Celtic Database at thecelticwiki.com
All
Celtic
World Cup 2018
Tickets/Travel
Wiki
General
Sport
F&D
Entertainment
Travel
Tipsters
Tech
| 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: |
| 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 | 27 Nov 2017, 02:18 AM Post #3121 |
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
| Seneca | 27 Nov 2017, 04:28 AM Post #3122 |
|
First team training
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The truth, baldly stated |
![]() |
|
| ticcy_paper | 27 Nov 2017, 04:48 AM Post #3123 |
|
Chameleon, comedian, Corinthian and caricature
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Exactly 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. |
![]() |
|
| CMC88 | 27 Nov 2017, 05:24 AM Post #3124 |
|
Considering retirement
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's admitting he was fouled, the going down bit irrelevant, The foud alreafy been committed. |
![]() |
|
| CMC88 | 27 Nov 2017, 05:29 AM Post #3125 |
|
Considering retirement
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| samscafeamericain | 27 Nov 2017, 05:38 AM Post #3126 |
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| BombJack | 27 Nov 2017, 08:04 AM Post #3127 |
![]()
He twists, he turns, Tommy Burns...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| ballbhoy | 27 Nov 2017, 08:19 AM Post #3128 |
|
Club Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Flinchy | 27 Nov 2017, 09:09 AM Post #3129 |
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| peperoncino | 27 Nov 2017, 09:09 AM Post #3130 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| One sharp cookie | 27 Nov 2017, 09:22 AM Post #3131 |
|
Getting on a bit
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Ste | 27 Nov 2017, 09:31 AM Post #3132 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| peperoncino | 27 Nov 2017, 09:32 AM Post #3133 |
|
First team training
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| ballbhoy | 27 Nov 2017, 09:33 AM Post #3134 |
|
Club Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It was a penalty. That's where the conversation ends for me. Some ridiculous add-ons that have no relevance. |
![]() |
|
| Flinchy | 27 Nov 2017, 09:59 AM Post #3135 |
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| ballbhoy | 27 Nov 2017, 10:07 AM Post #3136 |
|
Club Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| beer_goggler1888 | 27 Nov 2017, 10:09 AM Post #3137 |
|
Harp Lager ICE cold
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Who really gives a eff |
![]() |
|
| Flinchy | 27 Nov 2017, 10:23 AM Post #3138 |
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Gunner | 27 Nov 2017, 10:26 AM Post #3139 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Mickeybhoy84 | 27 Nov 2017, 10:30 AM Post #3140 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Celtic Football Club Discussion Forum · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



If Cipre doesn't touch Sinclair then there is no decision to be made. Just because he

7:16 AM Jul 11