to really agree!

> It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things anyway. If it had 
> been overturned you's cellic fans would just have another reason to whinge 
> about the 'unfairness' of not winning the league come the end of the 
> season... ;-)
> Probably surmising that the overturned decision was decided in some 
> 'lodge' of some sort  :-P

Aye and as we speak no doubt certain posters shall be looking like crazy on 
google to check if the ref has ever taken a holiday in rome!!! ;-)

JB

"Jonbhoy"  wrote
> Ok look at it this way,if the other lad had not been touched and was on 
> his feet do you think the ball would have been safe and cleared?

Jonbhoy you seem to be ignoring this basic point - that it was a good 
tackle! So it doesn't matter where the ball went because it wasn't a foul. 
It wasn't McGregor's fault Shields fell down because McGregor played the 
ball first. He therefore technically had possession of the ball last 
therefore any contact between the two players is Shields fault technically.

That's why people talk about getting the ball first and the man second. If 
you get the ball first you can take anything else out that gets in the way 
of your leg, as long as there isn't time for you to straighten the leg up 
and stick it in a guy's stomach like Huth did recently, and you did not 
commit the tackle in a dangerous way (e.g. two footed straight legged). 
McGregor's tackle was fine as it did neither of these things.

It was noted in: (1tKdnUX7NrTrQDTaRVnyhQA@giganews.com),
that Jonbhoy  spouted forth their words of 
wisdom...:

> Snipped
>
>>> Hmmmmm could be seen as the same thing i suppose,if your going to foul
>>> the
>>> guy your going to stop him from scoring . Whenever i played i always
>>> played
>>> it as the last man had to be ultra careful as the ref was always going 
>>> to
>>> look for the contact and being fair even sunday league stuff its only
>>> ever
>>> going to be the last guy that ends up in trouble!
>>>
>>> JB
>>
>> Aye.. but... the argument isn't whether that rule is *valid* or not!
>
> That was a response to angof,and if the rule is valid then it does matter.

Only if the argument was that it should have been a yellow instead of a red 
for a definite foul.

I still think your argument is coming across as "if you are the last man, 
you are *not allowed* to make a tackle in any instance"

>
>> MacGregor played the ball first. You see those tackles ALL the time
>> elsewhere on the park.
>
> Here we go again!!! But elsewhere on the pitch is hardly going to affect 
> the
> outcome the same way it is if its one on one with the keeper.Some refs 
> would
> give it elsewhere on the pitch,some wouldnt...thats the inconsistency of
> reffing sadly.

I thought he reffed quite happily! :-P

>
>> They look sore ones because there *is* contact, but in the event of the
>> ball being taken off of the opponent, most commentators react with a
>> resounding "ooph! Good Tackle, but he felt that one!" or words to that
>> effect.
>
> Ok look at it this way,if the other lad had not been touched and was on 
> his
> feet do you think the ball would have been safe and cleared?

Maybe if MacGregor had the pinpoint tackling accuracy of a world class 
defender, he might have somehow nicked the ball away from the guy while 
avoiding going through on him. But he did what he set out to do - he DID 
nick the ball away from the attacker, the resulting follow through is as 
illegal as it is avoidable.

>
>> So last man or not it was a GOOD TACKLE, and therefore an oversight by 
>> the
>> referee.
>
> Disagree,but you know why so wont type it all again.Its going in
> circles,rangers fans saying its an injustice and everyone else feeling its
> fair enough so never going to really agree!

I know I was gonna say that myself, you and Stevio could have a marathon 
thread on your hands here! lol

>
>> It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things anyway. If it had
>> been overturned you's cellic fans would just have another reason to 
>> whinge
>> about the 'unfairness' of not winning the league come the end of the
>> season... ;-)
>> Probably surmising that the overturned decision was decided in some
>> 'lodge' of some sort  :-P
>
> Aye and as we speak no doubt certain posters shall be looking like crazy 
> on
> google to check if the ref has ever taken a holiday in rome!!! ;-)

You know its true! :-P

>
> JB

biz

-- 
 www.bebo.com/bizenya79
 www.myspace.com/bizenya
I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out.

" \¯`·.¸biz¸.·´¯/" <moc.liamG@aynezib> wrote in message 
news:soSdnY0j3eNYezTanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> It was noted in: (1tKdnUX7NrTrQDTaRVnyhQA@giganews.com),
> that Jonbhoy  spouted forth their words of 
> wisdom...:
>
>> Snipped
>>
>>>> Hmmmmm could be seen as the same thing i suppose,if your going to foul
>>>> the
>>>> guy your going to stop him from scoring . Whenever i played i always
>>>> played
>>>> it as the last man had to be ultra careful as the ref was always going 
>>>> to
>>>> look for the contact and being fair even sunday league stuff its only
>>>> ever
>>>> going to be the last guy that ends up in trouble!
>>>>
>>>> JB
>>>
>>> Aye.. but... the argument isn't whether that rule is *valid* or not!
>>
>> That was a response to angof,and if the rule is valid then it does 
>> matter.
>
> Only if the argument was that it should have been a yellow instead of a 
> red for a definite foul.
>
> I still think your argument is coming across as "if you are the last man, 
> you are *not allowed* to make a tackle in any instance"

Not at all,of course you can make a tackle.But how many times do you see it 
throughout the footballing world that the last man has to be ultra careful 
because he cannot just go in hoping to be treated like it was a tackle say 
on the half way line.We all know the areas are treated totally differently 
in the same way the slightest knock on a keeper they get a free kick where 
as an outfield player doing it to another play would more than likely be 
waved on.

