PDA

View Full Version : Conroy / Boyd booked for "obstruction"



HIBERNIAN-0762
14-02-2010, 03:33 PM
Why were these hun bassas booing Zuma after the disgraceful and deliberate elbow in the face by Boyd?, was it because he was running the show in midfield?, ****bags the lot o them!

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 03:45 PM
****ing joke

:faf:

Conroy contriving some way of not suspending him for the OF game.

Cheat

Woody1985
14-02-2010, 03:47 PM
Disgraceful elbow.

Should have been off the pitch and now he was given a yellow can't face the video panel.

And what about that dive by McCulloch in the first half. The commentator had the cheek to say the ref didn't see it when the ref was 5 yards away looking directly at him and Miller. Then the ref had the cheek to talk to Miller!!!

Big Frank
14-02-2010, 03:48 PM
****ing joke

:faf:

Conroy contriving some way of not suspending him for the OF game.

Cheat

Yip:agree::agree:

He should have the book thrown at him. Clear elbow in thface. Straight red for any other player, at any other club.

Miller = cheat
boyd = cheat.

Danderhall Hibs
14-02-2010, 03:50 PM
****ing joke

:faf:

Conroy contriving some way of not suspending him for the OF game.

Cheat

The commentator said the booking means he's suspended for the OF game?

Toaods
14-02-2010, 03:50 PM
watch out...some folk on here thought Conroy was decent....:faf:

Danderhall Hibs
14-02-2010, 03:52 PM
Just listening to them talking about it now - I see the difference. Not sure Conroy would've known that Boyd was 3 points away so gave him a 2 point booking though!

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 03:52 PM
The commentator said the booking means he's suspended for the OF game?

Normal booking = 3 points
Obstruction = 2 points (not suspended)

Chick spoke to the ref and got word that it was "obstruction".

Not that I care about Celtic, but that adds insult to injury. Boyd should have been off for that.

Judas Iscariot
14-02-2010, 03:53 PM
:top marks For being a biased cheating prick!

How that little scrote Thomshun wasn't shown red for the 2 attacks on Zouma!

Only a yellow for Boyd smacking Z in the face

Giving a penalty when no contact took place

Not booking Shlttiker for leaving the field of play after scoring

Failing to stop play when McBride broke down even though you did stop play in the 1st half when we were on the attack but McCulloch blatantly dived trying to get Miller in bother

That's just a few, there's PLENTY more examples of how BAD and inept his performance was!

No wonder fans get sick and tired of Scottish football when this **** happens constantly!

Pathetic

spudhib
14-02-2010, 03:56 PM
Penalty was a joke,apart from no sodding contact the ball was in Smiths hands before Miller had hit the deck:grr:

Barney McGrew
14-02-2010, 03:58 PM
Apart from the penalty, I thought he was pretty good TBH.

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 03:58 PM
Penalty was a joke,apart from no sodding contact the ball was in Smiths hands before Miller had hit the deck:grr:

:agree:

Miller went over as soon as he realised he had taken another of his elephant-esque first touches. Bamba had pulled out of the challenge.

Put it another way, if Conroy thought it was such a bad foul, why didn't he send off Bamba? He was last man, after all. Ridiculous decision.

Ever since Yogi described him as "the best referee in Scotland", Conroy has given a sequence of very poor decisions against Hibs.

GlesgaeHibby
14-02-2010, 04:00 PM
:top marks For being a biased cheating prick!

How that little scrote Thomshun wasn't shown red for the 2 attacks on Zouma!

Only a yellow for Boyd smacking Z in the face

Giving a penalty when no contact took place

Not booking Shlttiker for leaving the field of play after scoring

Failing to stop play when McBride broke down even though you did stop play in the 1st half when we were on the attack but McCulloch blatantly dived trying to get Miller in bother

That's just a few, there's PLENTY more examples of how BAD and inept his performance was!

No wonder fans get sick and tired of Scottish football when this **** happens constantly!

Pathetic

I'd agree with all apart from the bit in bold. Rangers had every right to play on.

Mikeystewart
14-02-2010, 04:02 PM
Didn't think he was that bad :chop:

ancient hibee
14-02-2010, 04:03 PM
He didn't make as many mistakes as most of the players.

Saorsa
14-02-2010, 04:04 PM
:agree:

Miller went over as soon as he realised he had taken another of his elephant-esque first touches. Bamba had pulled out of the challenge.

Put it another way, if Conroy thought it was such a bad foul, why didn't he send off Bamba? He was last man, after all. Ridiculous decision.

Ever since Yogi described him as "the best referee in Scotland", Conroy has given a sequence of very poor decisions against Hibs.Maybe he should have called him a tosser then because that would have been nearer the mark :bitchy:

bingo70
14-02-2010, 04:04 PM
Didn't think he was that bad :chop:

I thought he was alright, not great but think he got most of the decisions right, even the penalty, watched it a few times and i'm still not sure if there was contact or not so i can appreciate that was a tough decision to make.

We need someone to blame though.

Hiber-nation
14-02-2010, 04:04 PM
We can complain about a few things today (like how only half the team turned up for the 2nd half) but complaining about the ref is really stretching it. Gave us more than most refs have done through there.

