Match Preview/Thread - Morton vs Queens Park (16th December)

[Toby]

12 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

A big part of our success over the last week, and what we've done really well, is win possession back quickly by nipping in and getting a toe onto the ball when we can. As far as I can see, that's exactly what Oakley had tried to do but has been clumsy and missed (as forwards often do). I don't really see any need to talk of it as unnecessary. 

Being extremely generous to Oakley, here.

Whilst I don’t think it was a red, I don’t think he had any intention of playing the ball either. At the time it looked like a cynical foul designed to break up an attack with no intention of getting the ball, and I don’t think the highlights suggest otherwise.

It was a yellow, and fair play to him for being prepared to take one for the team, but it’s a pity the referee saw it as more severe.

[The Bewilderedbeast]

1 hour ago, Madton said:

Strange they left the McGrattan effort out.

I think the angle of the challenge from the gantry will make an appeal difficult.

 

 

Agreed, hopefully the different angle from behind the goal, if there was anyone there yesterday, will show it properly. 

[SpoonTon]

1 hour ago, Toby said:

Being extremely generous to Oakley, here.

Whilst I don’t think it was a red, I don’t think he had any intention of playing the ball either. At the time it looked like a cynical foul designed to break up an attack with no intention of getting the ball, and I don’t think the highlights suggest otherwise.

It was a yellow, and fair play to him for being prepared to take one for the team, but it’s a pity the referee saw it as more severe.

I don't think I'm being particularly generous to Oakley. It looks to me like he's got his eyes on the ball and he's stuck a foot out to try to get a toe on it.

But there's the general issue - it all comes down to interpretation of intention, which only George himself knows the answer to. I think he's trying to get a toe on the ball, you think he's trying to make a foul to break up play, and perhaps the referee thinks he's trying just trying to stick one on him and has either been out of control and reckless or deliberately violent. 

There was a very similar foul in the Man City Crystal Palace game yesterday (before City's disallowed goal) which didn't even result in a yellow card. I interpreted that one in a similar way to Oakley's. Oakley has perhaps caught him on the heel, which I can understand would be a booking, but I think the problem for Oakley is that he's one of those players who the refs are always going to assume malicious intent - which I think is unfair. 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

From that distance and angle at least it not a clear and obvious error by the ref, so I agree with Toby, appealing would be futile and may even incur an even longer ban. 

Definite yellow and borderline red at worst, IMO, so while I think George can consider himself to be a wee bit unfortunate, I don't think he can be massively aggrieved.   

[RossMcC1874]

It's never a red in a million years, its a cynical challenge to bring down a player breaking away and it's a yellow card that's all. No point in appealing it because it won't be overturned usual shite referees every week it's actually laughable they are so bad. 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

1 hour ago, RossMcC1874 said:

It's never a red in a million years,  

If it was a simple trip I would agree with you, but you can't really tell that from that distance (at least I couldn't) if he caught him on the front or the back of the ankle, or if his studs were up. If he did catch him at the back of his ankle with studs up, that may have merited a red. The ref did take the red card out right away without any hesitation, so I guess that's what he saw, thought he saw, or maybe even just assumed.

[TAFKAC]

It's really clumsy challenge and he's mistimed it.  Looking at it in full speed you can see why the ref has given him the red card - no attempt to play the ball and looks like a drag down the achilles.  One of those strange ones that look less troublesome when slowed down.  But an appeal would be wasted.

[Mr.Blue]

52 minutes ago, TAFKAC said:

It's really clumsy challenge and he's mistimed it.  Looking at it in full speed you can see why the ref has given him the red card - no attempt to play the ball and looks like a drag down the achilles.  One of those strange ones that look less troublesome when slowed down.  But an appeal would be wasted.

I saw this in a totally different light.

The boy got away from Oakley and he fouled him to break up the play. It was cynical and that was all. No malice from where I was standing and it looked like he caught the defender on the ankle.  Could not believe it when I saw the red card. It was a stick on yellow in my view. I'd be interested to hear the refs reasoning behind it being a red card but we all know that won't come. Oakley game is all about roughing up defenders and unsettling them. I guarantee he's been on the end of worse fouls than that this season and there hasn't been a red card for it.

As for the appeal. Get it in and see where it goes. Likelihood is it won't get overturned but the club should make a stand on this. The standard of referring is absolutely fucking shocking. Any experienced officials are either in the Premier league or working VAR meaning we are seeing clowns like those in our past 2 games being fast tracked into the championship.  Not good enough.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

13 minutes ago, Mr.Blue said:

 As for the appeal. Get it in and see where it goes. Likelihood is it won't get overturned but the club should make a stand on this.  

