Scottish Player Comes Out With All Guns Blazing Against Ian Cathro


Kilmarnock and former Rangers and Scotland striker Kris Boyd has come out with all guns blazing against Ian Cathro in the Scottish Sun today and why he as done that we have idea.

Ian Cathro is about to be named as the new Hearts coach and in short – Kris doesn’t feel he is good enough to take the job – pity for him.

kris-boyd

It seems that Kris is trying to ensure he has a career in journalism after his playing career is over and this is the blast he wrote in the Scottish Sun:

“He’s probably not been this excited since FIFA 17 came out on PlayStation.” “But Ian Cathro is about to find out what football’s like in the real world. No harm to the guy set to be named as Hearts boss.”

“I was on the same Pro Licence course as Cathro, and he’s definitely obsessed with coaching.”

“He’s one of the up-and-coming, modern-era coaches who can organize a session just by flicking open his laptop.”

“There isn’t a session out there he couldn’t get on to his Macbook. But setting up a presentation to a group of players is all well and good.”

“That does not require man management skills, which is part of the game he knows absolutely nothing about.”

“Time will tell if I’m wrong on that. But if I was a Jambo I’d be worried.” 

“For me the practical stuff involved in coaching is easy — it’s dealing with highly-charged players that’s the hard part.”

“And for me Cathro is way, way out of his depth.”

“People go on about one of the reasons our game is in decline is too many youngsters spend too much time on their computers.”

“But Cathro has shown that is maybe the best way into coaching in the modern era.”

There’s some criticism there for coaches who use laptops these days – but why wouldn’t they take full advantage of modern day technology?

This seems to us a case of over the top reporting as much as anything and these are completely uncalled for comments by the former Rangers striker.

It would have been better if Kris had not written anything at all if this is the kind of stuff he wants to write about the current Newcastle assistant coach.

He doesn’t even have the excuse that he’s writing on his own blog.

🙂

Looks like he wrote the column when he was angry – always a bad idea.

Comments welcome.



You can share this articleShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestDigg thisShare on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on Tumblr

41 comments so far

  • jayphoto

    Dec 5, 2016 at 2:41 PM

    Comment #1

    reckon this is a load of b****ks! Cathro’s earnt his chance! The work he did in Dundee at a next to nothing age, coaching in Portugal, and then in spain (2 different languages) at good clubs, and by all accounts, earning the respect of the players at Newcastle and impressing an elite manager like Benitez enough to keep him on…
    By all reports, he doesn’t take any B.S from the players no matter how big a star they are! He’ll have learnt from managers he’s worked with what works and what doesn’t!
    Harsh for Boyd to suggest Cathro has just sat at his laptop all this time!

    0
  • Jail for Ashley

    Dec 5, 2016 at 2:43 PM

    Comment #2

    I’ve rang up about tickets for Brentford away, have already booked hotels and trains but someone at the ticket office says the game could be rearranged if we draw in the third round of the cup. Surely if Sky have already booked the game then that’s final??

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Dec 5, 2016 at 2:50 PM

    Comment #3

    jay
    Whats Cathro done to earn the right to manager a club at 30? Hes coached for 8ish years? As for interactions with players its a lot easier to earn respect as a coach than it is a manager

    Honestly I think its way too early for him to be a manager especially at what is the 3rd(?) biggest club in Scotland, too much too soon I reckon

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Dec 5, 2016 at 2:53 PM

    Comment #4

    Saying that am not that bothered by him leaving, good luck to him and all that but Rafa can bring in another of his men if he wants to (Chron said hes not that bothered about replacing him atm)

    0
  • Essex Geordie Bill

    Dec 5, 2016 at 2:56 PM

    Comment #5

    Every potential manager with ambition has to start somewhere. He might turn out a failure but dissing him before he’s even started is a bit hard.

    I’d offer Anita an extended contract now, he’s worth it even if it was only for a re-sale value. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him starting at left back on Saturday.