Hibbyradge
14-02-2010, 04:08 PM
I thought he got all the major decisions right.

Bamba was naive and I would have given a penalty

He also could have given a penalty against us in the first half, but didn't as it was 6 and 2 threes between Weir and Hogg. (Mostly Hogg actually).

Rangers deserved to win over the 90 minutes, but they weren't 3 goals better than us.

howdenthehibby
14-02-2010, 04:17 PM
Every bit as bad as the offence Rio Ferdinand was hammered for a couple of weeks ago if you ask me.If it had been the other way we wouldnt hear the end of it,but as its us it will be convienently brushed under the carpet. As usual the decisions go the way of O/F.:grr:

Jim44
14-02-2010, 04:21 PM
A lot of managers allude to it and put it down to poor refereeing, Romanov to his credit is quite open about it, but most referees and their assistants are undoubtedly currupt where the Old Firm is concerned. How Conroy and/or his assistant can say that Boyd was only guilty of 'obstruction' is asonishing and can only be termed as deliberate cheating. :bitchy:

Dunbar Hibee
14-02-2010, 04:23 PM
I thought he got all the major decisions right.

Bamba was naive and I would have given a penalty

He also could have given a penalty against us in the first half, but didn't as it was 6 and 2 threes between Weir and Hogg. (Mostly Hogg actually).

Rangers deserved to win over the 90 minutes, but they weren't 3 goals better than us.

Spot on.:agree:

Hibbyradge
14-02-2010, 04:42 PM
A lot of managers allude to it and put it down to poor refereeing, Romanov to his credit is quite open about it, but most referees and their assistants are undoubtedly currupt where the Old Firm is concerned. How Conroy and/or his assistant can say that Boyd was only guilty of 'obstruction' is asonishing and can only be termed as deliberate cheating. :bitchy:

It's not astonishing to me, nor was it deliberate cheating.

The referee didn't see anything at the time. Neither did I, the folk on Radio Scotland, or anyone in the crowd. In fact, I thought Zouma had taken a dive.

It was the "corrupt" linesman who called it a foul and, as a result got Boyd booked.

If you saw it was a clear violent assault at the time, you should give your optician a bonus, cos your eyesight is remarkable. :wink:

TonyStokeprano
14-02-2010, 04:51 PM
That was a blatant elbow and shood have been a straight red.

Hibbyradge
14-02-2010, 04:51 PM
Why were these hun bassas booing Zuma after the disgraceful and deliberate elbow in the face by Boyd?, was it because he was running the show in midfield?, ****bags the lot o them!

Becasue no-one knew he had been elbowed.

Neither would we have if it hadn't been shown in slow motion on the telly.

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 04:52 PM
Becasue no-one knew he had been elbowed.

Neither would we have if it hadn't been shown in slow motion on the telly.

The linesman evidently knew.

Hibbyradge
14-02-2010, 04:54 PM
The linesman evidently knew.

No. He thought he'd been obstructed.

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 04:55 PM
No. He thought he'd been obstructed.

Then why was he booked?

You don't get booked for "obstruction" in that field position. Conroy's made that **** up. If they genuinely thought it was obstruction, it should have been a free kick and nothing else.

allmodcons
14-02-2010, 04:59 PM
watch out...some folk on here thought Conroy was decent....:faf:

Problem with ref is same as most games in Glasgow. He did well for majority of the match but, as usual, was posted missing when he's to make a big decision in our favour (Boyd should have walked for violent conduct) and pops up when they need a big decision (very dubious penalty award).

Really ******ing annoying but has always been the way of it in Glasgow.

Sylar
14-02-2010, 05:02 PM
Becasue no-one knew he had been elbowed.

Neither would we have if it hadn't been shown in slow motion on the telly.

Quite right. I actually winced as it happened in real time, as I thought Zemmama had taken a dive, after realising he wasn't going to catch his flick through them. Only when I saw the replay did it become apparent that Boyd caught Zouma with his elbow.

The linesman was on the wrong side of Papac to see the contact, so it probably did look like obstruction (which IS a bookable offence in any area of the park at the discretion of the ref).

Hibbyradge
14-02-2010, 05:04 PM
Then why was he booked?

You don't get booked for "obstruction" in that field position. Conroy's made that **** up. If they genuinely thought it was obstruction, it should have been a free kick and nothing else.

On reflection, you make an interesting point.

Edit: Although see TSSF's post above.

blackpoolhibs
14-02-2010, 05:05 PM
Quite right. I actually winced as it happened in real time, as I thought Zemmama had taken a dive, after realising he wasn't going to catch his flick through them. Only when I saw the replay did it become apparent that Boyd caught Zouma with his elbow.

The linesman was on the wrong side of Papac to see the contact, so it probably did look like obstruction (which IS a bookable offence in any area of the park at the discretion of the ref).

Me too, i thought he was at it, but clearly when we saw the replay it was an elbow. I think if the ref had seen that, he'd have sent him off. Obstruction can be a booking offence, all over the pitch.

I'm_cabbaged
14-02-2010, 05:08 PM
Me too, i thought he was at it, but clearly when we saw the replay it was an elbow. I think if the ref had seen that, he'd have sent him off. Obstruction can be a booking offence, all over the pitch.

