Craig Gordon Arfield could have been sent off

johnto

Well-Known Member
Arfield used two feet but he used them to stand. The two footed red card rule came about to combat high likelihood of injury, you cannot (arfield) injure someone by using both feet to stand and not commit to a challenge. If arfield had slid in or made a tackle with both feet then rightly red card. He never. Simple. No red therefore
 

nemessis

Well-Known Member
Sportscene looking for red cards already

CRAIG GORDON reckons Rangers star Scott Arfield could've been sent off after the crunching tackle with Aberdeen defender Andrew Considine.

The Dons stopper was shown a red card for the lunge but Arfield escaped any punishment at Pittodrie, as Gers ran out 1-0 winners.

And Hearts keeper Gordon claims Arfield jumped into the "meaty challenge" with two feet and could've walked.

Speaking on Sportscene, ex-Celtic keeper Gordon said: "No, I don't think so.

"You look at Arfield jumping in with two feet as well there.

"It was quite a meaty challenge from both players there.

"You look at that and I don't think you can complain about the red card.

"Both players are in serious danger of going for red cards the way they've both went in for that.

"I don't think you have any complaints when you see that back."
Clancy wasn't reffing disappointingly for him.
 

DannyG

Well-Known Member
Super Ally said the same after the game. He said if he had got to the ball first he would have seen red, as he was also going in with feet off the ground and studs showing.

Not the way I saw it.
The replay showed the ref called it correctly no discussion necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gee

nybear

Well-Known Member
ex scum bag that should have seen a few reds and got away with them comments on player with ball jumping out the way of thug. Rangers red scum play on its the kung fu way
 

Gee

Well-Known Member
Sportscene looking for red cards already

CRAIG GORDON reckons Rangers star Scott Arfield could've been sent off after the crunching tackle with Aberdeen defender Andrew Considine.

The Dons stopper was shown a red card for the lunge but Arfield escaped any punishment at Pittodrie, as Gers ran out 1-0 winners.

And Hearts keeper Gordon claims Arfield jumped into the "meaty challenge" with two feet and could've walked.

Speaking on Sportscene, ex-Celtic keeper Gordon said: "No, I don't think so.

"You look at Arfield jumping in with two feet as well there.

"It was quite a meaty challenge from both players there.

"You look at that and I don't think you can complain about the red card.

"Both players are in serious danger of going for red cards the way they've both went in for that.

"I don't think you have any complaints when you see that back."
It’s the press twisting what he said for headlines read the quote... at no time does he say that. He says it was a meaty challenge (and it was ) but he says looking at it it was the correct decision at no time does he say Arfield should be sent off
 

GF1872

Well-Known Member
Kris Boyd said the same thing.

I agree. Arfields feet were off the ground too (although his lunge wasn't as hefty). But no doubt, if he got there first he'd have walked.

I think there probably was intent from Considine whereas Arfield tried to play the ball.

Anyway. Sportscene has been anti-Rangers pish for years but we're trying too hard with this one.
Think this is the fairest assessment I’ve seen.
 

DougieJones

Well-Known Member
Between Sky and the season ticket will very rarely have to watch this pish this season. I caught a snatch of Sportscene results, waiting for the FA Cup and that was enough. Still reading out our managers post match statements in a derisive manner ("is there more?" says the chronically unfunny bellend Daryl Currie to a horse faced lady footballer and a fidgety Steven Thomson). It's a fucking joke we're expected to pay for this, it really is.
 

Papasmurf

Scum Evictor
Official Ticketer
Kris Boyd said the same thing.

I agree. Arfields feet were off the ground too (although his lunge wasn't as hefty). But no doubt, if he got there first he'd have walked.

I think there probably was intent from Considine whereas Arfield tried to play the ball.

