Home vs Inverness 23.12.2023

[jaggy]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

If they’d left Firhill with a 4-1 victory I don’t think we could have had many complaints.

Totally fell out the game second half. No off-ball runs, poor use of wings, fundamentally not at the races.

Would have liked to see Zander brought on to inject a bit of pace and urgency into the game.

Harry Milne had a poor game and yet probably single handedly salvaged us a point with his defensive efforts.

We need an imposing defensive midfielder, should probably give David Mitchell a run of games, and Muirhead needs competition for the experienced centre half spot.

No point having Neilson running out with the ball from the back if there’s no midfield out ball for him to pass to.

In the circumstances, a point salvaged, probably undeservedly.

Zander did come on, albeit very late on. Although they dominated much of the play they rarely threatened and Sneddon hardly needed to make a save

[jaggy]

4 hours ago, Camallain said:

Another abysmal 2nd half display. This is unfortunatly turning into a very unpleasant habit. We didn't even have the excuse of trying to defend a lead today 😡

we were defending a draw today! at least that's what it seemed like in the 2nd half.

[Woodstock Jag]

19 minutes ago, jaggy said:

Zander did come on, albeit very late on. Although they dominated much of the play they rarely threatened and Sneddon hardly needed to make a save

I realised this after posting. I think we’d have made better use of him out wide.

[Jaggernaut]

The second half was excruciating to watch; getting pinned back by ICT whose movements off the ball to open spaces at speed simply bamboozled our defenders. Then, when we got possession, there was the inevitable passing four or five times across our own half (or backwards) before the punt. All too pedestrian, with almost no movement off the ball; players didn't look up for it. The substitutions made no difference. A real opportunity to close the gap on the teams above us squandered. But we don't actually seem to have much more to offer, and at this stage I'd predict us to grind on and end up in the play-offs, then losing out. 

[Jaggernaut]

Not really relevant to yesterday's game, but I stumbled on this, and it reminded me or the "Cornergate" incident against ICT some years ago. Is my memory right: a perfectly good goal got chalked off in that game?

 

 

[partickthedog]

45 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

Not really relevant to yesterday's game, but I stumbled on this, and it reminded me or the "Cornergate" incident against ICT some years ago. Is my memory right: a perfectly good goal got chalked off in that game?

 

 

Your memory is almost right! Right game and right idea. However, it was not a perfectly good goal and it was correctly disallowed. The first Inverness player intended to do the "tiny touch" and then retreat, so that the second player could go over and take control of the ball and dribble it towards the goal. 

However, the first Inverness player missed with his tiny touch. James Craigen was alive to what was happening and ran in to close down the second Inverness player. The linesman waved him back, saying that the corner kick had not been taken. 

The second Inverness player still carried on with his original plan and dribbled the ball towards our goal. I cannot recall exactly what happened next. I do not think that the second Inverness player himself "scored", but his ball into the box set up a goal mouth stramash in which another Inverness player put the ball in the net.

The referee Euan Norris initially awarded the goal. The linesman put his flag up. The referee consulted with the linesman and correctly disallowed the goal.

That is my recollection, but as always I am open to correction!

[Woodstock Jag]

I think technically the goal should have stood. The issue was that the linesman shouldn’t have waved away James C because the corner had legitimately been taken.

[Weebaw1]

13 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Backline defence was fine today. Yet again the midfield lack any dig, but we already knew that. With conditions the way they were I didn't like seeing us give away so many corners. Thought it only a matter of time till we would get caught out. Even tho' we rode our luck I thought we still deserved a point. Fitzpatrick's low cross late on was maybe too good. Fair fizzed across the goalmouth.

Suspect Graham would have been where our striker(s) should have been.

[Lenziejag]

16 hours ago, javeajag said:

We are simply not good enough.

to do what ?

[javeajag]

2 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

to do what ?

