Should Ross County have had a red card?

Was the celtic player on loan. So undoubtedly yes, trampy prick

I dont think it was him, it was Iacovitti according to the commentary. - Ignore thought this was the pen tou were taking about, just woe up.

The on loan beggar was the one that had the swipe at Kent, caught him got booked for it but we never got the foul or advantage. Not a red card as it wasnt a goalscoring opportunity, but should be as not attempt to play the ball.
 
I think both commentators thought it could easily have been a red, I agree with them.

Was a deliberate cynical attempt by a mhanky tramp to injure one if our players, absolutely no intent to play the ball.
 
The on loan bead rattler should've been off for charging into Kent at his goal and then trying to injure him when he was left for dust.

Looks and acts like Ajer - a total c*nt
 
No intent to play the ball. Red card for me.

He catches Kent, then some serious damaged could have been caused to his achilles.

Players get booked/sent off for what a ref might deem to be too aggressive, even though they win the ball.

Really rips my knitting.
 
No attempt to play the ball. To me, it was out of control and was likely to endanger an opponent. Red for me.

Why we didn't even get a free kick "baffult" me. We lost the ball a split second later so there was no advantage to be played.

In fairness Euan Anderson, the ref, goes about a football pitch like a drunk struggling to find his way home.
 
There was a bit of chat about it in the Gerrard reaction to first goal thread.

I posted in there that it should have been a red card in my opinion.

There is no attempt to play the ball and he leads with his studs in a lunge - thankfully he doesn't make contact with Kent's trailing leg as it could have been a serious injury with how high he was.
 
Can remember a few years ago up at Dingwall we drew 1-1. Clint Hill scored a header. Everytime we broke away that game they would concede a proffessional foul. It got beyond a joke and was just blatant cheating and it grew frustrating as it gave them a chance to get back into position time and time again.

Yesterday for me, the tackle endangered Ryan Kent. There was no intent to play the ball atall and i think the referees should be looking to really clamp down on this sort of thing in the game.

For me the intention was fully to take the opponent out and not the ball. That should be enough to warrant a red card for me.
 
Last edited:
I'll bite. Minimal if any contact. Not violent conduct nor did the outcome endanger Kents safety. And never in a million years was it an OBVIOUS goalscoring opportunity. So if none of that applies it cant be a dismissal. Caution was correct for intent (factoring in this wasn't an "off the ball" incident) and it wasnt given as a foul because advantage was (correctly) played as RK continued forward with the ball. And if anyone wants to disagree read the laws AND IFAB guidance if you haven't already done so. https://www.theifab.com/laws
 
Last edited:
He tried like fu@k to get Kent but wasn't good enough the intention was there but because he didn't get Kent it probably saved him from a red.
 
I thought Kent was fouled when he scored. Looked like the defender raised his arm as he ran into him

apologies if already covered.
 
Clear goalscoring opportunity and no attempt to play the ball.

Red card all day long.
Too far out to be a goal scoring opportunity, I’d suggest.
I know Kent is pacy but the referee can’t take that into consideration.
For sure though, as I posted on the match thread, if the tramp had connected, there is no telling the damage that could’ve been caused.
So, I’m going to take the Michael Stewart approach and say that I don’t like the rule that says it isn’t a red card offence therefore I’m right to say it was.
 
I'll bite. Minimal if any contact. Not violent conduct nor did the outcome endanger Kents safety. And never in a million years was it an OBVIOUS goalscoring opportunity. So if none of that applies it cant be a dismissal. Caution was correct for intent (factoring in this wasn't an "off the ball" incident) and it wasnt given as a foul because advantage was (correctly) played as RK continued forward with the ball. And if anyone wants to disagree read the laws AND IFAB guidance if you haven't already done so. https://www.theifab.com/laws
I’m with you but it’s the type of challenge that needs eliminated from the game.
This was different from what we’ve been accustomed to calling “a good foul to give away”.
It wasn’t a nudge or a tug.
It wasn’t even the type of trip that we’ve seen Tavernier and Davis booked for recently.
It was, undoubtedly to me, reckless and dangerous because, at that speed, there’s no telling the outcome in terms of injury.
I know that’s not the rules but, as per my previous post, I don’t like that rule.
 
Can remember a few years ago up at Dingwall we drew 1-1. Clint Hill scored a header. Everytime we broke away that game they would concede a proffessional foul. It got beyond a joke and was just blatant cheating and it grew frustrating as it gave them a chance to get back into position time and time again.

Yesterday for me, the tackle endangered Ryan Kent. There was no intent to play the ball atall and i think the referees should be looking to really clamp down on this sort of thing in the game.

For me the intention was fully to take the opponent out and not the ball. That should be enough to warrant a red card for me.
I’ve got a memory of similar happening this season.
A number of deliberately cheating fouls.
 
I’ve got a memory of similar happening this season.
A number of deliberately cheating fouls.
You don't mind it happening once and a player gets booked. But when it gets to the 6 or 7th time you've broke away and they intentionally foul to allow themselves to get organised and back into position, then it becomes very frustrating and downright cheating.

When its a clear and obvious intent to take out the man then i think thats where the referee has to act appropriately and consider the red card.
 
Last edited:
I think it should've been a red. It was reckless and the only intent was to scythe Kent down. They fact he didn't make much contact should not be a factor.
 
If the cuunt had really connected with Kent it could have been a bad injury

A red card for me as ball was not within reach and he went for the man instead

At Kent’s goal the mentally challenged on loan barged into Kent very late too so he had intent to try and hurt the player
 
Looked a shocker and the intent was there,red for me for the celtc loanee Leo Hjelde.
 
Good result and not seen much mentioned but I thought the guy who tried to take out Kent in the 2nd half should have been a red card. No attempt for the ball flying in and if he caught him properly could have done real damage. What say FF? am I being to harsh?

I agree OP.
I didn't view the RC players attempt as an attempt to get the ball, he puts his leading leg in front of Alfie's so for me it's denied a goal scoring opportunity with no attempt made for the ball.
Should have been a red.
 
Back
Top