Thing is he never, but the linesman did. One of them bottled it. :agree:

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 05:09 PM
Conroy would have known full well that a 3 point booking or a red card for Boyd would have suspended him for the OF game.* That's why the Huns down there reacted like they did, because they would have thought (at the time) that was him out.

Conroy has taken the advice of the assistant referee and then contrived some utter nonsense to reconcile that advice with not giving a punishment that would suspend Boyd.

* I'm sure it was in at least one of the papers this morning that there were two Rangers players who were a 3 point booking away from being suspended for the OF game.

blackpoolhibs
14-02-2010, 05:09 PM
Thing is he never, but the linesman did. One of them bottled it. :agree:

Who told you that?:confused:

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 05:11 PM
Me too, i thought he was at it, but clearly when we saw the replay it was an elbow. I think if the ref had seen that, he'd have sent him off. Obstruction can be a booking offence, all over the pitch.

On the touchline???

You only ever see a booking for obstruction if it is a foul in the middle of the goal.

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 05:12 PM
Who told you that?:confused:

The linesman must have seen it, as his flag shot up straight away after the incident. He then talked to Conroy before the yellow card was given. The linesman then talked with Zemmama afterwards (**** knows why).

Hibbyradge
14-02-2010, 05:12 PM
watch out...some folk on here thought Conroy was decent....:faf:

He was fine.

Otherwise, why were the hun hoardes giving him such a hard time at half time?

Liam Miller could have been shown a yellow early on for a kick at McCulloch, but he chose to be lenient.

He got away with it again in the second half.

He didn't award a penalty against us in the first half and he booked 2 Rangers players to our 1 in the first half.

If anyone thinks we lost that game because of the referee, then I sincerely hope that they never critisise an opposing manager for being "Graceless and Classless" etc, when they don't give Hibs credit, but blame refereeing decisions instead.

Rangers scored first and were better than us after that.

blackpoolhibs
14-02-2010, 05:13 PM
On the touchline???

You only ever see a booking for obstruction if it is a foul in the middle of the goal.

Yes on the touchline. Obstruction is still obstruction, wherever it is on the pitch. Its up to the ref to decide how severe the punishment is.

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 05:13 PM
He was fine.

Otherwise, why were the hun hoardes giving him such a hard time at half time?

Liam Miller could have been shown a yellow early on for a kick at McCulloch, but he chose to be lenient.

He got away with it again in the second half.

He didn't award a penalty against us in the first half and he booked 2 Rangers players to our 1 in the first half.

If anyone thinks we lost that game because of the referee, then I sincerely hope that they never critisise an opposing manager for being "Graceless and Classless" etyc, when they don't give Hibs credit, but blame refereeing decisions instead.

Rangers scored first and were better than us after that.

Because he booked Boyd and they thought that was him out of the OF game.

I'm_cabbaged
14-02-2010, 05:15 PM
Who told you that?:confused:

Did he he no give the foul until the the linesman told him? :confused:

Jim44
14-02-2010, 05:15 PM
It's not astonishing to me, nor was it deliberate cheating.

The referee didn't see anything at the time. Neither did I, the folk on Radio Scotland, or anyone in the crowd. In fact, I thought Zouma had taken a dive.

It was the "corrupt" linesman who called it a foul and, as a result got Boyd booked.

If you saw it was a clear violent assault at the time, you should give your optician a bonus, cos your eyesight is remarkable. :wink:

At the time, I didn't see Boyd's intentional elbow to the throat, but it could never be seen as simply obstruction. I thought it was a clearcut foul that merited a straightforward full yellow card. I can only agree that it was only on seeing the replay that it was undoubtedly a sending off offence. In fact I think it was so bad, that I would like them to retrospectively change it on video evidence to a 3 point booking at least.

Hibbyradge
14-02-2010, 05:17 PM
Because he booked Boyd and they thought that was him out of the OF game.

I think they booed him for booking Boyd, for not booking Zemamma for diving (twice, they would argue), for not giving them a penalty and for generally being fair to Hibs.

blackpoolhibs
14-02-2010, 05:17 PM
He was fine.

Otherwise, why were the hun hoardes giving him such a hard time at half time?

Liam Miller could have been shown a yellow early on for a kick at McCulloch, but he chose to be lenient.

He got away with it again in the second half.

He didn't award a penalty against us in the first half and he booked 2 Rangers players to our 1 in the first half.

If anyone thinks we lost that game because of the referee, then I sincerely hope that they never critisise an opposing manager for being "Graceless and Classless" etc, when they don't give Hibs credit, but blame refereeing decisions instead.

Rangers scored first and were better than us after that.

Yip pretty much agree with all that. The only decision he got wrong imho was the penalty. I have seen worse, in fact you only have to go back to Wednesday to see someone a lot worse than we had today.

Sylar
14-02-2010, 05:17 PM
You only ever see a booking for obstruction if it is a foul in the middle of the goal.

If you're being serious here, you evidently don't watch much football. You can be booked for breaking up a move via obstruction ANYWHERE on the park. Boyd stopped the development of an attack with a blatant body-check which is indeed a booking. You actually see defenders booked for obstruction quite regularly on the half way line, as teams break against them (see the Stephen McManus School of Defending for a good example of this), and they stand in front of an advancing attacker, blocking them off from advancing on goal. It's the situation rather than the position on the park, and Boyd prevented Zemmama leaving 2 players standing stationary and advancing towards the 18 yard line.

I wasn't aware that you got different points for the circumstances surrounding a yellow card, though I'm also not paranoid enough to honestly believe that Conroy deliberately chose to classify it as a "lesser pointed foul" to prevent Boyd missing the OF.

stantonhibby
14-02-2010, 05:19 PM
It is described on the BBC website match report as a " cheeky elbow to the face " !! First time I have ever heard a deliberate elbowing of an opponent as " cheeky "

Hibbyradge
14-02-2010, 05:20 PM
At the time, I didn't see Boyd's intentional elbow to the throat, but it could never be seen as simply obstruction. I thought it was a clearcut foul that merited a straightforward full yellow card. I can only agree that it was only on seeing the replay that it was undoubtedly a sending off offence. In fact I think it was so bad, that I would like them to retrospectively change it on video evidence to a 3 point booking at least.

I didn't think it was a foul at the time. I thought it was a dive and i thought Zemamma was going to get booked.

fife hfc
14-02-2010, 05:28 PM
We deserved to lose but Thomsons foul on Zemmama in the first half was a definite red card. A yellow if he just fouls him with a low tackle but his foot his so high and dangerous and deserved more.

Boyd's assault was disgusting and more action shoud be taken as it was a definite red card.

Also as said on the match thread it was no penalty imho. I always believed you had to make contact to give away a penalty, bamba can be clearly seen to pull out of the tackle. hard for thr ref to see but still no penalty.

The_Horde
14-02-2010, 05:36 PM
On reflection, you make an interesting point.

Edit: Although see TSSF's post above.

Why then, was Bougherra not booked for a blatant pull of the shirt when he was miles out of position, i thought shirt pulling was an automatic yellow?

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 05:40 PM
If you're being serious here, you evidently don't watch much football. You can be booked for breaking up a move via obstruction ANYWHERE on the park. Boyd stopped the development of an attack with a blatant body-check which is indeed a booking. You actually see defenders booked for obstruction quite regularly on the half way line, as teams break against them (see the Stephen McManus School of Defending for a good example of this), and they stand in front of an advancing attacker, blocking them off from advancing on goal. It's the situation rather than the position on the park, and Boyd prevented Zemmama leaving 2 players standing stationary and advancing towards the 18 yard line.

I wasn't aware that you got different points for the circumstances surrounding a yellow card, though I'm also not paranoid enough to honestly believe that Conroy deliberately chose to classify it as a "lesser pointed foul" to prevent Boyd missing the OF.

Aye, but that clearly wasn't the case with Boyd's foul. What you're talking about is where the defence is caught on the counter attack and the defender uses his body to block the attacking run. The whole Rangers team were behind the ball (hence why Boyd was there in the first place); even if Boyd had allowed him to pass, there was no immediate danger.

Boyd's been angered by the fact that Zemmama has done him with a bit of skill, he's swung his elbow into his face. Should have been off. For that to be described as obstruction is laughable.

blackpoolhibs
14-02-2010, 05:44 PM
Did he he no give the foul until the the linesman told him? :confused:

Do you know what the linesman told him?

I'm_cabbaged
14-02-2010, 05:50 PM
Do you know what the linesman told him?

**** me, he was about 3 yards away from it. So either he bottled it or the ref did, no?

blackpoolhibs
14-02-2010, 05:57 PM
**** me, he was about 3 yards away from it. So either he bottled it or the ref did, no?

Perhaps the linesman said boyd deliberately body checked zemamma, and a yellow card would be in order, although I'm only guessing, much like yourself?

TornadoHibby
14-02-2010, 06:07 PM
At the time, I didn't see Boyd's intentional elbow to the throat, but it could never be seen as simply obstruction. I thought it was a clearcut foul that merited a straightforward full yellow card. I can only agree that it was only on seeing the replay that it was undoubtedly a sending off offence. In fact I think it was so bad, that I would like them to retrospectively change it on video evidence to a 3 point booking at least.

A fair summary of what we saw on tv today IMO! :agree:

Boyd definately was intending to give Zouma a decent smack, presumably to try and indimidate him in same way as he had been doing pretty well, and did so in a most cowardly way! :agree:

It's only a shame that the ref didn't see it from the pitch view as he would clearly have seen the elbow to Zouma's face as clearly as all of us watching on tv did! :grr:

Boyd should have walked for that one IMO! :cool2:

JimBHibees
14-02-2010, 06:08 PM
He was fine.

Otherwise, why were the hun hoardes giving him such a hard time at half time?

Liam Miller could have been shown a yellow early on for a kick at McCulloch, but he chose to be lenient.

He got away with it again in the second half.

He didn't award a penalty against us in the first half and he booked 2 Rangers players to our 1 in the first half.

If anyone thinks we lost that game because of the referee, then I sincerely hope that they never critisise an opposing manager for being "Graceless and Classless" etc, when they don't give Hibs credit, but blame refereeing decisions instead.