>>> MacGregor played the ball first. You see those tackles ALL the time
>>> elsewhere on the park.
>>
>> Here we go again!!! But elsewhere on the pitch is hardly going to affect 
>> the
>> outcome the same way it is if its one on one with the keeper.Some refs 
>> would
>> give it elsewhere on the pitch,some wouldnt...thats the inconsistency of
>> reffing sadly.
>
> I thought he reffed quite happily! :-P

Cloakrooms over there! ;-)

>>> They look sore ones because there *is* contact, but in the event of the
>>> ball being taken off of the opponent, most commentators react with a
>>> resounding "ooph! Good Tackle, but he felt that one!" or words to that
>>> effect.
>>
>> Ok look at it this way,if the other lad had not been touched and was on 
>> his
>> feet do you think the ball would have been safe and cleared?
>
> Maybe if MacGregor had the pinpoint tackling accuracy of a world class 
> defender, he might have somehow nicked the ball away from the guy while 
> avoiding going through on him. But he did what he set out to do - he DID 
> nick the ball away from the attacker, the resulting follow through is as 
> illegal as it is avoidable.

I think honestly many keepers would have done the same,not denying that.And 
yes he did make contact with the ball too but his actions caused the player 
to have a scoring chance taken away.Just the way it is!

>>> So last man or not it was a GOOD TACKLE, and therefore an oversight by 
>>> the
>>> referee.
>>
>> Disagree,but you know why so wont type it all again.Its going in
>> circles,rangers fans saying its an injustice and everyone else feeling 
>> its
>> fair enough so never going to really agree!
>
> I know I was gonna say that myself, you and Stevio could have a marathon 
> thread on your hands here! lol

Indeed,think it could go round in circles so its going to end up being agree 
to disagree.Still would like to find a clip of it online though but havent 
been able to find anything.

>>> It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things anyway. If it had
>>> been overturned you's cellic fans would just have another reason to 
>>> whinge
>>> about the 'unfairness' of not winning the league come the end of the
>>> season... ;-)
>>> Probably surmising that the overturned decision was decided in some
>>> 'lodge' of some sort  :-P
>>
>> Aye and as we speak no doubt certain posters shall be looking like crazy 
>> on
>> google to check if the ref has ever taken a holiday in rome!!! ;-)
>
> You know its true! :-P

och dont you fucking start with that!!! lol

JB

"Stevio"  wrote in message 
news:3jlqj.1654$N53.185@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> "Jonbhoy"  wrote
>> Ok look at it this way,if the other lad had not been touched and was on 
>> his feet do you think the ball would have been safe and cleared?
>
> Jonbhoy you seem to be ignoring this basic point - that it was a good 
> tackle! So it doesn't matter where the ball went because it wasn't a foul. 
> It wasn't McGregor's fault Shields fell down because McGregor played the 
> ball first. He therefore technically had possession of the ball last 
> therefore any contact between the two players is Shields fault 
> technically.

Of course it matters ! If it was a good tackle the ref would not have sent 
him off and the appeal would have had AM cleared.The basic point is that AM 
came sliding out of his area feet first,did make contact with the ball and 
made contact with the player who if on his feet still had a chance of 
scoring!

> That's why people talk about getting the ball first and the man second. If 
> you get the ball first you can take anything else out that gets in the way 
> of your leg, as long as there isn't time for you to straighten the leg up 
> and stick it in a guy's stomach like Huth did recently, and you did not 
> commit the tackle in a dangerous way (e.g. two footed straight legged). 
> McGregor's tackle was fine as it did neither of these things.

Lets see if we can find a clip of it somewhere and you will see he slid out 
feet first and if he did that and brought down the player then theres your 
answer.As Biz says,its going to end up a marathon thread of circles 
otherwise.Plain fact is he got the red,appeal turned down and he will serve 
his ban.......then on to the next debate! ;-)

JB

"Jonbhoy"  wrote
>> Jonbhoy you seem to be ignoring this basic point - that it was a good 
>> tackle! So it doesn't matter where the ball went because it wasn't a 
>> foul.
>
> Of course it matters ! If it was a good tackle the ref would not have sent 
> him off and the appeal would have had AM cleared.The basic point is that 
> AM came sliding out of his area feet first,did make contact with the ball 
> and made contact with the player who if on his feet still had a chance of 
> scoring!

Here is what we agree on:
- We agree it was a goalscoring opportunity.
- We agree McGregor got a touch.

Here is the difference:
- You believe that it was a red card because McGregor denied a goalscoring 
opportunity.
- I believe it was a red card if McGregor *committed a foul* to deny a 
goalscoring opportunity .

To deny a goalscoring opportunity is not a red card.
To deny a goalscoring opportunity by *committing a foul* is a red card.

So really, the question boils down to the following... was it a foul? The 
argument about the red card is irrelevant because I agree that if it was a 
foul it was a red card. So can we agree the argument is simply to do with 
whether it was a foul or not?

You say it was a foul. The ref seems to agree with you. The ref is wrong.
I say it was not a foul and the correct decision should have been play on.

What is a foul? If you slide into a tackle, with only one foot, in a 
non-dangerous fashion (which most observers seem to agree McGregor did), and 
you make contact with the ball, then for the last 100 years that has been a 
good tackle.

Does the amount of contact with the ball matter? No. You played the ball. 
That's all that matters.

Does the direction of the ball after the tackle matter? No. You played the 
ball, you were therefore the last person to have possession. Where you kick 
the ball in the process of tackling doesn't make a difference as to whether 
or not it was a foul.

Does it matter if you follow through and catch the man who *previously* had 
possession (in this case Shields)? No. You played the ball, you therefore 
were the last person to have possession. It is up to Shields to get out the 
way. If you both make contact then it is Shields fault and if anything it is 
a free kick to you. But because it is a contact sport and not netball, the 
correct decision is play on. From time and eternity it has been accepted 
that when making a tackle it is not a problem if in the process of making 
the tackle you also get the man, because you played the ball first, you 
therefore had possession and it is therefore the responsibility of the 
person making the tackle to get out the way.

If we are going to change this accepted process for making a tackle, here is 
what we have:-
When making a tackle, you must play the ball AND make sure that you do not 
make any contact afterwards with the person who previously had possession. 
Tell me how exactly McGregor could have done this? Dip a toe in towards the 
ball and then quickly pull it out again?  Is that the sort of namby pamby 
football you want to see, where that is the only type of tackle you see? By 
your logic, any tackle that makes contact with the player after playing the 
ball is a free kick. As I say, that would mean Platini gets his wish from 
many years ago to see tackling banned (and football changed to something 
different from what I have grown up with).

