Motherwell V Dundee Utd Fri 11 Mar 19:45

[Yoshi-1991]

Has anyone got a link to the McDonald elbow incident? I didn't even notice it at the time.

[Brazilian]

Has anyone got a link to the McDonald allow incident? I didn't even notice it at the time.

 

post #116 has the elbow incident

[Happy Dosser]

Pearson has a punctured lung and broken ribs but some media types are going on about Skippy?

 

One of the (many) lows of Levein's management of the national team was when Garry Kenneth got a cap and Mark Reynolds was denied one: cart horse before a thoroughbred.

 

Our younger players will be the stronger for their treatment on Friday night.

 

On to the Mutton Molesters.

 

Resistance is futile. COYW.

[Dezz]

Does anyone know how many assists Josh Law has this year? His delivery from set pieces has been pretty decent this season.

[capt_oats]

Does anyone know how many assists Josh Law has this year? His delivery from set pieces has been pretty decent this season.

 

By my count it's 6.

 

12/12/15 vs Dundee

02/01/16 vs Hamilton

09/01/16 vs Cove

23/01/16 vs Ross County

16/02/16 vs Dundee United

11/03/16 vs Dundee United

[Tweed]

The one thing that has been very noticeable is how many goals we have scored from set pieces in the last few months, not just Josh Law's.

[capt_oats]

The one thing that has been very noticeable is how many goals we have scored from set pieces in the last few months, not just Josh Law's.

 

True. I could be off here but I don't think we actually scored from a set piece this season until McGhee arrived. McDonald's equaliser vs Aberdeen being the first.

 

After that I count 12 in total from set pieces. That's 12 of 34 goals since 24th October.

[underboyleheating]

Doing their best on Sportscene to get Skippy a retrospective red card. <_>

[Kmcalpin]

Doing their best on Sportscene to get Skippy a retrospective red card. <_>

Yep, its all down to what the TV editors decide to show and highlight. A very subjective approach.

[Graeme Bremner]

Why i dont watch sport scene the anti well establishment #Conspiracy maybe

[brainier]

In his defence, and probably counts for nothing, the referee was looking right at the incident from about ten yards away and saw nothing wrong.

[Kmcalpin]

I tend to agree with the Captain and Brainier. However, as we know referees can change their mind between the actual game and submitting their reports. He may say something along the lines of "At the time I didn't think it was a foul but in retrospect and having seen TV evidence I should have issued a yellow/red card."

[fergi4]

I think Paton should be more concerned if game incidents are being reviewed, then Morris, then maybe McDonald

[capt_oats]

I tend to agree with the Captain and Brainier. However, as we know referees can change their mind between the actual game and submitting their reports. He may say something along the lines of "At the time I didn't think it was a foul but in retrospect and having seen TV evidence I should have issued a yellow/red card."

Quite. It's whataboutery but I'd think we'd have a pretty decent argument even if he does get cited seeing as the ref in the League Cup final just issued a yellow card to Bartley of Hibs for smashing Brian Graham in the face on national TV earlier today and as I mentioned earlier Skippy's red last season for a similar incident was downgraded from a red for violent conduct to a yellow for 'recklessly dangerous play' (B1©)

 

Edit to add: As fergi4 and others have alluded to there were plenty of incidents in the game that could have been dealt with differently but weren't and I'm sure there were a ton of decisions in other games this weekend that were either incorrect or open to a different interpretation. For that reason I'd be surprised (though not really) if the compliance officer would be keen to be opening themselves up to that sort of can of worms for what in the grand scheme of things was a fairly trivial incident.

 

Having had a wee browse through the compliance officer's notices of complaint there seem to be very few (if any) instances of "correcting" or "overruling" a ref, most seem to be incidents the official missed. This one (involving Ciftci when he was at United) is quite interesting in so much as it's a violent conduct charge however it was not proved. Link to the incident below: http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=41&newsID=14409

 

From 5:27 here: http://youtu.be/XXic6B7yIfU

[Andy_P]

One element to the "campaign" to have McDonald charged that has raised my eyebrows a little is the fact that he's a big part of the very group that are pushing for him to be punished.

 

We all know how how the Scottish media works and once you've entered the circle as it were the level of scrutiny and manner in how you are approached can vary markedly from those on the outside.

 

Yet this is one of their own, a guy who is regularly among them as a summariser, they are setting up for a fall. Interesting.

[fat_tony]

Yet this is one of their own, a guy who is regularly among them as a summariser, they are setting up for a fall. Interesting.

 

Maybe he stole Chris Sutton's prawn sandwiches.

[capt_oats]

I'm wary of veering into OF-levels of conspiracy chat however as Andy_P alludes to there's something quite odd about the way the whole McDonald thing has been singled out as being a controversy and for want of a better word the apparent "campaign" since Friday evening.

 

For the record I think he was lucky that the ref didn't interpret it as a red card offence, I don't think there was much in it but many officials would have had no hesitation however at the same time there are plenty of other incidents of equal or greater severity that weren't given in other games and we've not had detailed analysis and recurring calls for the compliance officer to review them and it's the latter part that I have a bit of a problem with. If the compliance officer becomes aware of an incident deemed worthy of investigation then fine but the whole potential for compliance officer involvement seems to be a largely media driven issue.