Rangers scored first and were better than us after that.

He wasnt fine in any way. He was getting abuse because they were panicking as we were doing well in the first half. No way on earth that the Weir penalty shout was a pen at all. You just needed to see the players leaving the pitch at half time to see what was going on, about 4 Gers players nipping Conroy's ear and the wee scrote Novo nipping the linesmans' ear. How is this acceptable.

Second half Conroy blatantly ignored clear bookings for McCulloch, Whittaker and Bougherra and then gave a penalty when Miller had completely miscontrolled the ball and blatantly dived with him having a near perfect view of it. The fact he didnt book or send off Bamba kind of gave it away that it was a joke decision IMO. The penalty effectively finished the game. Same old spineless gimps.

I'm_cabbaged
14-02-2010, 06:08 PM
Perhaps the linesman said boyd deliberately body checked zemamma, and a yellow card would be in order, although I'm only guessing, much like yourself?

Between the 2 of them one of them must of saw what happened, we were never going to get a desicion anyway. End of.

blackpoolhibs
14-02-2010, 06:10 PM
Between the 2 of them one of them must of saw what happened, we were never going to get a desicion anyway. End of.

Ah so you are guessing now? Perhaps like the rest of us at the time, they too missed the elbow?

JimBHibees
14-02-2010, 06:11 PM
Do you know what the linesman told him?
'Listen my mate Boydy just elbowed that cocky foreign guy, he is only a 3 point booking from missing the bestest game in the world, lets act tough by giving him a yellow but only for obstruction. We can discuss it with Uncle Walter at half time'. :greengrin

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 06:13 PM
He wasnt fine in any way. He was getting abuse because they were panicking as we were doing well in the first half. No way on earth that the Weir penalty shout was a pen at all. You just needed to see the players leaving the pitch at half time to see what was going on, about 4 Gers players nipping Conroy's ear and the wee scrote Novo nipping the linesmans' ear. How is this acceptable.

Second half Conroy blatantly ignored clear bookings for McCulloch, Whittaker and Bougherra and then gave a penalty when Miller had completely miscontrolled the ball and blatantly dived with him having a near perfect view of it. The fact he didnt book or send off Bamba kind of gave it away that it was a joke decision IMO. The penalty effectively finished the game. Same old spineless gimps.

He did book Whittaker, but didn't book Lafferty for a deliberate trip in the right wing area. (that was the one Gow put over a shocking "cross" from the resultant free).

There was a definite sense there that the referee was intimidated after the Boyd / Zemmama incident. He obviously didn't see that himself, but then had to do something due to the linesman's advice. The Huns reacted to that and I think it affected him in the second half.

Up until then he was having a decent game IMO. He booked the players who had deserved it before then (Thomson and Hogg) and turned down a soft penalty appeal from Rangers. I think most of the crowd were appealing for a possible handball against Bamba rather than anything to do with Hogg and Weir.

As you say, the critical decision was the penalty. Rangers were about to take Boyd off (which they did anyway after he scored the penalty) and tighten things up a bit before that was given.

blackpoolhibs
14-02-2010, 06:15 PM
'Listen my mate Boydy just elbowed that cocky foreign guy, he is only a 3 point booking from missing the bestest game in the world, lets act tough by giving him a yellow but only for obstruction. We can discuss it with Uncle Walter at half time'. :greengrin

:tee hee:

JimBHibees
14-02-2010, 06:17 PM
He did book Whittaker, but didn't book Lafferty for a deliberate trip in the right wing area. (that was the one Gow put over a shocking "cross" from the resultant free).

There was a definite sense there that the referee was intimidated after the Boyd / Zemmama incident. He obviously didn't see that himself, but then had to do something due to the linesman's advice. The Huns reacted to that and I think it affected him in the second half.

Up until then he was having a decent game IMO. He booked the players who had deserved it before then (Thomson and Hogg) and turned down a soft penalty appeal from Rangers. I think most of the crowd were appealing for a possible handball against Bamba rather than anything to do with Hogg and Weir.

As you say, the critical decision was the penalty. Rangers were about to take Boyd off (which they did anyway after he scored the penalty) and tighten things up a bit before that was given.

I know he booked Whittaker however that should have been a yellow with him shaking hands with half of the stand enclosure after the goal. Fair enough I dont think it merits a booking but when other players get yellows for the same he should have also.

I'm_cabbaged
14-02-2010, 06:21 PM
Ah so you are guessing now? Perhaps like the rest of us at the time, they too missed the elbow?


Thats no the point though, is it? The linesman was a coulple of yards away and either told the ref porkies or the ref bottled it. IMO.

blackpoolhibs
14-02-2010, 06:25 PM
Thats no the point though, is it? The linesman was a coulple of yards away and either told the ref porkies or the ref bottled it. IMO.