Beat Inverness 

[partickthedog]

2 hours ago, Weebaw1 said:

Suspect Graham would have been where our striker(s) should have been.

Doolan would certainly have been.

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

Beat Inverness 

Obviously 

[Jaggernaut]

23 hours ago, partickthedog said:

Your memory is almost right! Right game and right idea. However, it was not a perfectly good goal and it was correctly disallowed. The first Inverness player intended to do the "tiny touch" and then retreat, so that the second player could go over and take control of the ball and dribble it towards the goal. 

However, the first Inverness player missed with his tiny touch. James Craigen was alive to what was happening and ran in to close down the second Inverness player. The linesman waved him back, saying that the corner kick had not been taken. 

The second Inverness player still carried on with his original plan and dribbled the ball towards our goal. I cannot recall exactly what happened next. I do not think that the second Inverness player himself "scored", but his ball into the box set up a goal mouth stramash in which another Inverness player put the ball in the net.

The referee Euan Norris initially awarded the goal. The linesman put his flag up. The referee consulted with the linesman and correctly disallowed the goal.

That is my recollection, but as always I am open to correction!

I think you've got it right!

[partickthedog]

18 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I think technically the goal should have stood. The issue was that the linesman shouldn’t have waved away James C because the corner had legitimately been taken.

I hesitate to enter into contention with a Parliamentary lawyer, and fear that the whole weight of the House of Commons Library will be deployed against me! Agreed that if (a) the first Inverness player had connected with his touch, and (b) the linesman had not waved Craigen away, the goal should have stood. I cannot prove or disprove (a), but (b) definitely happened. Thus the Inverness move was fundamentally flawed from that point on and could not result in a legitimate goal. If Euan Norris had allowed the goal, one match official would have deliberately consented to Thistle being materially disadvantaged by the clear and obvious error of (and express communication of that, causing a Thistle player to amend his intended behaviour which would have prevented the goal, by) another match official. That cannot be!

[Woodstock Jag]

8 hours ago, partickthedog said:

I hesitate to enter into contention with a Parliamentary lawyer, and fear that the whole weight of the House of Commons Library will be deployed against me! Agreed that if (a) the first Inverness player had connected with his touch, and (b) the linesman had not waved Craigen away, the goal should have stood. I cannot prove or disprove (a), but (b) definitely happened. Thus the Inverness move was fundamentally flawed from that point on and could not result in a legitimate goal. If Euan Norris had allowed the goal, one match official would have deliberately consented to Thistle being materially disadvantaged by the clear and obvious error of (and express communication of that, causing a Thistle player to amend his intended behaviour which would have prevented the goal, by) another match official. That cannot be!

The problem is that the linesman has no authority. They're really only there to draw the referee's attention to things.

So if the referee is satisfied that the ball was touched, then the ball was touched. The lesson is that players should ignore linesmen.

[a f kincaid]

I was at that game but remain rather confused. Is it not the case that touching the ball is not enough? I thought the rule was the ball has to travel its own circumference to be deemed in play. If it didn't then the corner hadn't been taken and Craigen claiming it had been was wrong.

[Woodstock Jag]

34 minutes ago, a f kincaid said:

I was at that game but remain rather confused. Is it not the case that touching the ball is not enough? I thought the rule was the ball has to travel its own circumference to be deemed in play. If it didn't then the corner hadn't been taken and Craigen claiming it had been was wrong.

Law 17 of IFAB says, among other things:

“The ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves; it does not need to leave the corner area”

So no need for a circumference. No need for the ball to leave the corner area. It just has to visibly move.

[East Kent Jag II]

WJ's original post on this event was that  it was a good goal if it hadn't been for the referee assistant beckoning James Craigen away. Perfectly correct.  But the assistant did shush the player away. 

Let's look at the corner. Did the player who took the corner move the ball as outlined  in law 17? Yes he must have.  If not the dribbler took and played from the corner,and took more than one touch. Indirect free kick.

Was James Craigen permitted to intervene? In the circumstances outlined above, yes.

The goal was allowed. What law permitted  the referee to change the decision? Law 5 outlines the referees' authority. Law 5.3 outlines the referee's power and duties. Law 5.3 defines " outside  interference". It defines interference as " stops, suspends or abandons the match for any offences or because of outside interference e.g.  if.....

I remember  vividly my mentor Tiny Wharton telling  me yonks ago that the laws of football are written  to allow that most important intervention of common sense to be used. That flexibility hasn't  changed, to my mind. The e.g. above is all-encompassing, not prescriptive. 

Did waving James Craigen away trigger "outside interference " ? I believe that the referee thought so. If James Craigen hadn't  gone to intercept the corner, the dribbler went on and the outcome was the goal, we would have no option other than to salute the goal. That didn't happen .  The referee's powers in Rule 3 include "acts on the advice of other officials. " I believe  that the assistant  would have been happy if the ball had been blasted over the bar. He had the guts to acknowledge  the mistake and brought about a fair outcome.

Edited December 26, 2023 by East Kent Jag II
Rule 3 added comment

[michael m]

2 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

WJ's original post on this event was that  it was a good goal if it hadn't been for the referee assistant beckoning James Craigen away. Perfectly correct.  But the assistant did shush the player away. 

Let's look at the corner. Did the player who took the corner move the ball as outlined  in law 17? Yes he must have.  If not the dribbler took and played from the corner,and took more than one touch. Indirect free kick.

Was James Craigen permitted to intervene? In the circumstances outlined above, yes.

The goal was allowed. What law permitted  the referee to change the decision? Law 5 outlines the referees' authority. Law 5.3 outlines the referee's power and duties. Law 5.3 defines " outside  interference". It defines interference as " stops, suspends or abandons the match for any offences or because of outside interference e.g.  if.....

I remember  vividly my mentor Tiny Wharton telling  me yonks ago that the laws of football are written  to allow that most important intervention of common sense to be used. That flexibility hasn't  changed, to my mind. The e.g. above is all-encompassing, not prescriptive. 

Did waving James Craigen away trigger "outside interference " ? I believe that the referee thought so. If James Craigen hadn't  gone to intercept the corner, the dribbler went on and the outcome was the goal, we would have no option other than to salute the goal. That didn't happen . I believe  that the assistant  would have been happy if the ball had been blasted over the bar. He had the guts to acknowledge  the mistake and brought about a fair outcome.

Excellent summary - the assistant, Stuart Stevenson, realised what had happened after James made his appeal after the goal was scored and did not motion towards the half way line.  There was 3 way communication via the comms with Euan Norris and other Assistant Alisdair Ross before they agreed that basically the assistant should not have stopped JC from taking away the ball but did so and had the guts to admit to it

[Woodstock Jag]

14 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

WJ's original post on this event was that  it was a good goal if it hadn't been for the referee assistant beckoning James Craigen away. Perfectly correct.  But the assistant did shush the player away. 
 

No that wasn’t my position.

My position was that technically it was a goal but that there was a perceived unfairness because James Craigan had relied on a mistaken communication by the linesman.

Craigan should technically have ignored the linesman and booted the ball into the stand/taken possession and carried on until the referee had stopped play (or not).

14 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Let's look at the corner. Did the player who took the corner move the ball as outlined  in law 17? Yes he must have.  If not the dribbler took and played from the corner,and took more than one touch. Indirect free kick.

Correct. And said player told the linesman several times that he had kicked it.

14 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Was James Craigen permitted to intervene? In the circumstances outlined above, yes.

Correct.

14 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

The goal was allowed. What law permitted  the referee to change the decision? Law 5 outlines the referees' authority. Law 5.3 outlines the referee's power and duties. Law 5.3 defines " outside  interference". It defines interference as " stops, suspends or abandons the match for any offences or because of outside interference e.g.  if.....