    You could see from Jonjo’s body language that he knew he’d been conned by Lansbury, just a pity that we had Monkeys’ as match officials who couldn’t see the obvious.

    And Jib if it’s any consolation I for one took your x-cross dressing comment as a bit of humour not as a serious coming out admission.

    0
  • Rotonda heights

    Dec 5, 2016 at 2:57 PM

    Comment #6

    Jayphoto

    I’m hoping there’s a clause where cathro can possibly come back at some stage.

    manx

    shelvey is still a bit of a tool though, as his upcoming racist comments hearing confirms.

    On 80k a week they could call me baldy or a lot worse. he has to learn to walk away or he becomes a liability, whether it’s self defence or not.

    0
  • Jib

    Dec 5, 2016 at 2:57 PM

    Comment #7

    WWSBRD @3
    A lot of journos in 1992 said similar things about an untried 41 year old Kevin Keegan.
    He didn’t even have his coaching badges but most would agree he made a decent fist of managing NUFC.

    0
  • Essex Geordie Bill

    Dec 5, 2016 at 2:58 PM

    Comment #8

    Bet the bus leaves the stop now!! 🙂

    0
  • Jail for Ashley

    Dec 5, 2016 at 2:58 PM

    Comment #9

    EGB,
    You shouldn’t make light of it, she’s very sensitive.

    0
  • jayphoto

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:00 PM

    Comment #10

    @wwsbrd – He set up a youth team in Dundee at 16 which was very productive. Took the plunge that many a manager doesn’t by going abroad to learn. The guy has spent the last 12 years learning about coaching and studying the game. For me that puts him in as much right to manage as someone like a retiring player.
    Eddie Howe is an example of how age isn’t a hinderance, pretty sure he was in his 20’s when he first got a job?
    Only thing that will hinder him is insight into players psychology etc but then his appointments as assistants will be key to this! Be a genius if he appoints someone with good experience in motivating. A walter smith maybe?

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:00 PM

    Comment #11

    Jib
    Not u though eh

    And theres quite a bit of difference between Cathro and Keegan

    0
  • Jail for Ashley

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:02 PM

    Comment #12

    Jib,
    You said KK was tge worst thing that ever happened to the club?

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:06 PM

    Comment #13

    jay
    Eddie Howe took over at the club where he had roots and he didnt take over a ‘top’ job in the country (hes also only been successful at that club)
    Cathro has done very little to warrant the position hes being offered imo and tbh I dont see why he is looking to take it, huge risk for his long term career

    0
  • Jib

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:06 PM

    Comment #14

    Jail
    if you look
    the Brentford Sky Monday night game has a big
    “To Be Confirmed ”
    sticker next to it .

    0
  • Average_Contents

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:07 PM

    Comment #15

    That’s what you call going in dry….

    0
  • Jib

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:11 PM

    Comment #16

    Jail for Ashley
    I said in a way Keegan could be regarded as the worst thing that happened at the club for a generation of supporters who had their expectations inflated way beyond what went previously

    0
  • Jail for Ashley

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:14 PM

    Comment #17

    Oh well, lets hope we win the FA cup third round then or they at least keep it on the same weekend.

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:14 PM

    Comment #18

    Jib
    U do love a wriggle Jeffery

    0
  • Jail for Ashley

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:20 PM

    Comment #19

    Jib,
    No matter which way you twist it, how can that period of our history be regarded as anything but a good thing. Basically what you are saying by that outlandish comment is that we should remain a backwater Championship club so that we never have any expectations again and should know our place as a middling club in the footballing world.

    0
  • Jail for Ashley

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:21 PM

    Comment #20

    Jib // Jan 10, 2016
    In a cockeyed kind of way Keegan (Febuary ’92 to January ’97) was the worst thing that could have happened to NUFC .
    He gave a whole generation of supporters an utterly inflated sense of the importance , deeds , and place of their club in the world of Football.
    He won nowt and doesn’t even have the best winning percentage figures (Chris Hughton at nearly 60 % does).
    He got very lucky and put out attacking teams that were good to watch , that would get hammered today.
    His legacy is a bunch of supporters with ideas way above their station.

    0
  • Mister Tuff

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:24 PM

    Comment #21

    Quite a few folk on here over the last few days have revealed their distinct lack of knowledge about the rules of the game.
    Leaving out OPINIONS on incidents which are very difficult to see/determine for a moment – and leaving out some “opinions” where some folk refuse to see what others see for whatever reason (zebra watching stance) -some folk clearly do not know what they are talking about.
    If you do not know the basic rules -really difficult to debate with on anything football related.
    Dummett – should get red card rescinded. Clear video evidence Lansbury put the anchors on so Dummett would run into him.
    Still a foul – penalty.

    Shelvey – will not get red rescinded – retaliated. Folk saying he was trying to withdraw his leg – Eh -clear he was trying to kick out at Lansbury.

    FA do have the power to impose retrospective bans for simulation -Lansbury. Whether they will is entirely another matter.

    Clots/divvies – learn the rules -FFS -before you can be taken seriously about football.

    Jib – ooh you are awful but I like you.

    0
  • Jib

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:25 PM

    Comment #22

    😀
    Cheers for that Jail
    Ha ha ha
    That post just proved I wasn’t wriggling
    You are so thick it’s almost an artform
    😀

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:28 PM

    Comment #23

    Jail
    Tbf Id say that exposes Jeffery’s lack of knowledge over NUFC history

    Above our stations? Not many clubs have won more than us

    0
  • Charlie in the Gallowgate

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:31 PM

    Comment #24

    Mister Tuff
    must admit I don’t exactly know the rules for given a penalty –
    But surely with Shelvey the referee and linesman have GOT to know/saw what happened and not think they know/saw what happened.

    As for Dummett there is the triple jeopardy – If you can simplify the laws then you are a better man than me…

    IFAB Laws of the Game 2016-17
    Introduction
    Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences and infringements committed when the ball is in play.
    Direct free kick
    A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
    charges
    jumps at
    kicks or attempts to kick
    pushes
    strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
    tackles or challenges
    trips or attempts to trip
    If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
    Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is
    needed
    Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
    Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
    A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
    handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
    holds an opponent
    impedes an opponent with contact
    spits at an opponent
    See also offences in Law 3

    HANDLING THE BALL

    Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.

    The following must be considered:
    the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
    the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
    the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement
    touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement
    hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement
    The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick.
    Indirect free kick
    An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
    plays in a dangerous manner
    impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made
    prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it
    commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player
    An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences:
    controls the ball with the hands for more than six seconds before releasing it
    touches the ball with the hands after:
    releasing it and before it has touched another player
    it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate
    receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate
    A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when:

    the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
    holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
    bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
    A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hands.
    Disciplinary action
    PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER

    Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

    A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent.

    IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

    Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

    All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

    A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.
    The referee has the authority to take disciplinary action from entering the field of play for the pre-match inspection until leaving the field of play after the match ends (including kicks from the penalty mark).

    If, before entering the field of play at the start of the match, a player commits a sending-off offence, the referee has the authority to prevent the player taking part in the match (see Law 3.6); the referee will report any other misconduct.

    A player who commits a cautionable or sending-off offence, either on or off the field of play, against an opponent, a team-mate, a match official or any other person or the Laws of the Game, is disciplined according to the offence.

    The yellow card communicates a caution and the red card communicates a sending-off.

    Only a player, substitute or substituted player may be shown the red or yellow card.

    DELAYING THE RESTART OF PLAY TO SHOW A CARD

    Once the referee has decided to caution or send off a player, play must not be restarted until the sanction has been administered.

    ADVANTAGE

    If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except when the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity results in a goal the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour.

    Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player when the ball is next out of play but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick.

    If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.

    CAUTIONABLE OFFENCES

    A player is cautioned if guilty of:
    delaying the restart of play
    dissent by word or action
    entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission
    failing to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in
    persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game (no specific number or pattern of infringements constitutes “persistent”)
    unsporting behaviour
    A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if guilty of:
    delaying the restart of play
    dissent by word or action
    entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee’s permission
    unsporting behaviour
    CAUTIONS FOR UNSPORTING BEHAVIOUR

    There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
    attempts to deceive the referee e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)
    changes places with the goalkeeper during play or without the referee’s permission
    commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence
    commits a foul or handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack
    handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal
    makes unauthorised marks on the field of play
    plays the ball when leaving the field of play after being given permission to leave
    shows a lack of respect for the game
    uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball (including from a free kick) to the goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands
    verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart
    CELEBRATION OF A GOAL

    Players can celebrate when a goal is scored, but the celebration must not be excessive; choreographed celebrations are not encouraged and must not cause excessive time-wasting.

    Leaving the field of play to celebrate a goal is not a cautionable offence but players should return as soon as possible.

    A player must be cautioned for:
    climbing onto a perimeter fence
    gesturing in a provocative, derisory or inflammatory way
    covering the head or face with a mask or other similar item
    removing the shirt or covering the head with the shirt
    DELAYING THE RESTART OF PLAY

    Referees must caution players who delay the restart of play by:
    appearing to take a throw-in but suddenly leaving it to a team-mate to take
    delaying leaving the field of play when being substituted
    excessively delaying a restart
    kicking or carrying the ball away, or provoking a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play
    taking a free kick from the wrong position to force a retake
    SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

    A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
    denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
    denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the opponents’ goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)
    serious foul play
    spitting at an opponent or any other person
    violent conduct
    using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
    receiving a second caution in the same match
    A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

    DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY

    Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a deliberate handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.

    Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned unless:
    The offence is holding, pulling or pushing or
    The offending player does not attempt to play the ball or there is no possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball or
    The offence is one which is punishable by a red card wherever it occurs on the field of play (e.g. serious foul play, violent conduct etc.)
    In all the above circumstances the player is sent off.

    The following must be considered:
    distance between the offence and the goal
    general direction of the play
    likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
    location and number of defenders
    SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

    A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

    Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

    VIOLENT CONDUCT

    Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

    In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

    OFFENCES WHERE AN OBJECT (OR THE BALL) IS THROWN

    If while the ball is in play, a player, substitute or substituted player throws an object (including the ball) at an opponent or any other person the referee must stop play and if the offence was: reckless – caution the offender for unsporting behaviour using excessive force – send off the offender for violent conduct. Restart of play after fouls and misconduct If the ball is out of play, play is restarted according to the previous decision If the ball is in play and a player commits an offence inside the field of play against:
    an opponent – indirect or direct free kick or penalty kick
    a team-mate, substitute, substituted player, team official or a match official – a direct free kick or penalty kick
    any other person – a dropped ball
    If the ball is in play and a player commits an offence outside the field of play:
    if the player is already off the field of play, play is restarted with a dropped ball
    if the player leaves the field of play to commit the offence, play is restarted with an indirect free kick from the position of the ball when play was stopped. However, if a player leaves the field of play as part of play and commits an offence against another player, play is restarted with a free kick taken on the boundary line nearest to where the offence occurred; for direct free kick offences a penalty kick is awarded if this is within the offender’s penalty area
    If a player standing on or off the field of play throws an object at an opponent on the field of play, play is restarted with a direct free kick or penalty kick from the position where the object struck or would have struck the opponent Play is restarted with an indirect free kick if a:
    player standing inside the field of play throws an object at any person outside the field of play
    substitute or substituted player throws an object at an opponent standing inside the field of play
    FAQ’s Q1: If an offence involves contact can it be an indirect free kick?
    NO – if an offence (including dangerous play) involves contact with the opponent it must be penalised with a direct free kick.

    Q2: If the referee plays advantage for a sending-off offence (including a second caution) and the offending player then gets involved in the game, why is it an IDFK?
    The previous wording meant that if a player committed a sending-off offence but the opponents had a good scoring opportunity, the referee could play advantage. However, the player was not sent off until play next stopped which meant the player could score a goal, or stop a goal. This is clearly unfair as the player should not be on the field of play to do this. The Law now requires the referee to stop play and send the player off as soon as the player becomes involved – the restart is an IDFK unless the player commits a direct free kick offence. This applies for ‘direct’ sending-off (RC) offences and for a second caution (YC)

    Q3: Why has the wording for a caution (YC) for handball changed?
    Some referees were interpreting every handball as ‘denying the opponents possession’ so every handball was punished with a caution (YC) – this was not the intention of the Law. Where a handball affects the opponents it should be judged like a foul – if it stops or interferes with a promising attack then it is a caution (YC).

    Q4: How can an offence be violent conduct if no contact is made?
    In Law 12 ‘attempts to kick’ and ‘attempts to strike’ are offences – so attempted offences should be punished. Just because a player avoids an opponent’s punch or violent kick it does not mean that the offence is any less serious. Attempted violence must be punished as a sending-off (RC) offence as it has no place in football.

    Q5: Why is striking/hitting someone’s head or face (when not challenging for the ball) regarded as violent conduct?
    There has always been an expectation from football that someone who deliberately hits someone on the head or face should be sent off – striking the head or face is potentially very dangerous so unless there is very little force used, this will be a sending-off (RC) as football must discourage this unacceptable behaviour.

    Q6: Why is an offence against someone who is not an opponent now a direct free kick? Does this include dissent/offensive language?
    If, for example, a player strikes a team-mate, substitute, team official or, perhaps even worse, a match official this is serious but only restarting with an IDFK suggested that the offence was not serious so it is now a direct free kick for any offence (directly) against anyone (except an opponent). This does not include dissent/offensive language etc. as this is not a direct/physical offence against a person (see below).

    Q7: What is the restart of the referee stops play for dissent/offensive language etc.?
    If the referee stops play to penalise a player for dissent/offensive language etc. the restart is an IDFK.

    Q8: Why can a free kick be awarded for an offence which takes place off the field of play?
    Imagine two players fall off the field of play as part of ‘normal’ play and one player holds the other to prevent them getting back onto the field to get the ball. Everyone would agree when the referee stops plays and gives a caution (YC) but no one would agree if the game was restarted with a dropped ball. Giving a free kick on the nearest boundary line to the offence is what football expects; if this position is inside the offender’s penalty area it will be a penalty kick.

    Q9: Why was the ‘triple punishment’ for denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) offences changed for offences in the penalty area?
    The main reason is that the award of a penalty kick effectively ‘restores’ the obvious goal-scoring opportunity that was denied by the foul. It was felt that a penalty, red card and suspension (the three/triple punishment) was too strong so the red card has become a caution (YC) but only for DOGSO offences which are an attempt to play the ball or challenge an opponent for the ball.

    Q10: Is every DOGSO offence in the penalty now only a caution (YC)?
    NO – the Law has only changed for those DOGSO offences in the penalty area where the offender makes an attempt to play the ball or challenge an opponent for the ball. The sending-off (RC) remains for: handball holding, pulling and pushing (as these offences are not an attempt to play the ball) making no attempt to play the ball e.g. a deliberate trip an offence when there was no chance/possibility of the ball being played Q11: Can a DOGSO offence outside the penalty area be punished with a caution (YC)? NO – unlike a penalty kick, a free kick is not an obvious chance to score a goal so it does not ‘restore’ the obvious goal-scoring opportunity that was denied by the offence – the disciplinary sanction for all DOGSO offences outside the penalty area remains a sending-off (RC). Q12: If a player commits a DOGSO offence punished by an indirect free kick (IDFK) in the penalty area what is the disciplinary sanction? The change relating to DOGSO offences is only when the referee awards a penalty kick. This is because the penalty kick effectively restores the lost obvious goal-scoring opportunity. As an IDFK does not restore the lost obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the sanction for any DOGSO offence resulting in an IDFK is a sending-off (RC).
    Read more at http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12—fouls-and-misconduct#PD8zh020Jv1loCKz.99