It is the point, you are guessing what he said, so am i. The ref booked him on the linesmans evidence, perhaps the linesman told him he saw a block on zemamma, thats what i thought boyd had done, and it seems everyone else did, until the replay.

lapsedhibee
14-02-2010, 06:26 PM
It is described on the BBC website match report as a " cheeky elbow to the face " !! First time I have ever heard a deliberate elbowing of an opponent as " cheeky "

Changed to "naughty" now. Still a ****i*g disgrace. :bitchy:

I'm_cabbaged
14-02-2010, 06:34 PM
It is the point, you are guessing what he said, so am i. The ref booked him on the linesmans evidence, perhaps the linesman told him he saw a block on zemamma, thats what i thought boyd had done, and it seems everyone else did, until the replay.

Perhaps the linesman told him he did elbow Zouma and bottled it when he heard the booing, who nows? All in all, one of them bottled it.

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 06:39 PM
I know he booked Whittaker however that should have been a yellow with him shaking hands with half of the stand enclosure after the goal. Fair enough I dont think it merits a booking but when other players get yellows for the same he should have also.

I'm not bothered about that really, they need to get that rule rewritten so that it's only incitement of opposing fans that is bookable (eg MacLean the other night) rather than celebrating with your own fans (eg the Montrose player).

I have heard a cynical explanation of the rule, which is that the sponsors aren't happy when the goalscorer's jersey is obscured by the surrounding supporters. Ditto with pulling the shirt off / over the head. Dunno how much truth is in it, wouldn't surprise me though.

:rolleyes:

Big Frank
14-02-2010, 06:58 PM
He wasnt fine in any way. He was getting abuse because they were panicking as we were doing well in the first half. No way on earth that the Weir penalty shout was a pen at all. You just needed to see the players leaving the pitch at half time to see what was going on, about 4 Gers players nipping Conroy's ear and the wee scrote Novo nipping the linesmans' ear. How is this acceptable.

Second half Conroy blatantly ignored clear bookings for McCulloch, Whittaker and Bougherra and then gave a penalty when Miller had completely miscontrolled the ball and blatantly dived with him having a near perfect view of it. The fact he didnt book or send off Bamba kind of gave it away that it was a joke decision IMO. The penalty effectively finished the game. Same old spineless gimps.

:top marks

blackpoolhibs
14-02-2010, 07:08 PM
Perhaps the linesman told him he did elbow Zouma and bottled it when he heard the booing, who nows? All in all, one of them bottled it.

So its a conspiracy, and the ref and linesman cheated.

Cool_Hand_Luke
14-02-2010, 07:43 PM
Did anyone notice if the free-kick given was direct or indirect?
If the booking was for obstruction then would i be right in assuming the free-kick should have been indirect?
Anyone know what was given...never taped it myself and never picked up on it at the time.

Toaods
14-02-2010, 07:53 PM
It is described on the BBC website match report as a " cheeky elbow to the face " !! First time I have ever heard a deliberate elbowing of an opponent as " cheeky "

fingers crossed Loovens give's him a wee cheeky one then, that opens his face wide apart...:cool2:



I know he booked Whittaker however that should have been a yellow with him shaking hands with half of the stand enclosure after the goal. Fair enough I dont think it merits a booking but when other players get yellows for the same he should have also.


:top marks...it's the rules, whether sponsors or fans like it or not. Some grounds it's almost unavaoidable, but Whittaker veered at an almost 90 degree angle to the direction he ran in to score then walked past the warning arm signal from the linesman, onlt to stroll for about 20 yrads along the pitch surround before returnig to the game. If the rules had been applied in a true and fair manner he'd have walked at the Zemmama booking he later received.




It is the point, you are guessing what he said, so am i. The ref booked him on the linesmans evidence, perhaps the linesman told him he saw a block on zemamma, thats what i thought boyd had done, and it seems everyone else did, until the replay.


I lip read and I can confirm the linesman shouted over "watch it Stevie, ban coming up...can ye' no book Papac instead?



I'm not bothered about that really, they need to get that rule rewritten so that it's only incitement of opposing fans that is bookable (eg MacLean the other night) rather than

I don't agree with the rule either...does anyone??

..and I am bothered when Hibs lose out as as yet again an Old Firm player gets off scot-free, whereas non-Old Firm players rarely do.

Green Man
14-02-2010, 08:41 PM
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember hearing a few years back that the obstruction rule had been removed? Just had a quick look at FIFA's laws of the game document, and the word obstruction isn't mentioned anywhere.

PatHead
14-02-2010, 08:45 PM
With regard to Whittaker the biggest problem is the inconsistency with referees. Were Galbraith's actions at Parkhead any more deserving of a booking?-he made straight for the Hibs support. Come the end of the season a booking given to someone, and not another, could result in a suspension at a crucial time of the season.