 

The way the media narrative has snowballed over the weekend is interesting in so much as the language has been very definitive, it's not he "could" have been sent of it's he "should", "it *is* a red card", "if the referee had seen it, he would have sent him off" etc. There's not really been any acknowledgement that put simply the ref didn't think there was anything in it.

 

When it comes down to it the referee did see it, he's looking straight at it and rightly or wrongly he didn't send him off. He's clearly looking at the incident with no obstruction. From his position McDonald is in front of the defender so there's not even an argument that Donaldson would have obscured his arm going up. In a nutshell it's reasonably fair to say he saw it and didn't think it was a red card offence or for that matter was even worth stopping play for. So for the ref to change his stance from that ie: "Play on, absolutely nothing in it" to "actually that's violent conduct it should have been a red card" is a fairly dramatic escalation on the matter.

 

[mcguru]

I'm wary of veering into OF-levels of conspiracy chat however as Andy_P alludes to there's something quite odd about the way the whole McDonald thing has been singled out as being a controversy and for want of a better word the apparent "campaign" since Friday evening.

 

For the record I think he was lucky that the ref didn't interpret it as a red card offence, I don't think there was much in it but many officials would have had no hesitation however at the same time there are plenty of other incidents of equal or greater severity that weren't given in other games and we've not had detailed analysis and recurring calls for the compliance officer to review them and it's the latter part that I have a bit of a problem with. If the compliance officer becomes aware of an incident deemed worthy of investigation then fine but the whole potential for compliance officer involvement seems to be a largely media driven issue.

 

The way the media narrative has snowballed over the weekend is interesting in so much as the language has been very definitive, it's not he "could" have been sent of it's he "should", "it *is* a red card", "if the referee had seen it, he would have sent him off" etc. There's not really been any acknowledgement that put simply the ref didn't think there was anything in it.

 

When it comes down to it the referee did see it, he's looking straight at it and rightly or wrongly he didn't send him off. He's clearly looking at the incident with no obstruction. From his position McDonald is in front of the defender so there's not even an argument that Donaldson would have obscured his arm going up. In a nutshell it's reasonably fair to say he saw it and didn't think it was a red card offence or for that matter was even worth stopping play for. So for the ref to change his stance from that ie: "Play on, absolutely nothing in it" to "actually that's violent conduct it should have been a red card" is a fairly dramatic escalation on the matter.

 

Screen Shot 2016-03-14 at 12.59.14.jpg

 

 

Yeah, is it not the case that the referee saw it and saw nothing amiss therefore it cannot be reviewed by the TV Beaks at the SFA?

[weeyin]

There is no conspiracy. He elbowed a boy in the face in front of a TV camera. Skippy has previous with his niggly fouls and stray elbows etc. with us and his other teams.

 

Sportscene looks at incidents like that every week.

 

If the ref saw it and took not action, it shouldn't be reviewed, but with all this conspiracy chat it's starting to smell a but oldfirmy in this thread.

[capt_oats]

The fact that one of the pundits on BT is a current MFC employee, one an ex-MFC player puts paid to the idea of any sort of conspiracy. That's fairly clear and it'd be daft and paranoid in the extreme to suggest otherwise. It was an incident in the game being broadcast and you'd expect them to comment on it.

 

However in a broader sense, as I said, there has been a lot of assumptions being made in the reporting after the fact:

1. That the ref actually missed the incident

2. That McDonald *deliberately* elbowed Donaldson

3. That the compliance officer is actually involved and McDonald has a case to answer

 

Again, that's how the media works. It's speculation. We'll see if it does actually come to anything soon enough I suppose.

[Lobey_Dosser]

There is no conspiracy. He elbowed a boy in the face in front of a TV camera. Skippy has previous with his niggly fouls and stray elbows etc. with us and his other teams.

 

Sportscene looks at incidents like that every week.

 

If the ref saw it and took not action, it shouldn't be reviewed, but with all this conspiracy chat it's starting to smell a but oldfirmy in this thread.

I'm not into anti-Motherwell vibes in the slightest but it's hard to understand why Sportscene picked up on this while glossing over the elbow from the Hibs boy in the final. I understand Bartley got a yellow so there can't be retrospective action but such a blatant incident was surely worth discussion.

 

I personally think it may be down to the profile of the player involved. Had Cummings thrown the elbow in the final and it was Josh Law in our game, you would probably see a role reversal.

[Tweed]

The fact that one of the pundits on BT is a current MFC employee,

 

 

 

Aye and given McDonald's importance to us, I would expect said Motherwell employee to be defending him rather than creating a further noose to hang him. If I publicly questioned what one of my colleagues did or a decision they'd made, I'd expect to be in my boss's office the next morning. For all I agree with Craigan's opinion, I hope Mr McGhee has had a word.

[Kmcalpin]

The fact that one of the pundits on BT is a current MFC employee, one an ex-MFC player puts paid to the idea of any sort of conspiracy.

Thats true up to a point. However during the game the cameraman has discretion as to what to film and what not to film. If highlights are broadcast then the editor(s) have discretion as to what to include and what to omit.

[The African]

I think we all need to just calm down a little regarding talk of conspiracies and accept that, given his previous convictions, that Chris Sutton knows what he is talking about when it comes to assault. Best not to take any financial advice from him though.

[Rickoza]

There was a similar incident during the match where Rankin clearly elbowed Louis Moult in the head during a second-half challenge. Strangely the witch-hunt on this one has still to take off.....