St Johnstone v Motherwell 07/11/2023

[grizzlyg]

11 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Did Ross County not wrongly benefit from this recently or is my memory failing?

They did but rule is that because that Ross Co player didn't score the goal it was ok

Yup....makes no sense to me either 

[twistandshout1983]

Definetly wanted the 3 points before a ball was kicked though just glad we got the draw in the end, and another goal for Mika 

[FirParkCornerExile]

7 hours ago, Spiderpig said:

Just watched the highlights two very good goals from us and Wilkinsons goal being disallowed was a joke his arm by his side, the ball played onto it by the StJ defender never a feckin handball, another VAR shite decision.

It doesn't matter if his arm is by his side. The rules state if the ball hit the players hand or arm and it's not in unnatural position but deflects the ball into position to assist a goal the goal is chalked off. It was the right call , not defending the rule but the interpretation of the rules was correct.

[FirParkCornerExile]

5 hours ago, MJC said:

Under the ridiculous laws of the game then a foul has to be given for handball there however I still fail to see how Wilkinson could have done anything to get his hand out of the way

The goal will be disallowed if

• a goal is scored by the arm/hand of an attacking player; or if the ball touches an attacking player’s hand/arm in the immediate goal-scoring build-up play. If the arm/hand gives the player an unfair advantage a handball can be called. Even if the attacker's arms were close to the body in a “natural position”

[Great Balls of Shire]

16 hours ago, santheman said:

As much as I was pissed off at half time with our schoolboy defending I was even more pissed off at Shaw missing the one on one with the keeper.

Any other striker in the league would have buried it.

Still I would have bitten your hand off for a point at half time.

We are Shaw's 4 th Scottish club, at least  , he's only 25 , there's probably a reason for that

[Coatsy]

3 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Just seen the highlights and feel sorry for Wilkinson as it was a really cool finish. However, the law is clear, any handball committed in the scoring of a goal is a foul regardless of whether it was intentional or not. Its a shite rule, but it IS the rule so we cant argue it. 

Wilkinson clearly has some ability, but its how we manage to get him in positions to allow him to show it thats the problem.

The same could be said for a few of our players and I think its in this regard that I think criticism of SK is fair.

He signed the players knowing their strengths and weaknesses, I would have hoped he had a formation and tactics in mind before doing so.

Of course injuries and suspensions have hampered a settled team selection, but I hope he he is getting closer to identifying who he can trust and how we want to play.

 

The plan was obvously to have a fwd who could hold up the ball  and bring our mdfield forward thinking players up the field and into the game I think that was Obika but because he's made of paper its been untried this season. We were then scratching about for other fwd options hence Shaw who is so one paces and devoid of confidence he's only a sub option. 

Casey who i believe is our best defender and Slatterys form has dipped badly since Ross County and were missing Lennon now as well  Odonnell is so ponderson and slows the game which is the opposite of last season where Johnson providing urgency and pace.

Lots to think about but were not a lost case and Kettlewell is no mug, as for wholesale changes each match he's in a no win i've already seen comments on here about him using the Alexander tombola.

Lets stick with the team hope for improvments in form for our better players i feel hope with Butcher and Mika that we can pull through this bad patch that all teams will have

 

 

[bobbybingo]

1 hour ago, grizzlyg said:

They did but rule is that because that Ross Co player didn't score the goal it was ok

Yup....makes no sense to me either 

Somebody is being paid to sit in a room and dream this crap up. Their approach to the laws of the game seems to be 'What haven't we tried yet?'

[Spiderpig]

59 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

The goal will be disallowed if

• a goal is scored by the arm/hand of an attacking player; or if the ball touches an attacking player’s hand/arm in the immediate goal-scoring build-up play. If the arm/hand gives the player an unfair advantage a handball can be called. Even if the attacker's arms were close to the body in a “natural position”

What unfair advantage did Wilkinson get though? Did the ball trajectory after  hitting his hand especially that close to him behave any differently to it hitting his chest or any other part of him especially as he knew nothing about it for me its no different.

The rule is shite to start with and when it's forensically examined by VAR it gets ridiculous.

Unless the hand/arm contact changes the ball trajectory and gives the player an advantage as a result ie if the hand is not in a normal position then goals like that last night should stand.

The current handball rules are a feckin shambles.

[bobbybingo]

13 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

What unfair advantage did Wilkinson get though? Did the ball trajectory after  hitting his hand especially that close to him behave any differently to it hitting his chest or any other part of him especially as he knew nothing about it for me its no different.

The rule is shite to start with and when it's forensically examined by VAR it gets ridiculous.

Unless the hand/arm contact changes the ball trajectory and gives the player an advantage as a result ie if the hand is not in a normal position then goals like that last night should stand.

The current handball rules are a feckin shambles.

From FIFA:

"It is a handball offence if a player scores in the opponents’ goal: directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper; or, immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental.

Accidental handball that leads to a team-mate scoring a goal or having a goal-scoring opportunity will no longer be considered an offence"

There is no unfair advantage aspect to it.

[dennyc]

26 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

What unfair advantage did Wilkinson get though? Did the ball trajectory after  hitting his hand especially that close to him behave any differently to it hitting his chest or any other part of him especially as he knew nothing about it for me its no different.

The rule is shite to start with and when it's forensically examined by VAR it gets ridiculous.

Unless the hand/arm contact changes the ball trajectory and gives the player an advantage as a result ie if the hand is not in a normal position then goals like that last night should stand.

The current handball rules are a feckin shambles.

Everybody agrees the rule is nonsense in that if the ball had fallen to a team mate it would have been a valid goal.

 But if the ball had not hit Wilkinson's arm then the defender's touch would have cleared the ball. So, yes, Wilkinson as the goal scorer did gain an advantage which is clear from the BBC highlights. Whether he would have gained the same advantage if the ball had hit his chest or knee is irrelevant. And the part of the arm that touched the ball was not down by his side, natural or not. Wilkinson did not protest, even half heartedly. That's usually a clue.

We lost out to the decision, just as we lost out against Ross County when they scored. But sadly both decisions were correct and VAR applied the laws as they stand.

[MJC]

I see the club have put out a statement about the use of pyro and condemning it.

[Mad Dog]

50 minutes ago, MJC said:

I see the club have put out a statement about the use of pyro and condemning it.

Quite right too.

[grizzlyg]

58 minutes ago, MJC said:

I see the club have put out a statement about the use of pyro and condemning it.

Quite right too.  These shouldnt be anywhere near inside a football stadium or anywhere else.  Try saying to folk with respiratory issues what they think of them.

[texanwellfan]

4 hours ago, grizzlyg said:

They did but rule is that because that Ross Co player didn't score the goal it was ok

Yup....makes no sense to me either 

So it’s a different scenario, specific to the goal scorer in our case last night 

[Onthefringes]

39 minutes ago, grizzlyg said:

Quite right too.  These shouldnt be anywhere near inside a football stadium or anywhere else.  Try saying to folk with respiratory issues what they think of them.

Quite right? Happy enough to use the pictures across social media platforms, but, not condoning their use. Can’t have it all.

[bobbybingo]

10 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

Quite right? Happy enough to use the pictures across social media platforms, but, not condoning their use. Can’t have it all.

Probably why they've removed them.

[dennyc]

10 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

Quite right? Happy enough to use the pictures across social media platforms, but, not condoning their use. Can’t have it all.

So do you condone it? Even if ultimately it were to cost the club a fine or points deduction?

Have you ever considered that the Club might have issued the statement to protect themselves if the authorities were to get involved,?

[SteelmaninOZ]

 

[grizzlyg]

1 hour ago, Onthefringes said:

Quite right? Happy enough to use the pictures across social media platforms, but, not condoning their use. Can’t have it all.