THAT IS WHY WE ALL GET ANNOYED

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 09:23 PM
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember hearing a few years back that the obstruction rule had been removed? Just had a quick look at FIFA's laws of the game document, and the word obstruction isn't mentioned anywhere.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/DisciplineExplained/DisciplinaryProcedures/07%20Disciplinary%20Procedures%20for%20Players%20M isconduct%20%28Schedule%20of%20Penalty%20Points%29 .pdf

2. CAUTIONABLE OFFENCES Penalty Points
2.1 Unsporting Behaviour
a) Obstruction involving bodily contact 2
b) Deliberately tripping 3
c) Recklessly dangerous play 3
d) Deliberately playing an opponent's leg or legs 3
e) Adopting a threatening and/or aggressive attitude 3
f) Holding or pushing an opponent 3
g) Time Wasting 3
h) Shirt pulling, etc. 3
i) Handling the ball deliberately 2
j) Feigning injury 3
k) Simulation 3
l) Action(s) deemed by the referee to be inflammatory 3
m) All other offences deemed by the referee to be unsporting behaviour 1

Green Man
14-02-2010, 09:28 PM
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/DisciplineExplained/DisciplinaryProcedures/07%20Disciplinary%20Procedures%20for%20Players%20M isconduct%20%28Schedule%20of%20Penalty%20Points%29 .pdf

2. CAUTIONABLE OFFENCES Penalty Points
2.1 Unsporting Behaviour
a) Obstruction involving bodily contact 2
b) Deliberately tripping 3
c) Recklessly dangerous play 3
d) Deliberately playing an opponent's leg or legs 3
e) Adopting a threatening and/or aggressive attitude 3
f) Holding or pushing an opponent 3
g) Time Wasting 3
h) Shirt pulling, etc. 3
i) Handling the ball deliberately 2
j) Feigning injury 3
k) Simulation 3
l) Action(s) deemed by the referee to be inflammatory 3
m) All other offences deemed by the referee to be unsporting behaviour 1

SFA making up their own rules as usual :greengrin

TalkSport mentioned Boyd's booking earlier, they were confused as to why there are different rules in Scotland. It's a good point - when FIFA sets the laws of the game, why are individual associations allowed to make their own rules for things like disciplinary points?

mim
14-02-2010, 09:42 PM
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/DisciplineExplained/DisciplinaryProcedures/07%20Disciplinary%20Procedures%20for%20Players%20M isconduct%20%28Schedule%20of%20Penalty%20Points%29 .pdf

2. CAUTIONABLE OFFENCES Penalty Points
2.1 Unsporting Behaviour
a.1 Obstruction involving bodily contact 2
a.2 Forearm smash to opponents head 2
b) Deliberately tripping 3
c) Recklessly dangerous play 3
d) Deliberately playing an opponent's leg or legs 3
e) Adopting a threatening and/or aggressive attitude 3
f) Holding or pushing an opponent 3
g) Time Wasting 3
h) Shirt pulling, etc. 3
i) Handling the ball deliberately 2
j) Feigning injury 3
k) Simulation 3
l) Action(s) deemed by the referee to be inflammatory 3
m) All other offences deemed by the referee to be unsporting behaviour 1

You missed one, but I've sorted it for you. :wink:

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 09:45 PM
SFA making up their own rules as usual :greengrin

TalkSport mentioned Boyd's booking earlier, they were confused as to why there are different rules in Scotland. It's a good point - when FIFA sets the laws of the game, why are individual associations allowed to make their own rules for things like disciplinary points?

It's their competition, so they can set the rules within the competition as they see fit. The English system is a lot less opaque, it has to be said.

There are at least three of the booking categories (all with three points, funnily enough) that more closely describe what Boyd did than obstruction.

mim
14-02-2010, 09:51 PM
Just a thought.

If the ref had seen the incident and decided on a yellow, rather than a red, Boyd would still have been suspended for the OF match

If the linesman had not brought the ref's attention to it, the incident would have been subject to review and Boyd would have been red carded retrospectively and missed a few games.

So, although the ref didn't see the incident, on the advice of his assistant, he came up with the only possible decision that would keep Boyd in the OF game. A decision that cannot now be reviewed, because the ref. took action at the time.

Pure coincidence, of course.

Crab apple
14-02-2010, 10:12 PM
Both Boyd and McCulloch have considerable previous when it comes to using elbows and leading with knees. Both are also prone to a bit of simulation. Thomson is simply a petulant little p...k. There was also quite a bit of noising up of the ref from Weir and co. That element of nastieness and cuteness (in terms of not getting caught) some might see as one of the necessary ingredients in a succesfull (in Scottish terms anyway) team.

I thought Conroy probaly got the penalty decision right but for whatever reason the officials missed Boyd's deliberate (imho) elbow on Zooma and Thomson's kick to the stomach. If they had seen them then imho both would have merited red cards. Would it have changed the outcome of the game? Possibly.

sadtom
14-02-2010, 10:17 PM
I thought he got all the major decisions right.

Bamba was naive and I would have given a penalty

He also could have given a penalty against us in the first half, but didn't as it was 6 and 2 threes between Weir and Hogg. (Mostly Hogg actually).

Rangers deserved to win over the 90 minutes, but they weren't 3 goals better than us.

Only becasue they pretty much dominated once they had the 2 goal cushion. A valentines gift from the lodge. No contact, ball about 10 yards away.
Until that point the game was very much in the balance with us slightly ahead on points, if not goals, unfortunately.
After it went 2-0 they relaxed and played well.

Again the award of a penalty for 'no contact' is not even being raised as a point of discussion. Yet the spent a couple of minutes and about 5 replays trying to convince themselves and everone else that weir should have had a penaty. When in fact he grabbed Hogg 1st then when Hogg did likewise weir collapsed.
Boyds deliberate elbow on Zizou not even shown or discussed.

