Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Kerrydale Street. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.

If you decide to register, please be aware that we don't accept email addresses from free web accounts like gmail, Hotmail, live.co.uk etc. Sorry, but almost all of the abuse and spam that we get is from free web accounts. The software on the forum will automatically block any requests using a free email account.

Upon Registration, you will be given access to all our varied Forums, and you will be expected to comply with our fairly stringent Rules and Regulations. Meantime, enjoy your visit

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Scott Sinclair; New baby arrives, and there to greet her were her mama and papa.
Topic Started: 5 Aug 2016, 04:00 PM (514,245 Views)
BombJack
Member Avatar
He twists, he turns, Tommy Burns...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
First time since the game that I've seen the Sinc incident. At the game I missed it so I only have the replays to make a decision.
This is a weird one.
For me it's soft. If it was against us I'd be going tonto.
But the cold hard reality is admittedly that the defender tries to impede but it's quite a feeble touch - not enough to go down, for me anyway, and only with the benefit of seeing two fairly crap angles.
The defender doesn't need to do what he does.
Gives the ref a decision which Sinc takes advantage from.
He doesn't attempt to play the ball - only impede.
On that basis it's probably a penalty, but also I'd be really unhappy if it was our defender doing that.
The problem here really is consistency of the decisions.
We see incidents like that every week that aren't awarded.
And likewise today Cipre really should have been red carded for his challenge on Moussa - instead gets off Scott free. Moments later Moussa is given a yellow for a similar if less dangerous challenge.
Consistency.
Video ref would help with these kinds of things.

Maybe what should actually have happened in this incidence is something that's possibly not in the laws of the game.
Ie a yellow for both Cipre and Sinc. Cipre does attempt to impede (even if it's slight) and Sinc does (for me) simulate contact to cause him to fall. The two should cancel each other out but both shouldn't be part of the game. And ultimately to the letter of the law it probably was a penalty as Cipre did try to impede, in the box.
Ultimately it's a terrible decision by the defender, and likewise terrible that Sinc felt he should have gone down at such a slight touch.
The question is, if Sinc didn't go down would we have gotten the penalty?
I doubt it going by the refereeing we have to endure.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Seneca
Member Avatar
First team training
[ *  *  * ]
dannyclyro
27 Nov 2017, 12:02 AM
Sinclair dived and more or less admitted it post-match; "I felt a touch and I went down".

Not saying it changed the game, that the guy should have been on the pitch or that there was no contact, but football is not a non-contact sport, he was brushed, and that is being kind to Sinclair. It didn't alter his run in the slightest.

Had it been against us we'd be apoplectic. It was a dive.

The truth, baldly stated
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ticcy_paper
Member Avatar
Chameleon, comedian, Corinthian and caricature
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
james95
26 Nov 2017, 08:58 PM
You can’t pull a player back in the box, as soon as you lift your hands, you’re asking for trouble.
Exactly :thumbsup: If Cipre doesn't touch Sinclair then there is no decision to be made. Just because he
didn't half him in two doesn't make it less of a foul. Does Sinclair go down easily - yes, so what - he drew
the foul & made the most of it, not illegal. If Cipre doesn't touch him and he goes down, it's a dive. He
pulled him back, Sinclair has a goal scoring opportunity so its a penalty & a sending off.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CMC88
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
dannyclyro
27 Nov 2017, 12:02 AM
Sinclair dived and more or less admitted it post-match; "I felt a touch and I went down".

Not saying it changed the game, that the guy should have been on the pitch or that there was no contact, but football is not a non-contact sport, he was brushed, and that is being kind to Sinclair. It didn't alter his run in the slightest.

Had it been against us we'd be apoplectic. It was a dive.

That's admitting he was fouled, the going down bit irrelevant, The foud alreafy been committed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CMC88
Member Avatar
Considering retirement
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
BombJack
27 Nov 2017, 02:18 AM
First time since the game that I've seen the Sinc incident. At the game I missed it so I only have the replays to make a decision.
This is a weird one.
For me it's soft. If it was against us I'd be going tonto.
But the cold hard reality is admittedly that the defender tries to impede but it's quite a feeble touch - not enough to go down, for me anyway, and only with the benefit of seeing two fairly crap angles.
The defender doesn't need to do what he does.
Gives the ref a decision which Sinc takes advantage from.
He doesn't attempt to play the ball - only impede.
On that basis it's probably a penalty, but also I'd be really unhappy if it was our defender doing that.
The problem here really is consistency of the decisions.
We see incidents like that every week that aren't awarded.
And likewise today Cipre really should have been red carded for his challenge on Moussa - instead gets off Scott free. Moments later Moussa is given a yellow for a similar if less dangerous challenge.
Consistency.
Video ref would help with these kinds of things.

Maybe what should actually have happened in this incidence is something that's possibly not in the laws of the game.
Ie a yellow for both Cipre and Sinc. Cipre does attempt to impede (even if it's slight) and Sinc does (for me) simulate contact to cause him to fall. The two should cancel each other out but both shouldn't be part of the game. And ultimately to the letter of the law it probably was a penalty as Cipre did try to impede, in the box.
Ultimately it's a terrible decision by the defender, and likewise terrible that Sinc felt he should have gone down at such a slight touch.
The question is, if Sinc didn't go down would we have gotten the penalty?
I doubt it going by the refereeing we have to endure.
Dembele got booked first, that;s it is a joke a decision to not book him at least. Incompetence from the game manager as I call him. Does his best to keep things even unril teams are behind then reverts usual "I'm just a crap ref mode".

SS didn't simulate anything imo, the foul is commite....don't see why slight matters. He makes a clear effort to impede SS, and succeeds, that by definition is pena;ty.
Edited by CMC88, 27 Nov 2017, 05:34 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
samscafeamericain
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
ticcy_paper
27 Nov 2017, 04:48 AM
james95
26 Nov 2017, 08:58 PM
You can’t pull a player back in the box, as soon as you lift your hands, you’re asking for trouble.
Exactly :thumbsup: If Cipre doesn't touch Sinclair then there is no decision to be made. Just because he
didn't half him in two doesn't make it less of a foul. Does Sinclair go down easily - yes, so what - he drew
the foul & made the most of it, not illegal. If Cipre doesn't touch him and he goes down, it's a dive. He
pulled him back, Sinclair has a goal scoring opportunity so its a penalty & a sending off.
:thumbsup:
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BombJack
Member Avatar
He twists, he turns, Tommy Burns...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
CMC88
27 Nov 2017, 05:29 AM
BombJack
27 Nov 2017, 02:18 AM
First time since the game that I've seen the Sinc incident. At the game I missed it so I only have the replays to make a decision.
This is a weird one.
For me it's soft. If it was against us I'd be going tonto.
But the cold hard reality is admittedly that the defender tries to impede but it's quite a feeble touch - not enough to go down, for me anyway, and only with the benefit of seeing two fairly crap angles.
The defender doesn't need to do what he does.
Gives the ref a decision which Sinc takes advantage from.
He doesn't attempt to play the ball - only impede.
On that basis it's probably a penalty, but also I'd be really unhappy if it was our defender doing that.
The problem here really is consistency of the decisions.
We see incidents like that every week that aren't awarded.
And likewise today Cipre really should have been red carded for his challenge on Moussa - instead gets off Scott free. Moments later Moussa is given a yellow for a similar if less dangerous challenge.
Consistency.
Video ref would help with these kinds of things.

Maybe what should actually have happened in this incidence is something that's possibly not in the laws of the game.
Ie a yellow for both Cipre and Sinc. Cipre does attempt to impede (even if it's slight) and Sinc does (for me) simulate contact to cause him to fall. The two should cancel each other out but both shouldn't be part of the game. And ultimately to the letter of the law it probably was a penalty as Cipre did try to impede, in the box.
Ultimately it's a terrible decision by the defender, and likewise terrible that Sinc felt he should have gone down at such a slight touch.
The question is, if Sinc didn't go down would we have gotten the penalty?
I doubt it going by the refereeing we have to endure.
Dembele got booked first, that;s it is a joke a decision to not book him at least. Incompetence from the game manager as I call him. Does his best to keep things even unril teams are behind then reverts usual "I'm just a crap ref mode".

SS didn't simulate anything imo, the foul is commite....don't see why slight matters. He makes a clear effort to impede SS, and succeeds, that by definition is pena;ty.
I say "simulation" not because he was simulating a contact that didn't happen, but rather simulated that it was contact that was sufficient to induce a fall, just because the defender made a rash decision in weakly trying to impede him. I'm stating the obvious here but if someone falls most people think that something induced the fall. It's a common phallacy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
And in that situation it's more logical to award a freekick or penalty as a result.

Seems to me that Sinclair fell of his own volition. Which to me is simulation. He fell to highlight that contact had been made rather than losing his footing because he was knocked off balance or had his feet taken away from him. A worse dive would have been if Sinclair went to ground if no contact was made with no threat to his safety. All he did was highlight that a possibly illegal contact had been made. What he should do is just leave the decision to the ref rather than make out that the contact was worse than it was.

That said I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it as we've been victims of far worse decisions than this over the years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ballbhoy
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Seneca
27 Nov 2017, 04:28 AM
dannyclyro
27 Nov 2017, 12:02 AM
Sinclair dived and more or less admitted it post-match; "I felt a touch and I went down".

Not saying it changed the game, that the guy should have been on the pitch or that there was no contact, but football is not a non-contact sport, he was brushed, and that is being kind to Sinclair. It didn't alter his run in the slightest.

Had it been against us we'd be apoplectic. It was a dive.

The truth, baldly stated
Posting an abbreviated comment to try and make a point. Full comment below.

Got to say I'm astonished that on a so called football forum there's so many fans not aware of the rules of the game. It's a penalty all day long.

“I have got through and felt some contact.

I felt he pulled me back, and I’ve gone down. It was definitely a pen. I’ve no qualms about that.

“Was it harsh on him to be sent off? That’s up to the referee. If he didn’t pull me, then I think I’m through on goal one v one. So that’s the ref’s decision but it’s definitely a penalty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flinchy
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
ballbhoy
27 Nov 2017, 08:19 AM
Seneca
27 Nov 2017, 04:28 AM
dannyclyro
27 Nov 2017, 12:02 AM
Sinclair dived and more or less admitted it post-match; "I felt a touch and I went down".

Not saying it changed the game, that the guy should have been on the pitch or that there was no contact, but football is not a non-contact sport, he was brushed, and that is being kind to Sinclair. It didn't alter his run in the slightest.

Had it been against us we'd be apoplectic. It was a dive.

The truth, baldly stated
Posting an abbreviated comment to try and make a point. Full comment below.

Got to say I'm astonished that on a so called football forum there's so many fans not aware of the rules of the game. It's a penalty all day long.

“I have got through and felt some contact.

I felt he pulled me back, and I’ve gone down. It was definitely a pen. I’ve no qualms about that.

“Was it harsh on him to be sent off? That’s up to the referee. If he didn’t pull me, then I think I’m through on goal one v one. So that’s the ref’s decision but it’s definitely a penalty.
Come off it. It was soft AF. Saying it wouldn't have altered the outcome is one thing, excusing it is another.

The concern for me is Scott decided to go down instead of just having a go at goal. He wasn't knocked over, or off his stride. He should have had a shot.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peperoncino
Member Avatar
First team training
[ *  *  * ]
Sinclair is tugged back against Hibs and stays on his feet - nothing given.

Sinclair is touched against Motherwell and goes to ground - penalty given.

shampooe referees have caused this argument. I hate diving too, but staying on your feet can cost you a penalty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
One sharp cookie
Member Avatar
Getting on a bit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
peperoncino
27 Nov 2017, 09:09 AM
Sinclair is tugged back against Hibs and stays on his feet - nothing given.

Sinclair is touched against Motherwell and goes to ground - penalty given.

shampooe referees have caused this argument. I hate diving too, but staying on your feet can cost you a penalty.
There’s a huge difference between being pulled back and a light touch. Against Hibs, Sinclair had his shirt pulled, which affected his ability to get a decent shot away. Against Motherwell, he felt a light touch and decided to dive to the ground when he could have stayed on his feet and got to the ball. The two incidents are worlds apart. There’s no rule which says you can’t make any contact with an opposition player. If that pen had been given against us yesterday, there would have been posters on here demanding probes into SFA corruption before the full-time whistle had blown. The whole thing was even more pointless by the fact we had them on the ropes and would have likely gone on to win comfortably regardless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ste
Member Avatar
The Eagle Has Landed
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Football is a contact sport but that doesn't mean you can make unnecessary contact. That applies to things like shoulder tackles, contact after an attempt to play the ball etc.

When you make contact with no intention of playing the ball then its a foul.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peperoncino
Member Avatar
First team training
[ *  *  * ]
One sharp cookie
27 Nov 2017, 09:22 AM
peperoncino
27 Nov 2017, 09:09 AM
Sinclair is tugged back against Hibs and stays on his feet - nothing given.

Sinclair is touched against Motherwell and goes to ground - penalty given.

shampooe referees have caused this argument. I hate diving too, but staying on your feet can cost you a penalty.
There’s a huge difference between being pulled back and a light touch. Against Hibs, Sinclair had his shirt pulled, which affected his ability to get a decent shot away. Against Motherwell, he felt a light touch and decided to dive to the ground when he could have stayed on his feet and got to the ball. The two incidents are worlds apart. There’s no rule which says you can’t make any contact with an opposition player. If that pen had been given against us yesterday, there would have been posters on here demanding probes into SFA corruption before the full-time whistle had blown. The whole thing was even more pointless by the fact we had them on the ropes and would have likely gone on to win comfortably regardless.
You miss my point ie. the poor standard refereeing encourages going to ground as it forces a decision to be made.