Good point which I actually agree with. But with regards to pyros they shouldnt be inside a stadium in my opinion 

[Onthefringes]

2 hours ago, dennyc said:

So do you condone it? Even if ultimately it were to cost the club a fine or points deduction?

Have you ever considered that the Club might have issued the statement to protect themselves if the authorities were to get involved,?

Have I said I condone it? Just find the club stance questionable given their use of images past & present.

This ‘if’ the authorities get involved is a misnomer. No club is subject to strict liability for the actions of fan behaviour, censure maybe.

it’s not a new phenomenon, high time there was adult conversations and an appreciation by those in authority the spectacle can be managed safely and work together for the greater good before they lose any semblance of control they have, not the control they try to exert.

[Onthefringes]

28 minutes ago, grizzlyg said:

Good point which I actually agree with. But with regards to pyros they shouldnt be inside a stadium in my opinion 

Fair enough, fan culture like football itself has evolved though. Society just as much.

[twistandshout1983]

Regardless of any images in the past I think it is time to stop all the pyrotechnics as someone will get seriously injured.  I for one think the Bois do a great job creating an atmosphere 

Anyone who set them off last night  probably thinking Rangers fans at Dens Park , Celtic fans do the same and it is fine .  I understand though if the club put a statement out I would hope people would listen 

Something will happen like I say and someone will be injured at a game

[pretzel]

39 minutes ago, twistandshout1983 said:

Something will happen like I say and someone will be injured at a game

A few incidents have occurred already due to pryo being used in games involving us, even a self inflicted one as one of the guys burnt his hand badly at Kirkcaldy earlier this year. Not to mention we have been billed for damaging the pitch at Rugby Park and Almondvale. 

[dennyc]

1 hour ago, Onthefringes said:

Have I said I condone it? Just find the club stance questionable given their use of images past & present.

This ‘if’ the authorities get involved is a misnomer. No club is subject to any collective punishment for the actions of fan behaviour, censure maybe.

it’s not a new phenomenon, high time there was adult conversations and an appreciation by those in authority the spectacle can be managed safely and work together for the greater good before they lose any semblance of control they have, not the control they try to exert.

 Do you condone last night's pyros or not? It is a fairly simple question. Yes or No? If you do then fair enough.  I am perfectly aware they have become common practice at matches and so far little or no action has been taken. Do you accept that such unauthorised, uncontrolled displays are against the Law because they can be a health hazard/cause injury? As you suggest, there may be scope for more controlled displays as happens in other sports. But that is a separate discussion which may provide a balanced solution.. 

Eventually the authorities will take a stance, and it's likely some wee club like Motherwell will be sanctioned rather than the big boys. Even using the excuse that effective, preventative measures were not put in place by a Club. As I said, maybe that's why the Board issued a statement. Acting in the best interests of the Club as the are obliged to do. But you never addressed that possibility either? The Bois bring plenty of noise, support and colour to games. Do they really need to add displays such as last night?

To be clear, I don't think they have a place on the terraces irrespective of whether they are organised by The Bois, Green Brigade, Union Bears or any individual. 

[bobbybingo]

1 hour ago, Onthefringes said:

it’s not a new phenomenon, high time there was adult conversations and an appreciation by those in authority the spectacle can be managed safely and work together for the greater good before they lose any semblance of control they have, not the control they try to exert.

There should always be room for an adult conversation, but even if some kind of agreement were reached between the authorities and fan groups on the limited use of pyros in football grounds (we know that won't happen) I don't see it solving anything. I can just about remember doing daft stuff for the sole purpose of pissing folk off, and that has to be part of the appeal here. These groups obviously love the friction their actions create, whether it's between themselves and the police/government, the clubs they spend so much time and money supporting, or their fellow fans.

The authorities' intransigence may do nothing to help the situation, but even if they bent over tomorrow, I think the loss of control you mention is inevitable. It's just a matter of when and where.