Yang Hyun Jun

I disagree with the club on this occasion.

 

They probably won't win the appeal, as his foot his high..

However, I don't think I've ever seen a red for that type of 'flick'.. yellow aye..

Cochrane didn't have a mark and definitely made the most of it, if he was even touched at all..

 

I hope it is overturned tbh, would be good to have Yang available as he was coming into some form. And it would annoy a lot of huns and Hearts fans.

 

Will be overturned.
The damage is done, the SFA have no issue with allowing themselves to look like idiots after the fact.

The defence from Celtic will be two fold - firstly the incident itself hasn't been a red card in other very similar (and sometimes worse) situations, just look at the game a week earlier with Motherwell.
2nd they will highlight the ref had already made the call on the field, there was no clear and obvious error - as judged by the fact other high boots are not punished.

They'll over turn it for sure.

 

A question: what would it take, in your opinion, for a high boot to be a yellow card offense? I've seen loads of matches on the international stage, where the worst that happened was a yellow. It seemed to be the norm.

 

It was never in a million years anything resembling a red card. It might be the worst straight red I've ever seen. The referee saw the incident, correctly issued a yellow. How Beaton in VAR can then claim its a clear and obvious error, call the ref over and then he changes his mind despite seeing it perfectly in real time in the first place is beyond me. For a red card you need to have excessive force or violent conduct along with a high boot. A high boot itself is not a red card offence, and sometimes its not even punished with a yellow. The club are absolutely right to appeal this as its a shambolic decision which basically lost us the game. IFAB rules are online and they lay it out pretty well.

 

Mind this baldy * saying this challenge by Haaland isn't a red card, n yet now he's claiming Yangs is.

 

I would imagine the images being shared online will be part of their case why it should be overturned. Far worse challenges involving high feet since the winter break did not get given a red or in some instances a foul for. So they will argue why was that one.

 

Cochrane absolutely doesn’t have to charge in the way he does either, there’s some element of endangering yourself in these situations too.

Everyone and their dug can see Yang is trying to flick it over his head, if he pulls it off then we are talking about how good a move it is.

Wee daft * charging in head first is the only reason there’s any contact, if there was even any.

 

Also elbows are probably more dangerous than feet. Are we going to start giving reds for every accidental elbow we see? Games in our league would end up being abandoned.

 

They will just say they are examples of mistakes and our one is the standard set.

 

A high boot to the face can always be interpreted as dangerous play, and that's what happened. It was a clear red.

 

I think my biggest gripe with the red card is I don’t believe it to be a clear and obvious error.

Had Don Robertson handed out a red card on the pitch, I don’t think it should have been overturned. At the same time, I don’t think this should have been overturned either.

The fact many of us are still debating whether or not it’s a red card means it’s not clear and obvious. That’s my main issue.

On the incident itself, I think it’s harsh but can see why it’s dangerous play. That being said, I don’t think it should have been overturned, regardless of whether or not a yellow or red card was given on the field.

 

They absolutely won't overturn it because it vindicates Rodgers comments after the game. They will double down

 

No chance they will overturn red
hope they don't tag on an extra game as 'punishment'

 

When Johnstone was knocked unconscious at Hibs certain fans were saying that head clashes are part of football. Aggressively leading with your head is not a foul. We should not have had a pen.

This week a high foot that barely touched the player around the shoulder area, had no force, no intent is the most obvious red card you will see.

The only conclusion I can come to is their dislike of us affects their opinions so badly.

 

Why?

It could have been a red, could have been a yellow.

Ref calls yellow and is over ruled, why. If ref calls red we need to just suck it up, but he didn't.

 

So by your definition, every high boot is a red card then? As they're all going to be at face height. The problem here is your putting your own spin on the rules here rather than actually reading them. The rules are clear on the IFAB website. So you saying a high boot can always be classed as dangerous play and is always a red is not even remotely accurate or true. We very, very rarely see red cards for high boots. And if you do, there has to be excessive force or violent conduct involved with the high boot for it to be a straight red. You're way off the mark with this one. Our game against Motherwell last week there was a more dangerous incident, player didn't even get booked. No VAR review. Goldson had a high boot against Livingston inside the box and kicked one of their players in the head and Rangers scored from the resulting scramble. No foul, no booking, no VAR review. So there's not even a precedent within our own league for what you're saying.

 

Not every high boot makes contact with another player, so no, that's not what I'm saying. Good attempt at putting words in my mouth. I'm putting a spin on nothing, and you mean the laws of the game are clear, not rules. As clear as you claim they are, there are still a * of a lot of individual interpretations from qualified referees at all levels. Therefore it's more subjective than you're portraying.

Yang's lack of awareness of was what caused the situation and he made contact with their player, which was dangerous. Football is still in the dark ages with how it views head injuries or potential head injuries and that needs to change. Previous decisions in the league aren't relevant to my opinion on this incident, I'd need to watch them back again. Goldson not being punished doesn't surprise me though. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not trying to change yours. Bored of this subject now and as I said already I hope the red is overturned, just because it was annoy the scum.

 

You should hope the decision is overturned because it was was a scandalous decision that ended up costing us the game. Yang barely touched the player, and the movement was Cochrane's head into Yangs boot not the other way around. A yellow and a foul was the correct decision for me. If Yang had made contact with his head at speed then I'd agree with you. However his foot is moving towards the ball not Cochrane's face and he's went down making a meal of it. To suggest it's dangerous play is laughable Cochrane would get a scratch at worst there's no chance of a head injury in that situation. 2 players jumping for a header is far more dangerous than a soft high boot and they're not red card offences either. Beaton dictated the decisions in that game and for me that's the major issue. I think the referee on the pitch got the decisions correct and VAR has changed them and made them wrong. Games need refereed fairly and consistently the fact that Yang got a red while those 2 previous incidents I mentioned weren't even punished is an absolute disgrace. The rules can't simply be applied sometimes and depending on the officials.