I thought i'd made it clear I thought there was minimal contact and had at least implied Sinclair dived.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ballbhoy
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Flinchy
27 Nov 2017, 09:09 AM
ballbhoy
27 Nov 2017, 08:19 AM
Seneca
27 Nov 2017, 04:28 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepbrushed
Posting an abbreviated comment to try and make a point. Full comment below.

Got to say I'm astonished that on a so called football forum there's so many fans not aware of the rules of the game. It's a penalty all day long.

“I have got through and felt some contact.

I felt he pulled me back, and I’ve gone down. It was definitely a pen. I’ve no qualms about that.

“Was it harsh on him to be sent off? That’s up to the referee. If he didn’t pull me, then I think I’m through on goal one v one. So that’s the ref’s decision but it’s definitely a penalty.
Come off it. It was soft AF. Saying it wouldn't have altered the outcome is one thing, excusing it is another.

The concern for me is Scott decided to go down instead of just having a go at goal. He wasn't knocked over, or off his stride. He should have had a shot.
It was a penalty. That's where the conversation ends for me. Some ridiculous add-ons that have no relevance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flinchy
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
ballbhoy
27 Nov 2017, 09:33 AM
Flinchy
27 Nov 2017, 09:09 AM
ballbhoy
27 Nov 2017, 08:19 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepbrushed felt some contact.

I felt he pulled me back, and I’ve gone down. It was definitely a pen. I’ve no qualms about that.

“Was it harsh on him to be sent off? That’s up to the referee. If he didn’t pull me, then I think I’m through on goal one v one. So that’s the ref’s decision but it’s definitely a penalty.
Come off it. It was soft AF. Saying it wouldn't have altered the outcome is one thing, excusing it is another.

The concern for me is Scott decided to go down instead of just having a go at goal. He wasn't knocked over, or off his stride. He should have had a shot.
It was a penalty. That's where the conversation ends for me. Some ridiculous add-ons that have no relevance.
It doesn't concern you that a player struggling for form decides to fall on his arse when feeling the slightest contact rather than staying on his feet and trying for goal?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ballbhoy
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Flinchy
27 Nov 2017, 09:59 AM
ballbhoy
27 Nov 2017, 09:33 AM
Flinchy
27 Nov 2017, 09:09 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepbrushed felt some contact.

I felt he pulled me back, and I’ve gone down. It was definitely a pen. I’ve no qualms about that.

“Was it harsh on him to be sent off? That’s up to the referee. If he didn’t pull me, then I think I’m through on goal one v one. So that’s the ref’s decision but it’s definitely a penalty
It was a penalty. That's where the conversation ends for me. Some ridiculous add-ons that have no relevance.
It doesn't concern you that a player struggling for form decides to fall on his arse when feeling the slightest contact rather than staying on his feet and trying for goal?
No - the reason being that it was a penalty.

I also thought Sinclair had a very good game. I was delighted that a player who has not been in good form made an excellent run that caused the opposition player to foul him for a clear penalty kick.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beer_goggler1888
Member Avatar
Harp Lager ICE cold
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]

Who really gives a eff :lol:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flinchy
Member Avatar
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
ballbhoy
27 Nov 2017, 10:07 AM
Flinchy
27 Nov 2017, 09:59 AM
ballbhoy
27 Nov 2017, 09:33 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepbrushed felt some contact.

I felt he pulled me back, and I’ve gone down. It was definitely a pen. I’ve no qualms about that.

“Was it harsh on him to be sent off? That’s up to the referee. If he didn’t pull me, then I think I’m through on goal one v one. So that’s the ref’s decision but it’s definitely a penalty
It doesn't concern you that a player struggling for form decides to fall on his arse when feeling the slightest contact rather than staying on his feet and trying for goal?
No - the reason being that it was a penalty.

I also thought Sinclair had a very good game. I was delighted that a player who has not been in good form made an excellent run that caused the opposition player to foul him for a clear penalty kick.
I look forward to your comments the next time we get a soft penalty given against us in a big game. Contact or not, he could have stayed on his feet and didn't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gunner
Member Avatar
I'll play anywhere, as long as I get a game!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/274/092646_180517_LotG_17_18_FINAL_EN.pdf

page 103.

Spoiler: click to toggle


my take on it is that people are getting more worked up about Sinclair going down. When, that's an academic point. The recovering motherwell player, needlessly and without intent on playing the ball, puts an arm out and pulls sinclair.

The act of pulling an opponent, denying a goalscoring opportunity is a foul and red card.

What's indisputable, is that the motherwell player pulled sinclair, in the penalty area, without making an attempt to play the ball. Regardless of how soft or hard the pull was.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mickeybhoy84
Member Avatar
Living the dream
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Sinclair going down easily after he was fouled doesn’t change the fact he was fouled. It was a clear penalty and one of the few decisions Thomson got right.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Celtic Football Club Discussion Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply