Dodgy refereeing decisions

[hibbysam]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If he'd played a pass to an offside player and it came off Ambrose then the offside is from the pass, not Ambrose's touch.

Same goes for the header (though I've not watched it back to see if a Partick player does head out on to Efe).

That’s not true, ambrose’s touch would then play everyone back onside again (supposing his touch was the last one).

[hibbysam]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How could their player be offside when the corner was taken? And he didn't make contact with the ball before it had crossed the line.

He can’t be offside from a corner? No one has said he was.. I said he was if it was his own player that headed the ball. You also don’t have to touch the ball, he made a genuine attempt to play the ball by dashing towards it, and also impeded Bell’s line of vision.

[Dashing Bob S]

Going to swim against the tide - the ref got this one right. I know it, you know it, and deep down the fans of Patrick Thistle know it. Officials have to make those decisions in split seconds and some of the abuse the refreee recieved was shameful.

(Rewritten as if it were the Record discussing a decision awarded to Rangers).

[Onion]

Might have been a fortunate outcome but doesn't start to make up for some of the desperate decisions given against us this season which have cost us points.

The big take out from the incident is that these decisions change games - as the Huns and their refereeing buddies have come to know over the decades.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That’s not true, ambrose’s touch would then play everyone back onside again (supposing his touch was the last one).

No, the offside player is already offside before Ambrose's touch.

We had it against us a while back, I forget the game but essentially we played it forward and the ball came off the defender as he challenged for the ball, it went through to the player who was offside and the free kick was given.

Context is important, as there will be times where the opposite is true, for instance if Ambrose had intercepted the pass, then played it back to the goalie, where the attacker is, then that would potentially be given as onside (assuming the ref considers that a different phase of play).

[Callum_62]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No, the offside player is already offside before Ambrose's touch.

We had it against us a while back, I forget the game but essentially we played it forward and the ball came off the defender as he challenged for the ball, it went through to the player who was offside and the free kick was given.

Context is important, as there will be times where the opposite is true, for instance if Ambrose had intercepted the pass, then played it back to the goalie, where the attacker is, then that would potentially be given as onside (assuming the ref considers that a different phase of play).

How can he be offside from a corner?

[Eyrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He can’t be offside from a corner? No one has said he was.. I said he was if it was his own player that headed the ball. You also don’t have to touch the ball, he made a genuine attempt to play the ball by dashing towards it, and also impeded Bell’s line of vision.

He wasn't in Bell's line of vision. The header was from outside the near post and he's about three yards out level with Bell when the ball comes in diagonally.

I'm no good with technical wizardry but you can do a freeze frame at 2:32 on the BBC highlights to check.

As far as I'm concerned, we've finally got a bad decision in our favour.

[hibbysam]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No, the offside player is already offside before Ambrose's touch.

We had it against us a while back, I forget the game but essentially we played it forward and the ball came off the defender as he challenged for the ball, it went through to the player who was offside and the free kick was given.

Context is important, as there will be times where the opposite is true, for instance if Ambrose had intercepted the pass, then played it back to the goalie, where the attacker is, then that would potentially be given as onside (assuming the ref considers that a different phase of play).

Unless your saying Ambrose did not intentionally play the back then it would be a new phase of play. Ambrose tried to head the ball and if he did so the player is back onside.

[hibbysam]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He wasn't in Bell's line of vision. The header was from outside the near post and he's about three yards out level with Bell when the ball comes in diagonally.

I'm no good with technical wizardry but you can do a freeze frame at 2:32 on the BBC highlights to check.

As far as I'm concerned, we've finally got a bad decision in our favour.

He wasn’t in the line of the ball, he was in bells vision, as standing 3 yards out in the centre of goal is going to affect the goalkeepers choice, he then mad a run towards the ball as it rolled over the line.

It wasn’t the correct decision as Ambrose played it, but that was very difficult one to call as no one even discussed that until the sportscene guys showed it.

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How can he be offside from a corner?

He wasn't offside from the corner, he was in an offside position when the ball was headed goalward. Maybe this explains why fewer teams leave defenders on the posts these days.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How can he be offside from a corner?

He's not, we're discussing the difference it would make if a Partick player has touched it onto Efe's head.

[Eyrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He wasn’t in the line of the ball, he was in bells vision, as standing 3 yards out in the centre of goal is going to affect the goalkeepers choice, he then mad a run towards the ball as it rolled over the line.

It wasn’t the correct decision as Ambrose played it, but that was very difficult one to call as no one even discussed that until the sportscene guys showed it.

I don't see how he could have affected Bell's judgement given that Bell could only parry the ball which then went over the line. Surely having a player in his vision would encourage Bell to catch the ball?

And your second point is irrelevant as the ball had crossed the line before any of the Partick players, including Storey, could get to it.

Looks like we'll just have to disagree on the decision.

[Callum_62]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He wasn't offside from the corner, he was in an offside position when the ball was headed goalward. Maybe this explains why fewer teams leave defenders on the posts these days.

He was- definitely....could have been called either way though

Infact should have stood as it was Efe who got the touch onto it- altho seeing that at full speed would have been tricky


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibbysam]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't see how he could have affected Bell's judgement given that Bell could only parry the ball which then went over the line. Surely having a player in his vision would encourage Bell to catch the ball?

And your second point is irrelevant as the ball had crossed the line before any of the Partick players, including Storey, could get to it.

Looks like we'll just have to disagree on the decision.

Not really, a tricky header with someone standing 2/3 yards away awaiting a tap in your more likely to try and parry it out sideways instead of trying to take a very difficult catch and give the boy an easy goal.

Storey ran towards the ball well before it crossed the line, so much so he’s only a foot or so away when it goes in, as soon as he makes that attempt he is offside.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Unless your saying Ambrose did not intentionally play the back then it would be a new phase of play. Ambrose tried to head the ball and if he did so the player is back onside.

He's gone to head the ball but if the Partick player heads it first then it changes the direction in which Efe is going to head it - he definite didn't intend to score.

I couldn't tell from the freeze frame on Sportscene conclusively who headed it and if there was one or two touches before the ball went in.

I'm just saying that, imho, if the Partick player gets a touch first then at that point the player is off, because he's standing in front of the keeper.

It's a tight and very subjective decision anyway because you could easily make a case that the player wasn't interfering, although he's gone from in front of the keeper to running towards the ball, both of which can be classed as interfering.

[Peevemor]

I think we all agree that we'd be unhappy had it been us getting the goal disallowed, but it obviously a straightforward refereeing ****-up like the ones we've been victim of on too many occasions.

[Hibs1969]

No doubt we got the rub of the green with this one, but it’s definitely not a shocker or even a bad decision, it’s a borderline decision. We’ve got a two page thread running on it with folks taking differing views on a split second incident which has finally gone our way.

[hibbysam]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think we all agree that we'd be unhappy had it been us getting the goal disallowed, but it obviously a straightforward refereeing ****-up like the ones we've been victim of on too many occasions.

That’s where I am. It’s an incorrect decision but it’s nowhere near a horrendous error or suchlike.

[Greenbeard]

Amazed the extent to which a decision in our favour is being debated on here. Alan Archibald post-match said he wasn't going to waste his time dwelling on the decision (or words to that effect). Good on him.

[Greenbeard]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Apologies.

I will remove my post, I would never intentionally do such a thing.

There has been a number of references to "Patrick" on the boards when people have been meaning to type "Partick". Anyone could mistakenly type the "r" and the "t" round the wrong way, especially if they have predictive text enabled as the device would assume you would want to type Patrick as opposed to Partick.

There was no way I could have recognised you have a learning difficulty from that post but I am sorry if any offence was caused.

Chapeau for your apology. Nae need for grammar/spelling polis on here. If there was sumdid huvva full time job!

[Speedy]

Incorrect decision given it came off Ambrose.

If it came off the Partick player I'd say it was offside (albeit a debatable one)

[Sir David Gray]

Personally I couldn't care less if we got away with one or not.

It's about time.

[NAE NOOKIE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Chapeau for your apology. Nae need for grammar/spelling polis on here. If there was sumdid huvva full time job!

Bang on. It takes all sorts to make up a club's support from those with a university education to those with no education to speak of at all, this is not the place to take cheap shots at people ... it would be a real shame if folk were discouraged from posting for fear of being ridiculed for a spelling mistake or bad grammar.

I've worked with folk with a university education and known quite a few cleaners and bin men ... some of the folk with degrees were as thick as Whale **** and knew far less about the real world than the cleaners and bin men. FWIW I know SDG didn't mean any offence .. 'Patrick' is all too common on here

[NAE NOOKIE]

I can see the discussion at the SPFL refs meeting now.

Refs boss .......... WTF are we gonna do about Lennon? he's got loads of TV evidence to prove all these crap decisions.

Craig Thompson ...... Why don't we chuck him a bone with a dodgy decision of his own.

Refs boss ...... Aye OK but it canny be against the Gers or Edinburgh's establishment club.

All the refs ..... nods of agreement.

Craig Thompson ..... They've got Partick Thistle tomorrow that would be the ideal time, you up for it Andrew?

Andrew Dallas ..... Well OK ... but it sticks in ma craw tae gie they spoon burning hobos anything.

Refs boss .... I know what you mean Andrew ( all the refs laugh ) that's decided then .... next order of business, when do we award the Gers their penalty on Saturday?

[Danderhall Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Amazed the extent to which a decision in our favour is being debated on here. Alan Archibald post-match said he wasn't going to waste his time dwelling on the decision (or words to that effect). Good on him.

I think his was more a dig at the officials - he wouldn’t waste his time knocking on their door.

[Hibernian Verse]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think his was more a dig at the officials - he wouldn’t waste his time knocking on their door.

And that is something a lot of managers in this league will sympathise with.

[where'stheslope]

Given all the facts and watching it again and again, when was the last time, if ever, you seen an offside given from a corner????
The last bad decision like this that I can remember, was Aberdeen game when the Aberdeen player on the line was sent off for hand ball and we scored from the resulting penalty to win the game! It was later noticed that the goalkeeper was in advance of the Hibs player but the linesman had not flagged, Aberdeen then appealed the red card and the referee then let the linesman look at it again, he admitted that it was offside but he had missed it so he cannot change the decision!!!
And to think we are the only team who go on about bad decisions, the rest get the same, but it hurts more when its us!!!!!

[hibbyfraelibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If he'd played a pass to an offside player and it came off Ambrose then the offside is from the pass, not Ambrose's touch.

Same goes for the header (though I've not watched it back to see if a Partick player does head out on to Efe).

At last someone who knows what the law is.

[hibbyfraelibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That’s not true, ambrose’s touch would then play everyone back onside again (supposing his touch was the last one).

No it doesn't. The old touch plays everyone onside myth repeated so often people believe it. It does not and never did.

[hibbysam]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No it doesn't. The old touch plays everyone onside myth repeated so often people believe it. It does not and never did.

No? You might want to advise IFAB of this then.

‘A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.’

Unless your saying Efe didn’t mean to head the ball of course.