Are there exceptions to this process for making a tackle, that go beyond 
what is acceptable? Yes. Look up Robert Huth, Middlesborough, making a 
clearance in a recent English FA Cup game (I think it was). He cleared the 
ball, straightened his leg, and planted it in the guy's midriff. Did 
McGregor do this? D'oh. No.

How the ref can not rescind McGregor's red card is beyond me. Despite all we 
have written about it, it really is simple. Did McGregor play the ball in 
the tackle? Yes. End of argument.

Over to you Jonbhoy. :-)

> Here is what we agree on:
> - We agree it was a goalscoring opportunity.
> - We agree McGregor got a touch.
>
> Here is the difference:
> - You believe that it was a red card because McGregor denied a goalscoring 
> opportunity.
> - I believe it was a red card if McGregor *committed a foul* to deny a 
> goalscoring opportunity .
>
> To deny a goalscoring opportunity is not a red card.
> To deny a goalscoring opportunity by *committing a foul* is a red card.

Correct.

> So really, the question boils down to the following... was it a foul? The 
> argument about the red card is irrelevant because I agree that if it was a 
> foul it was a red card. So can we agree the argument is simply to do with 
> whether it was a foul or not?

Thats what i believed the debate to be about anyway,because if its a foul 
then it is an instant red.

> You say it was a foul. The ref seems to agree with you. The ref is wrong.

Your really sitting on the fence arent you! ;-) lol

> I say it was not a foul and the correct decision should have been play on.

Where we disagree.

> What is a foul? If you slide into a tackle, with only one foot, in a 
> non-dangerous fashion (which most observers seem to agree McGregor did), 
> and you make contact with the ball, then for the last 100 years that has 
> been a good tackle.

Which observers ????? Or do you mean Rangers fans?On Tv the pundits were 
saying it was the right choice,and havent seen lots of media reports saying 
it was incorrect so who are the observers?

> Does the amount of contact with the ball matter? No. You played the ball. 
> That's all that matters.

But its not as black and white as that !

> Does the direction of the ball after the tackle matter? No. You played the 
> ball, you were therefore the last person to have possession. Where you 
> kick the ball in the process of tackling doesn't make a difference as to 
> whether or not it was a foul.

Of course it matters , if you fell an opponent and the balls sitting waiting 
on being tapped in the net and the opponent has been impeeded then its bound 
to make a difference.This is looking like a case of clutching at straws!

> Does it matter if you follow through and catch the man who *previously* 
> had possession (in this case Shields)? No. You played the ball, you 
> therefore were the last person to have possession. It is up to Shields to 
> get out the way. If you both make contact then it is Shields fault and if 
> anything it is a free kick to you. But because it is a contact sport and 
> not netball, the correct decision is play on. From time and eternity it 
> has been accepted that when making a tackle it is not a problem if in the 
> process of making the tackle you also get the man, because you played the 
> ball first, you therefore had possession and it is therefore the 
> responsibility of the person making the tackle to get out the way.

Hold on , this is getting very silly now . How can you even suggest AM was 
in "Possesion" ????

> If we are going to change this accepted process for making a tackle, here 
> is what we have:-
> When making a tackle, you must play the ball AND make sure that you do not 
> make any contact afterwards with the person who previously had possession. 
> Tell me how exactly McGregor could have done this? Dip a toe in towards 
> the ball and then quickly pull it out again?  Is that the sort of namby 
> pamby football you want to see, where that is the only type of tackle you 
> see? By your logic, any tackle that makes contact with the player after 
> playing the ball is a free kick. As I say, that would mean Platini gets 
> his wish from many years ago to see tackling banned (and football changed 
> to something different from what I have grown up with).

Not at all,i hate all the play acting rubbish and wish the game was as it 
was back in say the 70's and 80's as ive said many a time.However you cant 
start screaming injustice purely because of one event thats to do with your 
own team!

> Are there exceptions to this process for making a tackle, that go beyond 
> what is acceptable? Yes. Look up Robert Huth, Middlesborough, making a 
> clearance in a recent English FA Cup game (I think it was). He cleared the 
> ball, straightened his leg, and planted it in the guy's midriff. Did 
> McGregor do this? D'oh. No.


Whats with the D'oh ?????? Have not seen that clearance so cant say much 
about it but i never implied that did i.Huth sounds more like an assault! I 
havent said AM was malicious or was out to damage but he fouled the player 
in the eyes of the law and hence we have him being banned.Its playing to the 
law!

> How the ref can not rescind McGregor's red card is beyond me. Despite all 
> we have written about it, it really is simple. Did McGregor play the ball 
> in the tackle? Yes. End of argument.

Because it WAS a foul and you just cannot seem to come to terms with it ! I 
agree with the end of argument bit though because whats done is done and it 
seems everyone apart from Rangers fans (even most of them ) seem to accept 
it . Not slating you or anything persoanlly as its a fair debating point but 
we both i think are never going to agree......apart from that ive been 
proved right by the ref and sfa anyway (Aye go on....tims the lot of 
them...lol) ;-)

>Over to you Jonbhoy. :-)

Aye now my fingers are worn out mate! lol ;-)

JB

"Jonbhoy"  wrote
>> So really, the question boils down to the following... was it a foul? The 
>> argument about the red card is irrelevant because I agree that if it was 
>> a foul it was a red card. So can we agree the argument is simply to do 
>> with whether it was a foul or not?
>
> Thats what i believed the debate to be about anyway,because if its a foul 
> then it is an instant red.

Your logic is inconsistent. You say the argument is about whether it is a 
foul or not, then below you refer to where the ball ended up as being 
relevant. That is only relevant as to whether a red card is shown or not. We 
agree that if it was a foul then it was a red. So the argument is about 
whether it a foul, not where the ball ended up or was it a red.

>> You say it was a foul. The ref seems to agree with you. The ref is wrong.
>
> Your really sitting on the fence arent you! ;-) lol

Fences are uncomfortable. Better to make a choice. :-)

>> What is a foul? If you slide into a tackle, with only one foot, in a 
>> non-dangerous fashion (which most observers seem to agree McGregor did), 
>> and you make contact with the ball, then for the last 100 years that has 
>> been a good tackle.
>
> Which observers ????? Or do you mean Rangers fans?On Tv the pundits were 
> saying it was the right choice,and havent seen lots of media reports 
> saying it was incorrect so who are the observers?

