The retrospective santioning of Snake could open up a very big can of worms. Where I find it a curious decision is there was clearly conntact. Dont get me wrong at the time even watching it live I said feck that was soft.
Where I think the problem the SFA has created is surely now every time someone goes down with no contact at all as we have all seen many many times a season from players of all sides it is now an obligation from the SFA to impose a similar sanction.
As I said above how many players are gonna end up serving suspentions this season if this is used consitently
Like I said I am not only reffering to no contact situations but the penalty the other night goes either way every second game
Boerrigter sanction
posted on 16/8/14
posted on 16/8/14
Wright mentioned in his post match interview something about it wasbrought up as a directive at this seasons meeting between the refs and the clubs.
Got no problem with retrospective on " no contact" but its a can of worms if there is no matter how slight and this has nothing to do with it being a Celtic player.
This will become an issue this season , safe bet
posted on 16/8/14
With you 100% Mick but like I said should be restricted to no contact. Otherwise it becomes to subjective
posted on 16/8/14
Diving should be erased from the game. Grown men hitting the deck after a brush against an opponents leg
Can you imagine these guys working on a building site
That's a comedy skit waiting to happen
posted on 16/8/14
posted on 16/8/14
So if you lightly brush against someone and they go down as if they've been shot is fine as there was "contact" no matter how slight?
posted on 16/8/14
Someone brushing against your leg isn't a foul outside the box, so why inside the box?
A foul is taking someone's legs from them/knocking them off the ball etc.
Even women's football doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of diving and play acting as the men's game.
Fücking women showing us up!
posted on 16/8/14
Way I see it is to have a sytem not open to such a possible high degree of error is to take the human factor out of deciding "was there enough contact" bit like goal technology. The whole idea is to take away the human error portion of was it over the line or wasnt it. Thats black and white just as was there any contact or not would be. If it becomes subjective as to how much contact then add was it enough to cause the player to loose his balence etc etc etc then this all = can of worms.
posted on 16/8/14
No Ath that is now and would still be dealt with by the ref at the time on the pitch. My point is if retrospective action is to be taken then it has to be 100% or as I said at least one and in reality many more scenarios will be open to such near on every game
posted on 16/8/14
Personally I didnt think there was any contact