The problem with that is, if they deem it to be frivolous - which could well be the outcome in this case because it's definitely not clear that the ref made an obvious error - then I think I'm right in saying that the ban could be extended. So unless there's other footage which gives a clearer or closer view of the incident, it's not worth taking the risk IMO for an appeal that has very little or no chance of being successful. Plus the fact that they wouldn't give a flying fuck anyway about Morton 'making a stand' on this.

[vikingTON]

25 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

The problem with that is, if they deem it to be frivolous - which could well be the outcome in this case because it's definitely not clear that the ref made an obvious error - then I think I'm right in saying that the ban could be extended. 

It is absolutely within the bounds of a contestable decision. The referee has interpreted danger and intent that is not supported by the evidence.

If the SFA are going to circle the wagons around their clownshoe dishing out a red card (chances of being awarded against the home team at Ibrox/Parkhead on the pitch - absolutely none) to the extent of deeming an appeal 'frivolous' then they can go and fuck themselves too. 

I'm not convinced that an appeal would be successful but don't buy the 'it'll extend the ban' argument either. Most likely outcome IMO is that the SFA would stick to the original decision - there's nothing 'frivolous' at all about getting a second verdict.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

30 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

It is absolutely within the bounds of a contestable decision. The referee has interpreted danger and intent that is not supported by the evidence.

If the SFA are going to circle the wagons around their clownshoe dishing out a red card (chances of being awarded against the home team at Ibrox/Parkhead on the pitch - absolutely none) to the extent of deeming an appeal 'frivolous' then they can go and fuck themselves too. 

I'm not convinced that an appeal would be successful but don't buy the 'it'll extend the ban' argument either. Most likely outcome IMO is that the SFA would stick to the original decision - there's nothing 'frivolous' at all about getting a second verdict.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that for an appeal to be successful it has to be clear and obvious that the ref has made an error. From the footage on the QP highlights, it's far too distant to be able to make that claim. It could merit a red card in certain circumstances. e.g., if he caught his achilleas with his studs up, and IMO that can't be disproved on this video evidence. Maybe if there's a better view from another angle you could do, but if we were to rely on that footage alone, you can't say conclusively that the ref made a clear and obvious error. I'm of course not saying he didn't make an error, only that you can't prove it from that footage.

I wouldn't be against appealing, but I think the risk of it extending the ban would be far greater than the chance of it being successful.  

[SpoonTon]

20 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that for an appeal to be successful it has to be clear and obvious that the ref has made an error. From the footage on the QP highlights, it's far too distant to be able to make that claim. It could merit a red card in certain circumstances. e.g., if he caught his achilleas with his studs up, and IMO that can't be disproved on this video evidence. Maybe if there's a better view from another angle you could do, but if we were to rely on that footage alone, you can't say conclusively that the ref made a clear and obvious error. I'm of course not saying he didn't make an error, only that you can't prove it from that footage.

I wouldn't be against appealing, but I think the risk of it extending the ban would be far greater than the chance of it being successful.  

If he's only caught him as high as the achilles, then that's a yellow. Standing on someone's heel is painful but it's not a sending off offence. 

 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

13 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

If he's only caught him as high as the achilles, then that's a yellow. Standing on someone's heel is painful but it's not a sending off offence. 

 

Hmmmm.... in some circumstances I'm pretty sure that could definitely be considered a red. Of course not always, but it could certainly be a red if it caused injury or if the ref thought there was intent or a reckless risk of causing injury.

Again, I'm certainly not saying that was the case here, and George definitely doesn't seem like the kind of guy who goes out to deliberately injure an opponent, but to say that catching someone on the achillies with studs is always by definition and in every circumstance only a yellow card offence, in clearly incorrect, IMO.

[dunning1874]

That was terrific yesterday, the most impressive of three excellent wins in a week. The start was superb and we were unfortunate not to be 2-0 up, but there was a noticeable dip after Wilson's injury. No fault of Power or Gillespie, but the two of them together just aren't going to provide the same energy as one of them beside Wilson, Blues or Crawford and it let Queen's Park settle into the game a bit, for all that we were still the better team.

The red card is a travesty of a decision, it's a textbook cynical yellow with no question of a red card. You wouldn't have thought you'd be seeing an even worse decision within 10 minutes, but the penalty award was an absolute disgrace. Luckily it was a terrible effort and justice was done but full credit to Mullen who had a great game.

You naturally feared the worst needing to survive a whole half with 10 men, but what a shift every single one of them put in. Obviously you're on edge in that scenario, but ultimately they created just one clear cut chance with the free header they should have done better with, while it's inevitable they're going to get crosses in and someone is going to lose a runner once when you're under that amount of pressure. They also had the long range shot which saw Mullen pull off another great save, but again it's inevitable that one of those will go on target eventually when we're forcing them to shoot from that range as they couldn't play through us.

