Not a stamp for me

Those of you keep insisting it is a "stamp", are factually wrong.

"5. VERB
If you stamp or stamp your foot, you lift your foot and put it down very hard on the ground, for example because you are angry or because your feet are cold.

6. VERB
If you stamp somewhere, you walk there putting your feet down very hard on the ground because you are angry.

7. VERB
If you stamp on something, you put your foot down on it very hard."


People are not denying he stepped on Porteous. He did not - categorically 100% - did not stamp on Porteous.

If you want to perpetuate that lie, that is your choice, but no one should take your opinion seriously because your grasp of the English language is exceedingly poor and you dont know the meaning of the word that a 4 year old likely does.
 
Did you hear Darren McGregor’s view on it?
I think this exonerates Morelos.
I think there’s a big difference between a stamp, which I define as using unnecessary force, and standing on.
I’ll say again, I don’t think you’re getting up from a genuine stamp to readily.

I think the issue is the intent, not whether it hurt the other guy. He moved his footing onto Porteous when the likelihood is he could have avoided it.

Having seen the Porteous tackle again in the first minute, I get why Alfie did it to be honest. It’s just a shame he’s going to get a ban for something that didn’t do much in the way of retribution.
 
I think the issue is the intent, not whether it hurt the other guy. He moved his footing onto Porteous when the likelihood is he could have avoided it.

Having seen the Porteous tackle again in the first minute, I get why Alfie did it to be honest. It’s just a shame he’s going to get a ban for something that didn’t do much in the way of retribution.
He won’t get a ban.
 
Those of you keep insisting it is a "stamp", are factually wrong.

"5. VERB
If you stamp or stamp your foot, you lift your foot and put it down very hard on the ground, for example because you are angry or because your feet are cold.

6. VERB
If you stamp somewhere, you walk there putting your feet down very hard on the ground because you are angry.

7. VERB
If you stamp on something, you put your foot down on it very hard."


People are not denying he stepped on Porteous. He did not - categorically 100% - did not stamp on Porteous.

If you want to perpetuate that lie, that is your choice, but no one should take your opinion seriously because your grasp of the English language is exceedingly poor and you dont know the meaning of the word that a 4 year old likely does.

Your dictionary definitions are irrelevant. Referees don’t use the dictionary, they use a rule book.

In footballing terms, it’s a stamp. No ifs or buts, and he’s going to get a ban.

If Porteous had done this to Morelos, we’d be apoplectic.

Just unfortunate he didn’t make more contact with the piece of shit. Would make the ban more worthwhile.
 
Based on what? He’s already been found guilty by Sky, precedent shows that’s enough for the compliance officer to take action.
The referee said he had a clear view of it & wasn’t Intentional, ergo compliance officer can do nothing.

She can only get involved if he says he didn’t see it properly like his view was obstructed, the play was facing away from him etc.

That & I don’t think it was intentional, which goes In line with refs thinking means I will be incredibly surprised if he’s banned.
 
Your dictionary definitions are irrelevant. Referees don’t use the dictionary, they use a rule book.

In footballing terms, it’s a stamp. No ifs or buts, and he’s going to get a ban.

If Porteous had done this to Morelos, we’d be apoplectic.

Just unfortunate he didn’t make more contact with the piece of shit. Would make the ban more worthwhile.
The English language is still the English language. It does not matter where the words are used. They still have a meaning.

He did not stamp on the player. Anyone saying so is a liar. Yes, he stepped on Porteous.
 
Saw it in normal play once and then a few times from different angles. It looked reckless the first time and ever after.


Maybe he looked at the ball and tried to reclaim it, maybe he was on payback mission. He sure hit the player in a way that could and should have been avoided.

So, IMHO, a yellow card.

We know what will happen though. The shadow cabal will cite Alfredo. Clancy will be asked to review it, say he didn`t see it correctly and they will hand out a 2-game suspension. As per usual, we won`t debate this.

The main bone of contention remains the fact that we have seen similar and worse incidients (even in this thread) where next to nothing has happened afterwards. THAT is where the club needs to get its act together, as well as the clubs whose players get mauled by the Scum et al. You can`t have the pendulum swing only one way, or, to put it differently, never in the way of the Scum.
This is the angle I have mentioned in some threads here, you can see he is clearly moving his foot towards where the ball is coming. To use modern football parlance regards hand balls and penalties his leg is "in a natural position".

Funnily enough, this is the angle Sky hardly used.
 
The referee said he had a clear view of it & wasn’t Intentional, ergo compliance officer can do nothing.

She can only get involved if he says he didn’t see it properly like his view was obstructed, the play was facing away from him etc.

That & I don’t think it was intentional, which goes In line with refs thinking means I will be incredibly surprised if he’s banned.

Mate, come on to %^*&. Take the blue specs off for just a minute.

Clancy will change his mind when he sees it back.

I hope your right for the sake of the timplosion, but I just think there’s little to no chance of that happening.

Not even annoyed at Alfie, other than the contact he made was pretty weak.
 
Mate, come on to %^*&. Take the blue specs off for just a minute.

Clancy will change his mind when he sees it back.

I hope your right for the sake of the timplosion, but I just think there’s little to no chance of that happening.

Not even annoyed at Alfie, other than the contact he made was pretty weak.
We will see, I’d be very surprised & will hold my hands up if I’m wrong.
 
The English language is still the English language. It does not matter where the words are used. They still have a meaning.

He did not stamp on the player. Anyone saying so is a liar. Yes, he stepped on Porteous.

In footballing terms, he’s stamped on him. If you want to deny that, knock yourself out.
 
I might be in the minority but not 100% convinced that it was a stamp from Morelos.

When you watch in full speed and follow the path of the ball I think Morelos is trying to control the ball before it comes of Porteous' knee.. Slow motion makes it looks worse than it actually was.

Is it just me?
the momentum carried him through.
 
I might be in the minority but not 100% convinced that it was a stamp from Morelos.

When you watch in full speed and follow the path of the ball I think Morelos is trying to control the ball before it comes of Porteous' knee.. Slow motion makes it looks worse than it actually was.

Is it just me?
I'm with you on this. Alfie did obviously stand on him but that doesn't make it a deliberate stamp.
As soon as he stands on him ,he immediately collapses his leg to take the wieght off his foot and falls on top of the thugs legs .All in one motion virtually so not a deliberate stamp to me .
Just do it properly next time Alfie and break the pricks leg as your going to get blamed for it anyhow ,preferably after the title is in thre bag .
 
The ref saw it, his view was clear he shared what he thought with McGregor therefore he can't go back on it.
 
I’m in two minds about it.

His track record certainly doesn’t help him, but at the same time he can be quite clumsy so it’s not really conclusive for me and in that respect I actually think the ref’s decision was correct.

Chances are he will be cited though and a ban is quite possible.

If that happens the club need to vigorously challenge the culture that appears desperate to attack and penalise Morelos above and beyond any other player I can ever remember.

And we should start with Crocker and Walker’s commentary last night which was almost laughable in its desire to ensure the player is retrospectively punished.

Just what is it about this man that so enrages supposedly impartial observers?
 
Not a chance this is either a stamp or intentional. Concentrate on the trajectory of the ball. He's going for the ball before it bounces off Porteous' knee and changes direction. The minute Morelos' foot makes contact with the player's leg, he lifts it. It was clumsy though and could easily have been interpreted differently by the ref resulting in a red card. I think the club has a strong defence here when the inevitable CO citation comes.
 
Watched it many times over and can't decide one way or the other. Different angles and speed of film easily alter perception.

What is unacceptable is the reaction of the mhedia and their continued anti Alfie/Rangers agenda.

If they wish to continually discuss and show pictures of Alfie on Porteous then on balance McGregor on Kamara must also be highlighted. I don't think any reasonably minded person can look at Alfie and McGregor and deem one deliberate and one accidental.
 
Aside from Alfie incident and Kamara incident.Has anyone raised the dirty Hivs rattling Shagger into the post when he could have easily avoided him.Yes Bears no comment from anyone in media.Always bad Rangers.
 
What I find incredible are the 'fans' attacking Morelos, calling him all sorts of names, screaming for him to be got rid of.. Then saying we should sign Porteous (and similar players) as he is a hard player and puts himself about and just what we need in the team. Absolute throbbers.
 
If a guy with thighs the size of Alfredo stamps on your leg, you won't be getting up 30 seconds later and you won't running around trying to injure rangers players for the remainder of 90 minutes like Porteus
 
Did you hear Darren McGregor’s view on it?
I think this exonerates Morelos.
I think there’s a big difference between a stamp, which I define as using unnecessary force, and standing on.
I’ll say again, I don’t think you’re getting up from a genuine stamp to readily.
What did McGregor say on it mate?
 
What I find incredible are the 'fans' attacking Morelos, calling him all sorts of names, screaming for him to be got rid of.. Then saying we should sign Porteous (and similar players) as he is a hard player and puts himself about and just what we need in the team. Absolute throbbers.
There can be legitimate differences between fans on Alfie’s discipline. For instance, I don’t think last night’s contact was a red but I’m annoyed he gave Clancy a potential chance. They have to be pretend fans though if they want us to sign Porteous.
 
Watched it many times over and can't decide one way or the other. Different angles and speed of film easily alter perception.

What is unacceptable is the reaction of the mhedia and their continued anti Alfie/Rangers agenda.

If they wish to continually discuss and show pictures of Alfie on Porteous then on balance McGregor on Kamara must also be highlighted. I don't think any reasonably minded person can look at Alfie and McGregor and deem one deliberate and one accidental.
You’re right. No reasonable person could see it that way. It’s unfortunate the media seems to be saturated with the unreasonable.

They’re completely divorced from any rational thought process when analysing an Alfie skirmish. It’s partly a deep, obsessional hatred of Rangers and partly racism.
 
I've already stated that I don't think it was a stamp. If Steven Naismith's so called 'stamp' on Brown in the recent cup final was deemed as the player having nothing to answer for, then for me Alfie has nothing to answer for and the ref clearly feels the same way as he had a perfect view of it.
 
I thought it was a red last night but if you watch it back his eyes are on the ball when he makes connection. Not as vicious or clear cut as the media would like you to think.
 
What a mental thread.

Stamp or no stamp, it doesn’t change the outcome, which should’ve been a red card.

Anyone denying that needs their head examined.

What is concerning, is the disproportionate media reaction, as well as how the governing body apply the rules around retrospective action fairly & evenly.
 
Saw it in normal play once and then a few times from different angles. It looked reckless the first time and ever after.


Maybe he looked at the ball and tried to reclaim it, maybe he was on payback mission. He sure hit the player in a way that could and should have been avoided.

So, IMHO, a yellow card.

We know what will happen though. The shadow cabal will cite Alfredo. Clancy will be asked to review it, say he didn`t see it correctly and they will hand out a 2-game suspension. As per usual, we won`t debate this.

The main bone of contention remains the fact that we have seen similar and worse incidients (even in this thread) where next to nothing has happened afterwards. THAT is where the club needs to get its act together, as well as the clubs whose players get mauled by the Scum et al. You can`t have the pendulum swing only one way, or, to put it differently, never in the way of the Scum.

I don't think he meant it. If you watch the video here his eyes never leave the ball. His foot is clearly moving towards the ball, and at the last moment Porteous knees the ball away. But even then Alfie's eyes are still following the ball. Had he meant to stamp on him his eyes would have at least glanced to his thigh before he did it.

12266950.jpg
 
What a mental thread.

Stamp or no stamp, it doesn’t change the outcome, which should’ve been a red card.

Anyone denying that needs their head examined.

What is concerning, is the disproportionate media reaction, as well as how the governing body apply the rules around retrospective action fairly & evenly.
I disagree as the intention needs to be there surely. If a player kicks another player in the head by accident due a high boot in an attempt to control the ball, then a yellow card is usually given. If a player just kicks a another player in the head with no attempt to play the ball then it is a red card for violent conduct.

Alfie was focused on the ball and it bounced off the other players thigh and away from him at the last moment. There was very little weight on the leg that then touched the defenders leg. This would appear to have been the referee's conclusion as well so much so that he didn't even deem it worth a yellow let alone a red.

So yes, we have differing opinions and no, I don't need my head examined.
 
I don't think he meant it. If you watch the video here his eyes never leave the ball. His foot is clearly moving towards the ball, and at the last moment Porteous knees the ball away. But even then Alfie's eyes are still following the ball. Had he meant to stamp on him his eyes would have at least glanced to his thigh before he did it.

12266950.jpg
This exactly. The slow motion angle exonerates him, at least in his intention.
 
FFS all you need to do is follow Alfie’s eyes, his focus is 100% on the ball and he actually tries to control it. Unfortunately it spun away and he had nowhere else to go. It was nothing like a deliberate stamp and in my view it was nowhere near being intentional.

Correct. Remember it ain't happening in super slo-mo as crocker and walker would try to have you believe. The entire incident is over in a split second.
 
Back
Top