Andrew Dallas

[Clackscat]

I am looking out my crash helmet as I write this. I was as peed off with him as anyone on Sunday but with the benefit of rewatching the game I have to say he got the major decisions right.

 

Disallowed Cadden goal, technically correct

 

Hearts penalty, correct

 

Hearts penalty claim denied at the end, correct

 

Aldred and McHugh bookings, correct (first fouls maybe but bad ones and we would have been screaming for them)

 

Hearts booking after halfway line clash with McHugh, correct

 

Naismith booking, correct.

 

Kipre booking, correct.

 

Was it a perfect performance, no...lack of playing advantage, and you could argue a few yellow cards could have been issued to certain Hearts players for persistent fouling, but it was far from the awful performance I thought it was and all the major decisions were correct.(imo)

 

It is not his fault who is father is, all I can see is a young inexperienced guy making his way in the game, probably in top flight ahead of schedule because the overall standard is not good.

 

We all complain the standard is terrible but I find myself wondering how many capable folks are put off getting into refeering given the stick dished out. (and I plead guilty myself to that).

 

I think there is a bit of a witch hunt starting with this lad because of a few dodgy performances and who his father is, rather than judging on his own merits, which in time may or may not prove to be good enough.

 

I am now disappearing into my nuclear bunker for a few days

 

 

Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk

 

 

[Kmcalpin]

6 minutes ago, Clackscat said:

 

I am looking out my crash helmet as I write this. I was as peed off with him as anyone on Sunday but with the benefit of rewatching the game I have to say he got the major decisions right.

 

Disallowed Cadden goal, technically correct

 

Hearts penalty, correct

 

Hearts penalty claim denied at the end, correct

 

Aldred and McHugh bookings, correct (first fouls maybe but bad ones and we would have been screaming for them)

 

Hearts booking after halfway line clash with McHugh, correct

 

Naismith booking, correct.

 

Kipre booking, correct.

 

Was it a perfect performance, no...lack of playing advantage, and you could argue a few yellow cards could have been issued to certain Hearts players for persistent fouling, but it was far from the awful performance I thought it was and all the major decisions were correct.(imo)

 

It is not his fault who is father is, all I can see is a young inexperienced guy making his way in the game, probably in top flight ahead of schedule because the overall standard is not good.

 

We all complain the standard is terrible but I find myself wondering how many capable folks are put off getting into refeering given the stick dished out. (and I plead guilty myself to that).

 

I think there is a bit of a witch hunt starting with this lad because of a few dodgy performances and who his father is, rather than judging on his own merits, which in time may or may not prove to be good enough.

 

I am now disappearing into my nuclear bunker for a few days

 

 

 

 

 

Hard to argue with most of that.  The only thing that I would perhaps take issue with is Cadden's chalked off goal.  By now we all know the rule i.e. the keeper has the ball under his control and his hand is on top of it, with the ground below.  However I think there some evidence that the keeper was rolling the ball towards his body.   It all comes down to the referee's interpretaion of "under control" .   I'd say it was a 50/50 decision which went in Hearts' favour.  A very difficult call for the referee, who has to make an instant call.  Very surprised that Craig Levein didn't mention that his team got the rub of the green there. 

[grumpy]

6 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Hard to argue with most of that.  The only thing that I would perhaps take issue with is Cadden's chalked off goal.  By now we all know the rule i.e. the keeper has the ball under his control and his hand is on top of it, with the ground below.  However I think there some evidence that the keeper was rolling the ball towards his body.   It all comes down to the referee's interpretaion of "under control" .   I'd say it was a 50/50 decision which went in Hearts' favour.  A very difficult call for the referee, who has to make an instant call.  Very surprised that Craig Levein didn't mention that his team got the rub of the green there. 

Now, now, now, sarcasm doesn't become you. 

[underboyleheating]

I agree, I thought the referee had a good day at the office. 

[real dosser]

It wasn't the decisions he gave that annoyed me it was the ones he didn't give that p****d me off. Lafferty for persistent fouling, Berra for questioning every decision and the "tackle" by the Canadian/Brazilian which could have been a straight red from where I was sitting.

[Kmcalpin]

59 minutes ago, real dosser said:

It wasn't the decisions he gave that annoyed me it was the ones he didn't give that p****d me off. Lafferty for persistent fouling, Berra for questioning every decision and the "tackle" by the Canadian/Brazilian which could have been a straight red from where I was sitting.

Yes that was his major failing.  I think l most of us would agree he could have yellow carded another 3 Hearts players, if he was being consistent.  Had the game gone to a replay, his inconsistency may have come home to roost depending on whether the Hearts players had already picked up yellow cards in earlier rounds.    

