+ Visit Motherwell FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: James Scott and that goal

  1. #1

    James Scott and that goal

    Having now seen the full incident, I think it was completely wrong for Stephen Robinson to place any implication of blame on James Scott (or any of our players) yesterday.

    Obviously at the time it all goes quickly, it's hard to remember details and he probably just wanted to diffuse the situation and get out of dodge. Fair enough.

    But with time to reflect and watch the replay I hope he's come to a different opinion. He will inevitably be asked about it in his pre-matcher for Kilmarnock and he should be coming out with 100% backing for the team.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    12,125
    Of course he needs to back the team but it's correct that he should be pressed about the incident. To me it seemed that the lad was the only one of the sixty thousand who did not realise that he was expected to return the ball to the opposition. Rush of blood to the head.

  3. #3
    We'll never know what he was thinking at that moment but I have absolutely no idea why we should be expected to give them the ball back. It's bad enough it happens at all but if you're going to do it you need to do so straight away.

    The notion your player goes down, you attack, get nowhere, then when the opposition start to press you just knock the ball out the park and expect it back is utter madness. Imagine if Celtic had scored with their attack, what would have happened? Hee haw about about sportsmanship that's for sure. They chose to play on - as they should - but then we get to do so too.

    The easy solution is players should, in 99.9% of cases, just leave it to the referee to stop the game. An exception can be made for head/neck injuries or if there's a bone sticking out the ref hasn't spotted...but essentially the referee can decide and we avoid this farce.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,273
    What it boils down to is this. Should a team put the ball out of play, or return it to the opposition, if one of their players is to be subbed for injury reasons ie not for treatment? Christie had already received treatment on the sideline.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    14
    Back to basics. Was the player in need of attention ? if so stop the game. If not play on.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,273
    Quote Originally Posted by choccy1314 View Post
    Back to basics. Was the player in need of attention ? if so stop the game. If not play on.
    Probably not. He had received treatment off the pitch (going off under his own steam) but then returned as Celtic didn't have a sub ready to come on and they didn't want to play with 10 men. His remit was to delay proceedings until the sub could come on.

Forum Info

Footymad Forums offer you the chance to interact and discuss all things football with fellow fans from around the world, and share your views on footballing issues from the latest, breaking transfer rumours to the state of the game at international level and everything in between.

Whether your team is battling it out for the Premier League title or struggling for League survival, there's a forum for you!

Gooners, Mackems, Tractor Boys - you're all welcome, please just remember to respect the opinions of others.

Click here for a full list of the hundreds of forums available to you

The forums are free to join, although you must play fair and abide by the rules explained here, otherwise your ability to post may be temporarily or permanently revoked.

So what are you waiting for? Register now and join the debate!

(these forums are not actively moderated, so if you wish to report any comment made by another member please report it.)



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •