03 Nov 2025 08:34:49
Here is my take on yhr incidents
Asgard rightfully sent off. Serious foul play
Trusty should. have been sent off incident was as serious as Aasgaard
Maeda on dio also serious foul play
Ralston handball. All in all they could have had 3 sent off.
However thr misses drom Gassama Raskin and Chermiti at this level were criminal especially Chermiti.
While the ref favoured them yesterday we contributed to our defeat with really poor decisions in front of goal.
Chermiti should never kick a ball for us again. A 1m striker doesn't miss that never mind an apparent 8 million.
03 Nov 2025 09:43:51
Two Tier Refereeing in plain sight.
Whats the point in even playing the games at this point. When games are tight then the biggest decisions are always going to matter and the big decision 9/10 times go in Celtics favour, even with VAR in place.
How can a kick on the leg be worse than a deliberate kick to the face?
03 Nov 2025 09:46:24
I agree with you initial point Gilly but "Chermit should never kick a ball for us again" is a wild statement.
Yes he should have scored but his movement for the chance was excellent and on another day he scored.
Every striker misses chances - 1m or 8m has nothing to do with it.
You mention Gassama who had 2 bigger chances than Chermiti - both 1 on 1 with the keeper and missed both opportunities.
I was actually quite pleased with the number of chances we created and on another day we are 3 up. I'm sure goals will come.
Djiga for me is embarrassing, no control over the football, positional shocking, no concept of shape - that's a guy who should never play for us again, Rothwell. slow, laboured and overweight, again should never be near the jersey.
03 Nov 2025 09:46:37
I can't ever see how Aasgaard is a red maybe I'm bias he's made a genuine attempt to get the ball no aggression in it, Eyes on the ball the entire time which he wins and the boot isn't high.
03 Nov 2025 10:19:59
Agreed R1 in rugby if a player plays the ball and is wiped out with their feet in the air its at least a sin bin for the defending player.
Aasgard played the ball, Ralston took him out, Ralston's eyes were closed so benefit of the doubt only a yellow for Ralston for challenge on Aasgaard.
03 Nov 2025 10:23:27
R1 - his tackle nearly turned Anthony Ralston into Annie Ralston - studs were up with force (instep or top of boot may have been different) - surely that is obvious?also doesn't matter if he wins the ball then crocks the man.
03 Nov 2025 10:37:23
Blue-floyd Aasgaard made a successful attempt to play the ball, Ralston wiped him out whilst making no attempt to play the ball.
03 Nov 2025 11:21:50
Danilo played two excellent defence spitting balls that deserved goals.
03 Nov 2025 11:22:25
Some of the takes on Aasgaard's red card are blue tinted to say the least. Here's the actual IFAB rule (which you'll note references none of the mitigating circumstances put forward like "trying to play the ball" or "eyes on the ball" or "intent":
"serious foul play is a tackle or challenge that uses excessive force or brutality and endangers an opponent's safety. This is a red card offense and includes lunging at an opponent with excessive force, whether from the front, side, or behind. It is a major foul that risks serious injury.
Definition: Using excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball.
Key factors: Endangering the safety of an opponent. "
Did he mean it? No. Did he get the ball first? Yes. Was he watching the ball? Yes. Does any of that matter within the rules? Not a single bit.
There was excessive force and he endangered an opponent. A clearer example of a red card you'll never see. Our complaint should not be with this decision as that just detracts from the real issue - Trusty.
By the same rule, Trusty is 100% a red card. Excessive force? check. Endangers an opponent? check. Hell, you could even apply the violent conduct rule to Trusty to get the same outcome, given there was no attempt to play the ball.
Why Trusty didn't walk should be the focus because he should have, not why Aasgaard did, because that decision was correct by the actual rules of the game, not the "street rules" we keep seeing listed.
Ralston was lucky on the handball. I think whether it is or isn't a handball is questionable and I'd be raging if that was given against us, but having decided that it was and a penalty then given the shot was goalbound that would generally always warrant a yellow card as well. So I'll be interested to see what they say on this one - I suspect they will conclude the penalty was the wrong decision.
Maeda? Behave, that's never a red card in a million years. Hits his chest yes, but there's no force element to it at all it's just a flick out. Yellow card, no more. If we think Maeda should have been a red, then Cornelius should have been by the same measure and neither were as neither carried the requisite force.
So, for me:
Aasgaard: Correct decision
Trusty: 100% should have been a red
Maeda: never a red
Cornelius: never a red
Ralston: if giving the penalty generally always a yellow. Expect they will either say the penalty was incorrect or use the double jeopardy rule
Overall we were on the wrong end of some major decisions, the right end of others and some, they actually got right.
03 Nov 2025 11:36:20
I don't know how anyone can think Aasgaard wasn't a red. Going by rules red all day. DC was lucky to stay on field as well guys a lot seem to have missed that.
Doesn't matter if you play the ball.
03 Nov 2025 11:52:45
Gdog55 excellent post and I think you are bang on with ever point.
03 Nov 2025 12:24:27
Aasgard not a red because Ralston challenged him not other way round.
03 Nov 2025 12:41:04
The soft penalty that on another day, wouldn't have been given ?. The goal, albeit a pure fluke, that was disallowed which is fine margins. Again could have been given. You got your share of decisions although Trusty was a very lucky man.