So your argument is that it was a foul because it was a dangerous tackle? So 
do you agree that if it was not a dangerous tackle it was not a red, since 
he played the ball first?

>> Does the amount of contact with the ball matter? No. You played the ball. 
>> That's all that matters.
>
> But its not as black and white as that !

It is that black and white, unless the tackle was dangerous. The tackle was 
not dangerous, and I don't think many people are arguing it was dangerous 
apart from yourself.

What people have been saying, and they are talking nonsense when they do so, 
is that McGregor's touch on the ball was irrelevant. I have already 
logically shown this to be nonsense. Where the ball ended up is only 
relevant to whether it was a red card or not, but that only depends on if it 
was a foul or not. If he played the ball, and the tackle was not dangerous, 
then of course it is not a foul. We are still talking about the sport of 
football aren't we?

>> Does the direction of the ball after the tackle matter? No. You played 
>> the ball, you were therefore the last person to have possession. Where 
>> you kick the ball in the process of tackling doesn't make a difference as 
>> to whether or not it was a foul.
>
> Of course it matters , if you fell an opponent and the balls sitting 
> waiting on being tapped in the net and the opponent has been impeeded then 
> its bound to make a difference.This is looking like a case of clutching at 
> straws!

This is irrelevant. The question is, "Was it a foul?", not "Where did the 
ball end up?" That is only relevant to the red card decision.

>> Does it matter if you follow through and catch the man who *previously* 
>> had possession (in this case Shields)? No. You played the ball, you 
>> therefore were the last person to have possession. It is up to Shields to 
>> get out the way. If you both make contact then it is Shields fault and if
>
> Hold on , this is getting very silly now . How can you even suggest AM was 
> in "Possesion" ????

Explain how it can be a foul by McGregor if McGregor played the ball last? 
Explain why winning a tackle and following through on the man has not been a 
foul for the last 100 years, unless the fact that you played the ball means 
that, at the brief moment of the tackle, you had won posession?

If you play the ball your team has possession. That is what possession is. 
People just don't usually think of it in terms of a tackle. McGregor had 
possession last because he played the ball last. Therefore any contact 
between the players is technically Shields fault for not getting out the 
way. However, Shields did not have time to get out the way because he had 
just played the ball himself (but before McGregor played it). That is why 
when you make a tackle and the two players hit each other it is a play on. 
Otherwise we should give up and play netball, or Platini non-contact 
football.

>> If we are going to change this accepted process for making a tackle, here 
>> is what we have:-
>> When making a tackle, you must play the ball AND make sure that you do 
>> not make any contact afterwards with the person who previously had 
>> possession. Tell me how exactly McGregor could have done this? Dip a toe 
>> in towards the ball and then quickly pull it out again?  Is that the sort 
>> of namby pamby football you want to see, where that is the only type of 
>> tackle you see? By your logic, any tackle that makes contact with the 
>> player after playing the ball is a free kick. As I say, that would mean 
>> Platini gets his wish from many years ago to see tackling banned (and 
>> football changed to something different from what I have grown up with).
>
> Not at all,i hate all the play acting rubbish and wish the game was as it 
> was back in say the 70's and 80's as ive said many a time.However you cant 
> start screaming injustice purely because of one event thats to do with 
> your own team!

It is nothing to do with play acting, it's to do with being able to make a 
proper tackle. You are allowed to follow through on a player when making a 
tackle as long as the motion is part of the tackle (not a Huth) and you play 
the ball first. Otherwise you can't tackle properly. If you play the ball 
first it is the other guy's job to try and get out the way!

>> Are there exceptions to this process for making a tackle, that go beyond 
>> what is acceptable? Yes. Look up Robert Huth, Middlesborough, making a 
>> clearance in a recent English FA Cup game (I think it was). He cleared 
>> the ball, straightened his leg, and planted it in the guy's midriff. Did 
>> McGregor do this? D'oh. No.
>
> Whats with the D'oh ??????

I meant McGregor obviously did not commit a dangerous tackle. The swing of 
his leg was part of the motion of playing the ball.

> Have not seen that clearance so cant say much about it but i never implied 
> that did i.Huth sounds more like an assault! I havent said AM was 
> malicious or was out to damage but he fouled the player in the eyes of the 
> law and hence we have him being banned.Its playing to the law!

What law? The laws of the game allow for tackling! :-)

>> How the ref can not rescind McGregor's red card is beyond me. Despite all 
>> we have written about it, it really is simple. Did McGregor play the ball 
>> in the tackle? Yes. End of argument.
>
> Because it WAS a foul and you just cannot seem to come to terms with it ! 
> I

Oh no it wasn't ... :-)  I told you already, the ref was wrong!

"Stevio"  wrote in message 
news:aDEqj.2191$nG4.1255@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> "Jonbhoy"  wrote
>>> So really, the question boils down to the following... was it a foul? 
>>> The argument about the red card is irrelevant because I agree that if it 
>>> was a foul it was a red card. So can we agree the argument is simply to 
>>> do with whether it was a foul or not?
>>
>> Thats what i believed the debate to be about anyway,because if its a foul 
>> then it is an instant red.
>
> Your logic is inconsistent. You say the argument is about whether it is a 
> foul or not, then below you refer to where the ball ended up as being 
> relevant. That is only relevant as to whether a red card is shown or not. 
> We agree that if it was a foul then it was a red. So the argument is about 
> whether it a foul, not where the ball ended up or was it a red.

Its not inconsistent at all,i have said it over and over . YES AM connected 
with the ball , the tackle or severity of it doesnt matter,his contact 
stopped the player from being able to carry on and score.Hence the reason im 
talking about the position of the ball because imho if he had hoofed it up 
the pitch and THEN made contact there would not have even been a yellow 
card!