    0
  • Jail for Ashley

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:32 PM

    Comment #25

    Jib,
    Regardless of what you think of my intelligence you think that the KK entertainers were a bad thing for the supporters and therefore the club, you must be the only person outside of Wearside that thinks that, even fair minded Wearsiders say how good that period was for the club.

    0
  • Jib

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:34 PM

    Comment #26

    Blooming heck Charlie
    You’ll have to get more ink
    😀

    0
  • jayphoto

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:43 PM

    Comment #27

    @wwsbrd – Im surprised its the hearts job, could see him starting out back at Dundee United, not surprised he’s jumped at the chance though! Apparently has a close relationship with the chairman, Scottish football is in no mans land at the moment too. The celtic side is possibly the worst I can remember (since john barnes), Rangers seem all over the shop too.
    Not much between 2nd and last, maybe high level coaching and organisation could be the difference of Hearts being 2nd or 8th? With cathro, if he gets it right, he’ll probably get a decent championship job similar to Alex Neil, and if he gets it wrong, my guess is he can chalk it off to not being ready and his spells in Portugal, spain and Newcastle would probably see him land another top level coaching position so not too risky

    0
  • Jail for Ashley

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:45 PM

    Comment #28

    Charlie,
    Thwre’s no way I’m reading all that, so was it a penalty.

    0
  • Charlie in the Gallowgate

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:49 PM

    Comment #29

    Jail

    I don’t bloody know – if they wrote the thing in bloody plain English might understand

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:52 PM

    Comment #30

    jay
    I disagree mate the smell of failure lingers and taking a job where he should succeed isnt easy. Rangers are still finding their feet (yet still second I think) and Celtic may be poor but they have a good manager and still top of the table by an amount of points and with games in hand

    If all he wants is a decent Champ job he can earn that by being a coach with us while learning from Rafa

    If could kill his managerial career before its even started if it goes wrong look at Shearer or Neville both got their fingers burnt and both now unlikely to return to management (and they both had built up a lot more respect than Cathro)

    As I say good luck to him but people arent wrong to be skeptical over him earning this

    0
  • Charlie in the Gallowgate

    Dec 5, 2016 at 3:53 PM

    Comment #31

    Heres the triple jeopardy law simplified…..
    2. Triple jeopardy: Until now, hand-balls and fouls in the penalty area have often resulted in a defender being given a red card, a penalty and a suspension. In future, the referee will have the discretion to hand out a red card only when he deems that there was intent. If he determines that the offender tried to play the ball but still fouled, he is only to be handed a yellow card. Until now, if the referee deemed that a cast-iron scoring chance was prevented by the offender, the rules obliged him to show red, whatever a defender’s intent.

    take out of the above if Dummett’s red card was the right decision

    0
  • jayphoto

    Dec 5, 2016 at 4:02 PM

    Comment #32

    @wwsbrd – agree it’s right to be sceptical! most top managers took a risk at some point though.
    Think Hearts are pairing him with Austin MacPhee with Levein as director of football? Its ambitious and interesting, but Hearts seemingly have great ownership, biggest club in a beautiful city! No shock hes jumped at it. Hell I’d take the managers job if it were offered and my experience is Aston Villa upto U16s, 1 week at peterboro and a goalkeeping coach for under 11’s side in Staffordshire so hardly qualified! My garden backs onto st georges park though so I might be inline for the England job at some point 😉

    0
  • Mister Tuff

    Dec 5, 2016 at 4:04 PM

    Comment #33

    Charlie – part of your post :-
    “Mister Tuff
    must admit I don’t exactly know the rules for given a penalty –
    But surely with Shelvey the referee and linesman have GOT to know/saw what happened and not think they know/saw what happened.”

