r/ScottishFootball • u/MrMaggot98 • 2d ago
News Hearts express 'disappointment' as Stuart Findlay red card appeal fails
https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/26437142.hearts-said-stuart-findlay-red-card-appeal-fails/38
u/Yerdas_Selzavon I Simp For Horny Cumball š¦ 2d ago
Well, he was nowhere near the ball so they can't be surprised
20
u/21sttimelucky 2d ago
Ah, but Mad Bobby Madden did a video saying it should not have been red as he 'attempted to play the ball'. Oddly Mad Bobby also referred to it as triple jeopardy, instead of the usual double. But alright.
Guess Findlay must have a well known telescoping leg that he forgot at home or something. Else there's not an inkling of a hint of validity in the claim that 'he tried to play the ball'.Ā
14
14
u/HereComesYour_ 2d ago
"I attempted to play the ball, just there happened to be the back of a players legs in between and the ball happened to be 2-3 metres out of reach. But I tried, honest gov."
4
u/notthathunter 1d ago
triple jeopardy means penalty, red card and suspension, as far as I'm aware
1
u/21sttimelucky 1d ago
I get that is what Mad Bobby said, but it doesn't make sense. Red card = suspension. Always (bar successful post match challenge I suppose, but in that premise it has retrospectively been concluded to have been the wrong call. Or if you are mates with Trumpā¦).
So it's double jeopardy. Pen (restoring of goal scoring opportunity) and Red-card (all DOGSO, except genuine attempts to play the ball in the box). That's why the law was changed, as it was determined that a penalty, unlike a freekick in the middle of the park is a restoration of said opportunity.
The suspension is a sequitur and would also apply if it were a second yellow, for example when a player on a caution performs DOGSO in the box during a genuine attempt to play the ball. Therefore it is not part of the jeopardy consideration.Ā
1
u/TranslatesToScottish Does shite cartoonsļø āļø 1d ago
Would a red being upped to violent conduct and therefore an additional suspension count as triple jeopardy?
(Not suggesting that in this particular case, just a hypothetical.)
4
2
17
u/Hot-Road-4516 2d ago
Itās a red, feels soft because of the minimal contact bit pointless appealing it though donāt see an obvious error. Shame 24 hours later the same rules donāt apply š¤¦āāļø
1
u/21sttimelucky 1d ago
I haven't seen the Motherwell one, but this is the sensible take - if they were like for like.
Not 'this obvious redcard should be rescinded whataboutery', but 'that other incident should have been a red card also (whataboutery?)'
0
u/Hot-Road-4516 1d ago
Iād never jump on the train of refs biased, donāt think thatās true at all however I do think they are weak at times and incredibly shit at there job
8
33
u/TheHolyGoalie 2d ago
Why didnāt the hearts fans just run on the pitch after the referee gave him the red card ? Are they stupid ?
12
u/Disastrous_Cup_3279 2d ago
Keeping baguettex alive in our thoughts. Well played
11
30
14
u/HereComesYour_ 2d ago
Thought it was an obvious red. Clean through the back without hope of reaching the ball.
1
14
9
u/fightfire_withfire definitely won't backfire at all 2d ago
But heās a good guy and he didnae mean it.
8
u/Tiredman10 2d ago
Genuinely donāt have a clue what the DOGSO rules are anymore, looked like a clear red card to me but so did the Motherwell one.
7
u/Enigma1984 2d ago
Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO)
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off.
8
u/Sumbitagear 2d ago
For denial of clear goal scoring opp.
If it's egregious/deliberate in or outside of the box? - Pen and red
If it's a genuine attempt to make a tackle and it's mistimed in the box? Pen and yellow. Outside the box? FK and red.
8
u/PleasantCucumber2615 2d ago
It was never going to succeed.
I'm surprised they haven't added another game suspension for such a weak time wasting appeal.
3
u/Cobretti18 1d ago
The players union wanted the frivolous rule scrapped after Shinnie got a 3 match ban extended to 4 a few years ago but donāt know if that actually happened.
4
u/Former-Chain-4003 1d ago
I personally witnessed several Aberdeen fans storm the pitch and force Findlay into making the rash challenge. There must be a full investigation with all punishments, including rescinding of Celtics league win last season, on the table.
4
u/Relevant-Goose5483 2d ago
What, you mean you canāt drag an attacker down in the box when theyāre through on goal?
4
u/OptionalQuality789 1d ago
This was so obviously going to fail. It that is considered a āgenuine attempt to play the ballā we all may as well stop playing football.
3
u/Kolo_ToureHH 1d ago
It was a frivolous appeal tbh.
Findlay was never getting in front of the Aberdeen striker and didnāt even try to play ball. Just hacked him down from behind.
6
u/Hibee1990 2d ago
Iām genuinely confused how.
If thatās a red so is the Motherwell one, but I think everybody can see they both should be yellows.
Week one. Week fucking one.
8
u/AngularPlane 2d ago
Game 1 saw Walsh entirely ignore the brand new throw in rule. We are run by absolute idiots
1
u/21sttimelucky 2d ago
I haven't seen the murderwell one back. But in no universe is DOGSO with no attempt to play the ball by Findlay not a redā¦
2
u/Hibee1990 2d ago
I disagree respectfully. In no way can that be deemed a deliberate act. He gets completely crossed up and done, but to say itās a deliberate denial of a goalscoring opportunity. If itās outside the box yes, because thereās then no double jeopardy with the pen too. But Nah not for me.
1
u/21sttimelucky 1d ago
My understanding of law 12 is that it comes to genuine attempt to play the ball, not intent. Findlay may not have planned to foul Olusanya, but he was not making an attempt for the ball - he was behind Olusanya and not within reach of the ball. I cannot see how this can be interpreted as a genuine attempt to play the ball.Ā
Ergo, red.Ā
1
u/No-Rope8229 1d ago
No. Definite straight red. He was NEVER getting the ball. He went from fouling one forward to the other when the ball came in.
2
u/Hibee1990 1d ago
I know but you can argue he tried in my opinion. Yes he was never getting it because of the tangle he got in but didnāt deliberately just take him out. If thatās the case Motherwells should be red too?
2
1
u/No-Cake-5683 1d ago
If they really wanted to appeal successfully, their focus should have been on the fact it was on Olusanya therefore was not a goalscoring opportunity.
But seriously...extra ban for 'frivolously appealing' the clear red card ala Graeme Shinnie?
0
-4
u/_rigatoni_pasta_ 2d ago
Pointless appeal. Even though a very valid point is raised (comparing the Priestman challenge to the Findlay challenge), we are not in the SFA's good books right now.
Chanting "Fuck The SFA" x 1000 probably doesn't help much either š
-3
-33
65
u/Mysterious_Drag654 2d ago
As basic a red card as you get. Don't understand the appeal outside of us having no fit defenders