>>> You say it was a foul. The ref seems to agree with you. The ref is 
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Your really sitting on the fence arent you! ;-) lol
>
> Fences are uncomfortable. Better to make a choice. :-)
>
>>> What is a foul? If you slide into a tackle, with only one foot, in a 
>>> non-dangerous fashion (which most observers seem to agree McGregor did), 
>>> and you make contact with the ball, then for the last 100 years that has 
>>> been a good tackle.
>>
>> Which observers ????? Or do you mean Rangers fans?On Tv the pundits were 
>> saying it was the right choice,and havent seen lots of media reports 
>> saying it was incorrect so who are the observers?
>
> So your argument is that it was a foul because it was a dangerous tackle? 
> So do you agree that if it was not a dangerous tackle it was not a red, 
> since he played the ball first?

Arrrrrrrrrgh your not reading what im saying,i have said it was NOT a 
dangerous tackle.You were making points about if you connect with the ball 
first then its not a foul and my point is that it can be.Not Relevent to 
this issue.

>>> Does the amount of contact with the ball matter? No. You played the 
>>> ball. That's all that matters.
>>
>> But its not as black and white as that !
>
> It is that black and white, unless the tackle was dangerous. The tackle 
> was not dangerous, and I don't think many people are arguing it was 
> dangerous apart from yourself.

See this is making it pointless,i have not said it was a dangerous 
tackle,thats your viewpoint on what i said and thats incorrect !!!!!!!!!!!

> What people have been saying, and they are talking nonsense when they do 
> so, is that McGregor's touch on the ball was irrelevant. I have already 
> logically shown this to be nonsense. Where the ball ended up is only 
> relevant to whether it was a red card or not, but that only depends on if 
> it was a foul or not. If he played the ball, and the tackle was not 
> dangerous, then of course it is not a foul. We are still talking about the 
> sport of football aren't we?

Oh so you have not heard about obstruction ?

>>> Does the direction of the ball after the tackle matter? No. You played 
>>> the ball, you were therefore the last person to have possession. Where 
>>> you kick the ball in the process of tackling doesn't make a difference 
>>> as to whether or not it was a foul.
>>
>> Of course it matters , if you fell an opponent and the balls sitting 
>> waiting on being tapped in the net and the opponent has been impeeded 
>> then its bound to make a difference.This is looking like a case of 
>> clutching at straws!
>
> This is irrelevant. The question is, "Was it a foul?", not "Where did the 
> ball end up?" That is only relevant to the red card decision.

See above....again!

>>> Does it matter if you follow through and catch the man who *previously* 
>>> had possession (in this case Shields)? No. You played the ball, you 
>>> therefore were the last person to have possession. It is up to Shields 
>>> to get out the way. If you both make contact then it is Shields fault 
>>> and if
>>
>> Hold on , this is getting very silly now . How can you even suggest AM 
>> was in "Possesion" ????
>
> Explain how it can be a foul by McGregor if McGregor played the ball last? 
> Explain why winning a tackle and following through on the man has not been 
> a foul for the last 100 years, unless the fact that you played the ball 
> means that, at the brief moment of the tackle, you had won posession?
>
> If you play the ball your team has possession. That is what possession is. 
> People just don't usually think of it in terms of a tackle. McGregor had 
> possession last because he played the ball last. Therefore any contact 
> between the players is technically Shields fault for not getting out the 
> way. However, Shields did not have time to get out the way because he had 
> just played the ball himself (but before McGregor played it). That is why 
> when you make a tackle and the two players hit each other it is a play on. 
> Otherwise we should give up and play netball, or Platini non-contact 
> football.
>
>>> If we are going to change this accepted process for making a tackle, 
>>> here is what we have:-
>>> When making a tackle, you must play the ball AND make sure that you do 
>>> not make any contact afterwards with the person who previously had 
>>> possession. Tell me how exactly McGregor could have done this? Dip a toe 
>>> in towards the ball and then quickly pull it out again?  Is that the 
>>> sort of namby pamby football you want to see, where that is the only 
>>> type of tackle you see? By your logic, any tackle that makes contact 
>>> with the player after playing the ball is a free kick. As I say, that 
>>> would mean Platini gets his wish from many years ago to see tackling 
>>> banned (and football changed to something different from what I have 
>>> grown up with).
>>
>> Not at all,i hate all the play acting rubbish and wish the game was as it 
>> was back in say the 70's and 80's as ive said many a time.However you 
>> cant start screaming injustice purely because of one event thats to do 
>> with your own team!
>
> It is nothing to do with play acting, it's to do with being able to make a 
> proper tackle. You are allowed to follow through on a player when making a 
> tackle as long as the motion is part of the tackle (not a Huth) and you 
> play the ball first. Otherwise you can't tackle properly. If you play the 
> ball first it is the other guy's job to try and get out the way!

See again i was making a point about agreeing that football should get back 
to being a proper game without all the lightweight stuff . So if follow 
throughs are fine why is it a yellow or red if studs are up and you follow 
through ? You cant just say its a proper tackle and you can follow through 
because you can have the slightest of taps to a broken ankle! Each is judged 
on its on merit but this is silly as your going down a path im not even 
talking about in regard AM doing a dangerous tackle.

>>> Are there exceptions to this process for making a tackle, that go beyond 
>>> what is acceptable? Yes. Look up Robert Huth, Middlesborough, making a 
>>> clearance in a recent English FA Cup game (I think it was). He cleared 
>>> the ball, straightened his leg, and planted it in the guy's midriff. Did 
>>> McGregor do this? D'oh. No.
>>
>> Whats with the D'oh ??????
>
> I meant McGregor obviously did not commit a dangerous tackle. The swing of 
> his leg was part of the motion of playing the ball.

This is where i have asked and asked if someone has a replay of it because i 
didnt see him swing,i believed he slide out with one leg outstretched to get 
at the ball.

>> Have not seen that clearance so cant say much about it but i never 
>> implied that did i.Huth sounds more like an assault! I havent said AM was 
>> malicious or was out to damage but he fouled the player in the eyes of 
>> the law and hence we have him being banned.Its playing to the law!
>
> What law? The laws of the game allow for tackling! :-)
>
>>> How the ref can not rescind McGregor's red card is beyond me. Despite 
>>> all we have written about it, it really is simple. Did McGregor play the 
>>> ball in the tackle? Yes. End of argument.
>>
>> Because it WAS a foul and you just cannot seem to come to terms with it ! 
>> I
>
> Oh no it wasn't ... :-)  I told you already, the ref was wrong!