It is absolutely within the discretion of the referee to stop play if there is outside interference. But it’s not at all clear that verbal signals from a linesman constitute either “interference” or “outside interference”.

If the linesman waves his flag for offside and the referee decides the linesman is wrong, or doesn’t see him flag, we don’t say that’s outside interference.

If Douglas Ross screams “red card” or “penalty Rangers” into his earpiece and a player within earshot stops playing as a result, and play continues, that probably wouldn’t be regarded as outside interference either.

I grant you that the list in Law 5.3 isn’t necessarily exhaustive but it’s not a carte blanche. The listed examples are of a kind that mean:

(a) the ball/other players/officials/parts of the pitch can’t be seen properly (floodlight failure)

(b) player or official safety is compromised (external objects being thrown onto the field of play)

(c) deceptive use of referee-like instrumentation by spectators (spectator using a whistle)

(d) other objects accidentally entering the field of play (eg a second ball, an animal)

In the case of (d) play isn’t even to be stopped unless it’s interfering with play.

 

14 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

I remember  vividly my mentor Tiny Wharton telling  me yonks ago that the laws of football are written  to allow that most important intervention of common sense to be used. That flexibility hasn't  changed, to my mind. The e.g. above is all-encompassing, not prescriptive.

It’s non-exhaustive but it isn’t all-encompassing, is my point.

14 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Did waving James Craigen away trigger "outside interference " ? I believe that the referee thought so.

If this is what he believed, then the game should have restarted with a drop ball, or having the corner kick retaken.

From memory, I believe what actually happened is that Thistle were actually awarded an indirect free kick for “a double touch” by Doran.

[a f kincaid]

My favourite anecdote about "Big Tiny" was when Jimmy Johnstone thought Celtic should have had a penalty (the ball went out for a goal-kick). As they were walking back up towards the half-way line Johnstone says to Wharton "Haw Mr Wharton, that wis a penalty" to which the reply came "I think when you read your Sunday Post tomorrow Mr Johnstone, you'll find it wasn't".

[East Kent Jag II]

I had a look at this on YouTube, and the match did restart with an indirect free kick.  Whatever the offence,  why wait till the goal before indicating the issue? The "double tap" offence ( if that was the issue) occurred when the player dribbled towards goal - not after it was scored! Likewise for the timing of any other offence. 

As Toyah would say " It's a mystery "

[Woodstock Jag]

2 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

I had a look at this on YouTube, and the match did restart with an indirect free kick.  Whatever the offence,  why wait till the goal before indicating the issue?

Because the linesman realised he’d screwed up as soon as the guy started dribbling (and panicked) whereas the referee was blissfully unaware there was an issue until James C went tonto!

2 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

The "double tap" offence ( if that was the issue) occurred when the player dribbled towards goal - not after it was scored! Likewise for the timing of any other offence. 

As Toyah would say " It's a mystery "

Indeed!

[Auld Jag]

23 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

 

I remember  vividly my mentor Tiny Wharton telling  me yonks ago that the laws of football are written  to allow that most important intervention of common sense to be used. That flexibility hasn't  changed, to my mind. The e.g. above is all-encompassing, not prescriptive. 

 

Imo since the inception of VAR, common sense has been binned.

[partickthedog]

2 hours ago, Auld Jag said:

Imo since the inception of VAR, common sense has been binned.

Fair point. The Inverness game we are talking about was well before VAR and was a good example of the officiating team communicating and combining the respective pieces of the jig-saw which they were each holding to reach a correct and common sense solution, without need for further cameras and replays.

Going back to earlier posts, I think that we can all agree that James Craigen deserves great credit for being quick to cotton on to what was happening, and in doing so saved us from conceding a goal.

WJ presents a reasonable point that JC should have been even bolder, ignored the linesman and kicked the ball away from the corner quadrant. No doubt if he had done so he would have been booked for disrespecting the officials!