[daver]

1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said:

Hard to argue with most of that.  The only thing that I would perhaps take issue with is Cadden's chalked off goal.  By now we all know the rule i.e. the keeper has the ball under his control and his hand is on top of it, with the ground below.  However I think there some evidence that the keeper was rolling the ball towards his body.   It all comes down to the referee's interpretaion of "under control" .   I'd say it was a 50/50 decision which went in Hearts' favour.  

I don't think it does come down to his interpretation of "under control". Going by the wording of the rules it comes down to whether he had his hand on the ball which was on the ground  and it looks clear cut to me.

I have to admit however that this rule was news to me and at the time I was convinced it should have stood.

[yosemite sam]

Sorry but Mr Dallas Jnr is a person who, because of his families support of Motherwell, bends over backwards not to appear biased towards Motherwell, and ends up being a total arsehole, by giving Motherwell no leeway whatsoever, whereas, as has been pointed out, didn't't book Lafferty, or send of No 66 for a two footed tackle near the end of the game, but books two Motherwell players for their first tackles. You imagine him chalking off the first goal, if it had been Sevco or Celtic. No chance!

I will be happy if he never referees a Motherwell game again.

[Happy Dosser]

"You imagine him chalking off the first goal, if it had been Sevco or Celtic. No chance!"

I quite agree, Yosemite Sam,  but the same could be said of Messrs Thomson, Clancy, Madden, Beaton, I suspect.

Like other posters, it was the latitude he gave to  Hearts which really annoyed me, while getting other decisions right.

It seems almost no player, pundit or fan knew the rule at  Cadden's "goal". When playing I always thought that, unless the goalie had both hands round the ball, it was fair game. What if the GK doesn't have a hand on it, but lays a couple of fingers on the ball, just to be a smartarse?

Still mystified why Main wasn't credited with the first goal. There's even a case Tanner might have had the ball over the line first after the Hearts defence made a # of the corner, so don't know why it's the goalie's OG.  Who is the final arbiter in these situations?

[brainier]

I think that goal has generally now been credited to Main. The official SFA site give it to Main. I find it hard to see how any source could have given it to the goalie especially with live TV evidence there in front of them.  

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, Happy Dosser said:

It seems almost no player, pundit or fan knew the rule at  Cadden's "goal". When playing I always thought that, unless the goalie had both hands round the ball, it was fair game. What if the GK doesn't have a hand on it, but lays a couple of fingers on the ball, just to be a smartarse?

Still mystified why Main wasn't credited with the first goal. There's even a case Tanner might have had the ball over the line first after the Hearts defence made a # of the corner, so don't know why it's the goalie's OG.  Who is the final arbiter in these situations?

Would the ref have arrived at the same decision if the goalie was rolling the ball forward with his foot at a kick out and Cadden had nipped in and robbed him?  As for Cadden's "goal" I still think Tanner should be credited as the goalie seems makes contact with the ball only after it was over the line. 

[Al B]

Bookies paid out on both Main and OG for first goalscorer.

[joewarkfanclub]

I have some sympathy towards the original post.

There are quite a few referees in our league who are just as bad as Andrew Dallas who are not the son of Hugh.

I also dont think Sundays game was the worst Ive seen him.

I do think he was very inconsistent though. Like others have said Lafferty and Godhino should have both been booked early on and Adeou two footer on Main at the end is a shocker and should have been a straight red.

Not his worst day at the office but unfortunately for him he will never be able to shake of his lineage and as a result poor performances will always draw more scrutiny than other refs.

[Spiderpig]

2 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:

I have some sympathy towards the original post.

There are quite a few referees in our league who are just as bad as Andrew Dallas who are not the son of Hugh.

I also dont think Sundays game was the worst Ive seen him.

I do think he was very inconsistent though. Like others have said Lafferty and Godhino should have both been booked early on and Adeou two footer on Main at the end is a shocker and should have been a straight red.

Not his worst day at the office but unfortunately for him he will never be able to shake of his lineage and as a result poor performances will always draw more scrutiny than other refs.

The issue I have with Dallas is that we have all seen the slow motion enhanced footage from every angle for Cadden " no goal"  and granted it does show the decision to disallow it was technically correct. But could he  have been 100% certain of that real time and with a few players etc between him and the ball, I don't see how he could.

That incident was a classic example of why we need var technology in place to help refs.

And as you say Adoa should have had a straight red at the end, Gohdino and Lafferty got away with murder, Curtis main should have been booked for throwing Cochrane off the park, so all things considered he is pretty much on a par with the other refs, i.e incompetent fuds

[numpty]

8 hours ago, yosemite sam said:

Sorry but Mr Dallas Jnr is a person who, because of his families support of Motherwell, bends over backwards not to appear biased towards Motherwell

And yet, fans of most of most other teams moan about him too. He can't be bending over backwards to not appear biased to all of them.