Ok until we get a replay lets put this to bed because its going round in 
circles and you arent taking my comments the correct way.My 100% view on it 
was (watching it at the time) i believe AM ran out of his area to clear the 
ball from the attacking lad and he was the last man between attacker and 
goal.AM stretched out one leg and slid into the ball (No foul) made small 
amount of contact with the ball first and as attacker was in a position to 
run on to the ball as it ended in an area the attacker could have got to,the 
attacker was caught by AM's foot (I wasnt even saying it was a red for studs 
showing!) which impeeded his ability to score.That been carried out by the 
last man means red card which is what AM got and why he lost his appeal ! 
Now you disagree with that,no problem with that but its how i saw it,pundits 
saw it and most others saw it ! So lets just put a line under it and if 
someone finds a replay online we can carry on the debate and discuss the 
timing points on it which would be easier !

However its nice to have a debate where its not turned into petty name 
calling,we may be in danger of getting thrown off the NG for it! ;-)

JB

"Jonbhoy"  wrote
> Ok until we get a replay lets put this to bed because its going round in 
> circles and you arent taking my comments the correct way.My 100% view on 
> it was (watching it at the time) i believe AM ran out of his area to clear 
> the ball from the attacking lad and he was the last man between attacker 
> and goal.AM stretched out one leg and slid into the ball (No foul) made 
> small amount of contact with the ball first and as attacker was in a 
> position to run on to the ball as it ended in an area the attacker could 
> have got to,the attacker was caught by AM's foot (I wasnt even saying it 
> was a red for studs showing!) which impeeded his ability to score.That 
> been carried out by the last man means red card which is what AM got and 
> why he lost his appeal !

Ok now you have clarified your argument. I have to be honest and say that in 
my opinion you do not understand legal tackling in football! Ha ok let me 
explain. You agree that up to the point that AM connected with the ball it 
was not a foul. You said elsewhere in your email that if the ball had been 
hoofed up the park it would not have been a foul.

Here's what you don't understand. Where the ball ends up does not determine 
whether or not a foul has been committed. What determines whether or not a 
foul was committed was whether or not a foul was committed. Did AM play the 
ball? Yes. We agree. Did he follow through and catch Shields in the process 
of playing the ball (making a tackle). Yes. Is that a foul? No.

Is that a foul if the ball is in a position that Shields can still get to? 
No.
Is that a foul if the ball was hoofed up the park? No.

It is not AM's fault Shields fell down.

You are allowed to follow through in a tackle and get the man as long as you 
get the ball first. That's how it has always been (the exception is for 
dangerous tackles, open to interpretation but generally accepted to be studs 
up, two feet, straight legged etc). I have tried to explain the 
technicalities of tackling in a logical manner so see my previous posts for 
explanations. Basically since AM was the last to play the ball, it is 
Shields responsibility to get out the way. If Shields happens to have run 
over McGregor while McGregor was in the process of playing the ball, that is 
Shields fault.

Let me give you an example that might clarify it. Let's say AM has the ball 
on the ground, he punts it up the park with a big swing of his boot. As he 
does that Shields has ran in front of AM to try and block the clearance. He 
fails to block the clearance but AM does kick him in his follow through from 
clearing the ball. Is that a foul? Of course not. It's a sore one for 
Shields but it's just part of the game. Making a tackle is the exact same. 
If the other guy gets caught by your foot as you make the tackle that's just 
the way it is. Where the ball ends up doesn't matter a jot.

As I said before, if you are only allowed to make a tackle without making 
any contact with the player afterwards, football becomes a namby pamby sport 
where the only type of tackle that is legal is to dip your toe at the ball. 
As we know from playing the game, if you only try to tackle like that, your 
teammates, coaches etc will give you a rollicking and soon let you know 
about it.

> However its nice to have a debate where its not turned into petty name 
> calling,we may be in danger of getting thrown off the NG for it! ;-)

I enjoy a debate about football matters, it doesn't happen often on this 
list.

On Feb 7, 5:37 pm, "Jonbhoy"  wrote:

>
> However its nice to have a debate where its not turned into petty name
> calling,we may be in danger of getting thrown off the NG for it! ;-)
>

Oh the Irony, coming from the person that went into his china moments,
petty name calling and constant topic changing when he had lost the
debate.

"Stevio"  wrote in message 
news:dQHqj.3850$OU5.1741@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> "Jonbhoy"  wrote
>> Ok until we get a replay lets put this to bed because its going round in 
>> circles and you arent taking my comments the correct way.My 100% view on 
>> it was (watching it at the time) i believe AM ran out of his area to 
>> clear the ball from the attacking lad and he was the last man between 
>> attacker and goal.AM stretched out one leg and slid into the ball (No 
>> foul) made small amount of contact with the ball first and as attacker 
>> was in a position to run on to the ball as it ended in an area the 
>> attacker could have got to,the attacker was caught by AM's foot (I wasnt 
>> even saying it was a red for studs showing!) which impeeded his ability 
>> to score.That been carried out by the last man means red card which is 
>> what AM got and why he lost his appeal !
>
> Ok now you have clarified your argument. I have to be honest and say that 
> in my opinion you do not understand legal tackling in football! Ha ok let 
> me explain. You agree that up to the point that AM connected with the ball 
> it was not a foul. You said elsewhere in your email that if the ball had 
> been hoofed up the park it would not have been a foul

> Here's what you don't understand. Where the ball ends up does not 
> determine whether or not a foul has been committed. What determines 
> whether or not a foul was committed was whether or not a foul was 
> committed. Did AM play the ball? Yes. We agree. Did he follow through and 
> catch Shields in the process of playing the ball (making a tackle). Yes. 
> Is that a foul? No.