Ultimately we looked as much like scoring in the second half as they did, and that's a huge testament to the defensive shift. Muirhead looked like he was done in after an hour but time and time again he would burst into life to take us up the park and eat up seconds winning throw-ins or corners. I thought that was Blues' best game for Morton as well, he was everywhere defensively. Time and again he was the one flinging his head in or getting his laces through the ball in our box.

To suddenly be sitting only four points off the top four after where we were a week ago is wild. All three wins have been a bit different as well which is another really encouraging sign. You've had the game hanging in the balance at 1-1 at Arbroath where they've had their own chances to win it: earlier in the season we could easily have lost that, but we were the ones being clinical when our chance came and getting the win. You have the dominant performance against Inverness where we struggle to find the second goal, again you maybe get sucker punched if confidence is lower and you get desperate over failing to take your chances to kill the game, but they kept at it and eventually got that second, then held on once it went back 2-1. Then you have yesterday where it's proper backs to the wall to cling onto a lead, going a whole half a man down having played in midweek when our opposition didn't. Three different types of test, three games that could all easily have seen us only taking one point or even ending up losing, and coming away with nine points. That's absolutely fantastic and bodes very well.

That we're still only two points from 9th tells us how urgent it was for the turnaround to start when it did, but we've got genuine reasons for optimism that we can continue this now rather than simply clinging to blind hope.

[Cat10]

Luke Shaw getting a yellow card there for same tackle as Oakley got red for yesterday…

[Mr.Blue]

4 hours ago, vikingTON said:

It is absolutely within the bounds of a contestable decision. The referee has interpreted danger and intent that is not supported by the evidence.

If the SFA are going to circle the wagons around their clownshoe dishing out a red card (chances of being awarded against the home team at Ibrox/Parkhead on the pitch - absolutely none) to the extent of deeming an appeal 'frivolous' then they can go and fuck themselves too. 

I'm not convinced that an appeal would be successful but don't buy the 'it'll extend the ban' argument either. Most likely outcome IMO is that the SFA would stick to the original decision - there's nothing 'frivolous' at all about getting a second verdict.

Agreed.

I also think that the possibility of the ban getting extended is there to put teams off appealing.  I'd say its definitely worth appealing.

[Toby]

Just now, Mr.Blue said:

Agreed.

I also think that the possibility of the ban getting extended is there to put teams off appealing.  I'd say its definitely worth appealing.

I do wonder though, is appealing the preserve of the rich?

It was fine for Rangers to put in an appeal for Cifuentes’s red card against Dundee last week, but last I heard it cost about a grand per appeal. That could of course be cheaper the further down the pyramid you go, but considering we’re in the second tier, I don’t think it would be that much cheaper.

I could be completely wrong, and have had my arse handed to me a couple of times on disciplinary matters on this very thread, but I do wonder about the financial impact on appealing something that’s at the mercy of someone who were unlikely to carry any favour with.

[Boogs49]

23 minutes ago, Toby said:

I do wonder though, is appealing the preserve of the rich?

It was fine for Rangers to put in an appeal for Cifuentes’s red card against Dundee last week, but last I heard it cost about a grand per appeal. That could of course be cheaper the further down the pyramid you go, but considering we’re in the second tier, I don’t think it would be that much cheaper.

I could be completely wrong, and have had my arse handed to me a couple of times on disciplinary matters on this very thread, but I do wonder about the financial impact on appealing something that’s at the mercy of someone who were unlikely to carry any favour with.

The SFA disciplinary updates on their Website have been poor this season but they must have done a recent update and the result of Cifuentes losing the appeal cost 'them' £500

Player: Jose Cifuentes (Rangers FC)

Match: Rangers FC v Dundee FC on Saturday 9 December 2023

Competition: Scottish Premiership

Offence: A1 - Serious Foul Play

Claim: Wrongful Dismissal

Fast Track Tribunal Hearing:  Tuesday 12 December 2023

Outcome: Claim Dismissed. A1 - Serious Foul Play; the original sanction is re-imposed with
immediate effect. £500 fee forfeited to be paid within 30 days

Looking at the appeal Dundee Utd made for Anim's red card against us shows they had to pay £250 on loss of appeal. 

[Scott]

Oakley appeal rejected, 2 game ban remains in place. 

[BishopBrennan]

Unfortunately that was inevitable. The angle of the highlights didn't show a clear enough view of the incident to clear him. Grant Irvine's card is definitely marked.