Anyway. Sportscene has been anti-Rangers pish for years but we're trying too hard with this one.
it was a 100% a red card. (I’m not saying you are saying different). But I do have an issue with the way Arfield goes in for the ball at times. I’ve seen it on numerous occasions that he quite often does exactly what he did yesterday. He goes in with two feet. For me, it’s just down to a really poor (at times) tackling technique rather than what Considine did. But he runs a danger at times of mistiming it and being sent off

just my tuppence worth.
 

sirstevefleming

Well-Known Member
Am gonna go against everyone here and say

if VAR was in use ... Arfield might have been in bother , 100% red for Considine but arfield did go into the tackle with both feet off the floor , anyone who can’t see it is just blue tinted specs and the type of folk we rip the pish out of across the city .. a feared instantly Arfield was gonna go when madden ran over
This is factually incorrect - I suggest you watch it again and edit your post
 

admac1873

Well-Known Member
Am gonna go against everyone here and say

if VAR was in use ... Arfield might have been in bother , 100% red for Considine but arfield did go into the tackle with both feet off the floor , anyone who can’t see it is just blue tinted specs and the type of folk we rip the pish out of across the city .. a feared instantly Arfield was gonna go when madden ran over
When I saw the replays, I said the same to my son. He had both feet off the ground.
 

Taffyblue

Well-Known Member
Arfields touch is poor, leading to the need for a challenge.

The difference between the two is that Arfield is going for the ball - and his studs are down at all times, clearly indicating the lack of intent. Considine challenges with a straight leg and full studs showing. Yes, he gets the ball - but it’s reckless and has the potential for serious injury. Straight red all day.
 

Mr. T.

Well-Known Member
Super Ally said the same after the game. He said if he had got to the ball first he would have seen red, as he was also going in with feet off the ground and studs showing.

Not the way I saw it.
I would agree with Ally. My first instinct was that it was a case of ‘who got there first’. It was Considine so he walked - correct decision, but it still doesn’t mean that, on another day, it could have been Arfield. That’s the way I saw it.
 

BothwellBear

Well-Known Member
I’ll cut him some slack having watched highlights this morning and if Aberdeen player is 1/2 seconds later and not as high, Arfield is landing both feet on top and it would appear deliberate and would have given the ref a decision to make.
 

aldoshmaldo

Well-Known Member
I don’t think Arfield went to do Considine, I think he realised Considine was lunging at him and just stood up to it. If Considine hadn’t lunged he wouldn’t have went with the 2 feet the way he did.

Arfield had to protect himself.
 

strathavenbear

Well-Known Member
I read the replies on a link that appeared on Facebook with Gordon's comment.
Apparently Gordon is right, but the BBC are biased as they didn't highlight that Kent should have also been red carded for something to do with their goalkeeper and our goal should have been disallowed due to handball against Hagi.
It's all a conspiracy to stop the 10.
 

Thornliebank_Bear

Well-Known Member
You can make quite a few quid on there or have a decent career if you are happy to tell lies/comfortable talking shite about the crucial incidents.... guess theres a position vacant with stewart on tim tv hes taken the pundit stuff to a new level of complete and total yahooery.

Few others in scottish football that could do it though, plenty journos dozens but ex players like say alan thompson, joe miller, tosh mcinkinly, roy aitken ?

I think this will also be the season when ex refs play much more of part in tv football coverage, ex refs that support them obv and will support any officials doing the tims a favour or 2.
 

QueensferryCR3Bear

Well-Known Member
The reason for this line from the media is simple.

They can't contest the Considine sending off so they try and create controversy around a Rangers player to get the compliance officer looking at it.

The Scottish Media is run by Celtic.
 

Ruben Sosa

Well-Known Member
When you slow it right down or look at the still picture, Arfield tries to put his right foot on the ball as as a kind of block tackle and is wiped out.

Clear cut red for the one person who is out of control.
 

Gibraltar Loyal

Well-Known Member
Imo players that are currently playing should not be on any panel. Dont care if different league etc just shouldnt happen. But if he has basically said Madden got it wrong then he's bringing the game into disrepute...get CO on to this
 
Top