It DOES make a huge difference,in fact its almost the be all end all.As i 
said earlier had AM hoofed the ball up the pitch there would NOT have been 
any foul or any card.Its because the the player WOULD have been in a 
possible scoring position had contact not been made.AM be it accidentally 
doing so (i dont as i said earlier believe it was anything but accidental) 
DID make contact with the player which stopped Shields from scoring.


> Is that a foul if the ball is in a position that Shields can still get to? 
> No.

Yes it is,and as last man it would be a red card!

> Is that a foul if the ball was hoofed up the park? No.

Totally agree,thats my point!

> It is not AM's fault Shields fell down.

Yes it was,AM made contact with him.

> You are allowed to follow through in a tackle and get the man as long as 
> you get the ball first. That's how it has always been (the exception is 
> for dangerous tackles, open to interpretation but generally accepted to be 
> studs up, two feet, straight legged etc). I have tried to explain the 
> technicalities of tackling in a logical manner so see my previous posts 
> for explanations. Basically since AM was the last to play the ball, it is 
> Shields responsibility to get out the way. If Shields happens to have run 
> over McGregor while McGregor was in the process of playing the ball, that 
> is Shields fault.

Shields ran over AM ??????? Ok you really have to look at the replays 
because i DO remember seeing AM's foot connecting with shields ankle!

> Let me give you an example that might clarify it. Let's say AM has the 
> ball on the ground, he punts it up the park with a big swing of his boot. 
> As he does that Shields has ran in front of AM to try and block the 
> clearance. He fails to block the clearance but AM does kick him in his 
> follow through from clearing the ball. Is that a foul? Of course not. It's 
> a sore one for Shields but it's just part of the game. Making a tackle is 
> the exact same. If the other guy gets caught by your foot as you make the 
> tackle that's just the way it is. Where the ball ends up doesn't matter a 
> jot.

But thats a totally different scenario , nothing even close to whats 
happened! Thats a keeper clearing a ball while in possesion and an attacker 
running in! AM did not have possesion (posession is NOT touching the ball 
once in the hope of a clearance) . Your scenario i would say is a fairly 
standard thing as the keeper would have been in full posession at that 
point.

> As I said before, if you are only allowed to make a tackle without making 
> any contact with the player afterwards, football becomes a namby pamby 
> sport where the only type of tackle that is legal is to dip your toe at 
> the ball. As we know from playing the game, if you only try to tackle like 
> that, your teammates, coaches etc will give you a rollicking and soon let 
> you know about it.

But we are debating a very small point,two outfield players tackling is one 
thing.....but lets face it if a keeper slides out we have seen plenty of 
keepers getting in trouble....goalkeepers are not there to tackle!!! But as 
i said before , it was a last gasp chance to stop the guy scoring so if 
Boruc had done the same and been sent off id have accepted he did what he 
felt was right and think AM did what he felt was right.

>> However its nice to have a debate where its not turned into petty name 
>> calling,we may be in danger of getting thrown off the NG for it! ;-)
>
> I enjoy a debate about football matters, it doesn't happen often on this 
> list.

Aye but now you have woken up my stalker again and hes legged it back with 
his giro to berate people.See the damage you have done....hope your 
proud!!!!!!!!! I blame bloody AM about that too! haha ;-)

JB

"Jonbhoy"  wrote
>> Here's what you don't understand. Where the ball ends up does not 
>> determine whether or not a foul has been committed. What determines
>
> It DOES make a huge difference,in fact its almost the be all end all.As i 
> said earlier had AM hoofed the ball up the pitch there would NOT have been 
> any foul or any card.Its because the the player WOULD have been in a 
> possible scoring position had contact not been made.AM be it accidentally 
> doing so (i dont as i said earlier believe it was anything but accidental) 
> DID make contact with the player which stopped Shields from scoring.

I've enjoyed the debate and I think we've just about reached the end lol. I 
maintain that the position of the ball makes no difference as to whether a 
foul has been committed or not. I think if you were to speak to a referee 
they would tell you the same.

Does the position of the players and the ball matter to the colour of card 
shown? Yes. But only if a foul is committed first.  First a foul, then a 
decision on the punishment. The former can not be dependent on the latter.

>> Is that a foul if the ball is in a position that Shields can still get 
>> to? No.
> Yes it is,and as last man it would be a red card!
>
>> Is that a foul if the ball was hoofed up the park? No.
> Totally agree,thats my point!

No as I say above, either a foul is or is not a foul. Once that is decided, 
does the relevant position of players and football become an issue as to the 
punishment. If it is not a foul then positions don't matter.

>> It is not AM's fault Shields fell down.
> Yes it was,AM made contact with him.

He did so legally in the process of making a tackle. :-)

> But we are debating a very small point,two outfield players tackling is 
> one thing.....but lets face it if a keeper slides out we have seen plenty 
> of keepers getting in trouble....goalkeepers are not there to tackle!!! 
> But as i said before , it was a last gasp chance to stop the guy scoring 
> so if Boruc had done the same and been sent off id have accepted he did 
> what he felt was right and think AM did what he felt was right.

Laws of the game must be applied consistently. That's why I get annoyed when 
a small push by a forward on a defender is a free kick, but a similar push 
by a defender on a forward is not a penalty.

"Stevio"  wrote in message 
news:XvMqj.4423$OU5.1032@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> "Jonbhoy"  wrote
>>> Here's what you don't understand. Where the ball ends up does not 
>>> determine whether or not a foul has been committed. What determines
>>
>> It DOES make a huge difference,in fact its almost the be all end all.As i 
>> said earlier had AM hoofed the ball up the pitch there would NOT have 
>> been any foul or any card.Its because the the player WOULD have been in a 
>> possible scoring position had contact not been made.AM be it accidentally 
>> doing so (i dont as i said earlier believe it was anything but 
>> accidental) DID make contact with the player which stopped Shields from 
>> scoring.
>
> I've enjoyed the debate and I think we've just about reached the end lol. 
> I maintain that the position of the ball makes no difference as to whether 
> a foul has been committed or not. I think if you were to speak to a 
> referee they would tell you the same.