    Cannot argue with that at all – but problem in this case is that the linesman believes he saw xyz. Hence the penalty and red card. He clearly did not report to the ref (at the time) the foul on Shelvey and the simulation – probably because he did not see it. We have the benefit of playbacks.

    The laws are getting more and more complicated and sometimes daft – the original changes to the offside rule for example and all this crap about the second phase of play etc.
    Years ago there were ideas to ban the offside rule totally to lead to a more expansive open game.
    Having said that if you work through the rules some of the stuff is relatively simple to understand when specific incidents are concerned and has not changed much at all if any.
    Printing the rules in full will initially cause the reader horror but most of the stuff is clearly understandable.

    0
  • WWSBRD

    Dec 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM

    Comment #34

    jay
    Aye I’ve got nothing against Hearts and Ed is a nice city but honestly they should be expecting better than a NUFC coach but hey ho it might work out

    As for the England job u might well be if Southgate got it FOR FOUR YEARS haha

    0
  • Jib

    Dec 5, 2016 at 4:23 PM

    Comment #35

    Jay
    Will you get to the Burton Albion game ?

    0
  • Jib

    Dec 5, 2016 at 4:29 PM

    Comment #36

    Will be shouting for Hull tonight.

    If they win.

    The mackems drop a place and West Ham enter the drop zone.

    0
  • Charlie in the Gallowgate

    Dec 5, 2016 at 4:31 PM

    Comment #37

    Mister-tuff
    Yeah must admit most of it is sensible but somehow something has got to be made clear on the Shelvey incident.
    The way I looked at it both should of got a red and been a bounce up as neither the ref or linesman saw the first incident that led to the fracas.
    the way I read the Dummett situation should of been a penalty and a yellow card.

    Yeah the offside law is a joke if a player is in a offside position regardless if he is involved with play or not he should be blown up for offside – i.e. Forest’s first goal when their player came back on the pitch.

    My biggest bugbear at the minute is the change of rule with the whole of the ball being fully over the line (not in the goal) but up the wings sides

    how many times has the ball been fully over the line and the linesman plays on or visa versa the ball is not fully over the line and the linesman pulls up play.

    I found it easier in ye olde days when more than half the ball was deemed to be over the line the ball was out

    0
  • Mister Tuff

    Dec 5, 2016 at 4:43 PM

    Comment #38

    Charlie.
    Shelvey incident.
    Chronologically with video evidence where we can see what happened – free kick to us.
    However from what the officials (linesman) saw at the time – foul by Shelvey – penalty.

    Dummett agree – penalty and yellow.
    bit on triple jeopardy.
    “The previous ‘triple-punishment’ rule meant that a player who denied a goal-scoring opportunity was automatically red-carded and handed a suspension, as well as giving away a penalty.

    However, the law has now changed so that players committing accidental fouls, that deny a goal-scoring opportunity, are not automatically sent off, but cautioned instead.”

    From what I’ve seen Lansbury puts the brakes on and leaves a leg dangling – Dummett cannot do anything else but run into him.
    Accidental for sure – but still a foul.
    Foul in the box = pen.

    0
  • jayphoto

    Dec 5, 2016 at 4:49 PM

    Comment #39

    @Jib – yep! I’m in the home end though! Few mates are brewers season ticket holders so tapped them up for a tickes as Newcastle away tickets don’t seem to be getting past season ticket holders and I’m only a first year member

    0
  • Mister Tuff

    Dec 5, 2016 at 4:50 PM

    Comment #40

    Charlie -previous :-
    “The way I looked at it both should of got a red and been a bounce up as neither the ref or linesman saw the first incident that led to the fracas.”

    If both players commit offences that warranted being sent off – fouls must have occured.
    The original foul of the two players -chronologically – has to be punished by a free kick/pen.
    Therefore a bounce up/dropped ball should not apply.

    0

You must log in to post a comment.