I did talk to a ref and he agreed with me....and said he was right to have 
given the red card (Ok you walked into that one) ;-)

> Laws of the game must be applied consistently. That's why I get annoyed 
> when a small push by a forward on a defender is a free kick, but a similar 
> push by a defender on a forward is not a penalty.

I dont think anyone would disagree about that.We all have our little areas 
in the game where the ref doesnt follow the rules.Sometimes its justified if 
its not affecting the flow of the game,some choices you are just left 
wondering why ! Its similar with the amount of time near the end where a 
player takes the ball to a corner and clearly commits obstruction , or if a 
balls slowly running out of play near the keeper and the defender clearly 
obstructs but nothing gets done.If the laws were played to the book the 
whole time then it would end up like american football these days , but 
there does need to be consistency.

JB

"Stevio"  wrote in message 
news:A71qj.994$nG4.831@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got the 
> ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red card 
> not have been rescinded?
>


Ni idea, he played the ball FIRST, his studs were not raised, so im a bit 
confused with that one?

-- 
 www.bebo.com/bizenya79
 www.myspace.com/bizenya
<oe-qf-sig>
"andy"  wrote in message 
news:E6GdnbUstZywdzHanZ2dnUVZ8q6onZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Stevio"  wrote in message 
> news:A71qj.994$nG4.831@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got 
>> the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red 
>> card not have been rescinded?
>>
>
>
> Ni idea, he played the ball FIRST, his studs were not raised, so im a bit 
> confused with that one?

JB.. Stevio.. wanna explain this one?

:-D

-- 
 www.bebo.com/bizenya79
 www.myspace.com/bizenya
<oe-qf-sig>

" \¯`·.¸biz¸.·´¯/" <moc.liamG@aynezib> wrote in message 
news:x_SdnRL9uMFhbTHanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>
> -- 
> www.bebo.com/bizenya79
> www.myspace.com/bizenya
> <oe-qf-sig>
> "andy"  wrote in message 
> news:E6GdnbUstZywdzHanZ2dnUVZ8q6onZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Stevio"  wrote in message 
>> news:A71qj.994$nG4.831@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got 
>>> the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red 
>>> card not have been rescinded?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ni idea, he played the ball FIRST, his studs were not raised, so im a bit 
>> confused with that one?
>
> JB.. Stevio.. wanna explain this one?
>
> :-D

sod off !!!!!! lol

JB

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:59:08 GMT and in uk.sport.football.clubs.rangers,
Stevio wrote.... 

> Does the amount of contact with the ball matter? No. You played the
> ball. That's all that matters.

Would you say any deflected goal should always be counted as an own goal 
then? Contact/possession isn't just about touching the ball. McGregor did 
not control the ball, merely deflected it from its initial direction. If he 
didn't make contact with the player carrying out his tackle then the player 
would still have been in a goal scoring opportunity.

-- 
sme
The obscure we see eventually.  The completely obvious, it seems, takes 
longer.  ~Edward R. Murrow

" \¯`·.¸biz¸.·´¯/" wrote
> "andy" wrote
>> "Stevio" wrote
>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got
>> Ni idea, he played the ball FIRST, his studs were not raised, so im a bit
>> confused with that one?
> JB.. Stevio.. wanna explain this one?

Nope, it's as simple as Andy says. He played the ball first. It's not his
fault Shields fell over his leg as he was playing the ball :-)

"Stevio"  wrote in message 
news:7oLrj.8263$NL3.2659@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>" \¯`·.¸biz¸.·´¯/" wrote
>> "andy" wrote
>>> "Stevio" wrote
>>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got
>>> Ni idea, he played the ball FIRST, his studs were not raised, so im a 
>>> bit
>>> confused with that one?
>> JB.. Stevio.. wanna explain this one?
>
> Nope, it's as simple as Andy says. He played the ball first. It's not his
> fault Shields fell over his leg as he was playing the ball :-)

I refer the honorable gentlemen to our last 32462809264 posts on the 
subject! ;-)

JB

"Jonbhoy"  wrote
> "Stevio"  wrote in message
>> fault Shields fell over his leg as he was playing the ball :-)
>
> I refer the honorable gentlemen to our last 32462809264 posts on the 
> subject! ;-)

I really should stop replying to this thread, but I thought I'd take a 
little look at the laws of the game just to see exactly what they say. They 
could not be more clear that it was not a foul by McGregor if they tried!

Here is a direct quote from Law 12, "A direct free kick is also awarded to 
the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences: 
tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the 
opponent before touching the ball ."

By JB's own admission, McGregor played the ball. Did he play the ball first 
before the opponent? Yes. Do the laws say anything about the position of the 
ball? No (of course not, that is irrelevant as I previously argued). Do the 
laws say anything about how much contact he makes with the ball? No.

It is only a foul if he makes contact with the opponent "before" touching 
the ball.
McGregor made contact with the opponent "after" touching the ball. Perfectly 
legal contact according to the laws of the game.

Case closed? Ha ok, no I've reignited it but the laws are clear.

"Stevio"  wrote in message 
news:CYXrj.6702$OU5.2418@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> "Jonbhoy"  wrote
>> "Stevio"  wrote in message
>>> fault Shields fell over his leg as he was playing the ball :-)
>>
>> I refer the honorable gentlemen to our last 32462809264 posts on the 
>> subject! ;-)
>
> I really should stop replying to this thread, but I thought I'd take a 
> little look at the laws of the game just to see exactly what they say. 
> They could not be more clear that it was not a foul by McGregor if they 
> tried!
>
> Here is a direct quote from Law 12, "A direct free kick is also awarded to 
> the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences: 
> tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with 
> the opponent before touching the ball ."
>
> By JB's own admission, McGregor played the ball. Did he play the ball 
> first before the opponent? Yes. Do the laws say anything about the 
> position of the ball? No (of course not, that is irrelevant as I 
> previously argued). Do the laws say anything about how much contact he 
> makes with the ball? No.
>
> It is only a foul if he makes contact with the opponent "before" touching 
> the ball.
> McGregor made contact with the opponent "after" touching the ball. 
> Perfectly legal contact according to the laws of the game.
>
> Case closed? Ha ok, no I've reignited it but the laws are clear.
>

;-) I agree!