Thats why the bias towards the o/f is outrageous.
Not just because the press always support them getting the decisions. Its that they set the agenda and choose which incidents are up for debate.


Remember when Boozy got sent off at ER a few years back for bringing down Boyd? (iirc).
In the studio they discussed whether it was a red or a yellow, they were split in their opinion. Thus presenting the illusion of 'fairness' and objectivity.
The reality was that said hun used his forearm on Boozy's shoulderblade to bundle him to the ground and the result should have been a free kick to Hibs. It wasn't mentioned.

lapsedhibee
14-02-2010, 10:34 PM
Remember when Boozy got sent off at ER a few years back for bringing down Boyd? (iirc).
In the studio they discussed whether it was a red or a yellow, they were split in their opinion. Thus presenting the illusion of 'fairness' and objectivity.
The reality was that said hun used his forearm on Boozy's shoulderblade to bundle him to the ground and the result should have been a free kick to Hibs. It wasn't mentioned.

That red still makes me angry. As you suggest, the situation was crying out for at least one of the commentators/pundits to say "That was never a red card in a million years - if anything, the hun fouled Boozy" - but no such comment emerged. Absolutely shocking (but not at all surprising).

Hibernating (Im a stoopid yam tramp)
14-02-2010, 10:34 PM
Makes you wonder what it would take for an RFC player to see red on a football pitch. I assume it would have to be something bordering on attempted murder.

monktonharp
14-02-2010, 10:35 PM
I thought he was alright, not great but think he got most of the decisions right, even the penalty, watched it a few times and i'm still not sure if there was contact or not so i can appreciate that was a tough decision to make.

We need someone to blame though.the descisions he got wrong,were the crucial ones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Boyd should have walked,you know it,Iknow it,a'body and their dug knows it,but the ref didnae hae the baws. most of the descisions? so it was a defo p-eno?

TornadoHibby
14-02-2010, 10:40 PM
No. He thought he'd been obstructed.

At least that's what you think he thought - presumably!? :cool2:

monktonharp
14-02-2010, 10:43 PM
We deserved to lose but Thomsons foul on Zemmama in the first half was a definite red card. A yellow if he just fouls him with a low tackle but his foot his so high and dangerous and deserved more.

Boyd's assault was disgusting and more action shoud be taken as it was a definite red card.

Also as said on the match thread it was no penalty imho. I always believed you had to make contact to give away a penalty, bamba can be clearly seen to pull out of the tackle. hard for thr ref to see but still no penalty.er, I'M A WEE BIT CONFUSED.................we deserved to lose,although there were one or two crucial descisions in the match,that virtually handed it on a plate to the home team. no matter,that's fitba.at least Ibroxfitba

lobster
14-02-2010, 10:51 PM
Just woke up after post match whiskey-fest.
My considered opinion is that Rangers are fascist neanderthals and they and their reactionary right wing fans have no place in decent society.
Todays match stopped at half-time. Solid performance. :thumbsup:

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 10:56 PM
Makes you wonder what it would take for an RFC player to see red on a football pitch. I assume it would have to be something bordering on attempted murder.

YouTube - Walter Smith - The Thug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7nViAiKWeI)

:agree:

Even with something as blatant as that they weren't content with the decision.

lapsedhibee
14-02-2010, 11:08 PM
Even with something as blatant as that they weren't content with the decision.

It's Novo that I think's the funniest in that vid. He's simply bewildered at the dawning realisation that he, a hun, has been redcarded at hunbrox. :faf:

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 11:15 PM
It's Novo that I think's the funniest in that vid. He's simply bewildered at the dawning realisation that he, a hun, has been redcarded at hunbrox. :faf:

Then looks back twice at Thomson, as if to say "are you sure about that"?

:greengrin

Part/Time Supporter
14-02-2010, 11:25 PM
Zemmama's take on things (http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/2853491/Boyd-belted-me-in-the-face.html)

TonyStokeprano
14-02-2010, 11:44 PM
Just a shame nothing can be done about it! Fat Dirty Vermin B******

Zondervan
15-02-2010, 12:54 AM
He was fine.

Otherwise, why were the hun hoardes giving him such a hard time at half time?

Liam Miller could have been shown a yellow early on for a kick at McCulloch, but he chose to be lenient.

He got away with it again in the second half.

He didn't award a penalty against us in the first half and he booked 2 Rangers players to our 1 in the first half.

If anyone thinks we lost that game because of the referee, then I sincerely hope that they never critisise an opposing manager for being "Graceless and Classless" etc, when they don't give Hibs credit, but blame refereeing decisions instead.

Rangers scored first and were better than us after that.

Woooooooooooh - 2 bookings to 1. Moral victory!!!!! :top marks

Are you and Conroy having sexual relations?

The same ref that booked Bamba for jumping on Hughes when he scored his 1st ever goal for Hibs against Falkirk? Yet Whittaker high-fives Huns behind the goal, and then Judas Miller does the same with Super Ally in the technical area after the 3rd. No bookings.

Or the same ref that gave a goal for Killie when Maka clearly got fouled, yet disallowed one for Celtic against The Huns that was exactly the same.

Isn't it funny he misses a BLATANT elbow in the face by Boyd, similar to the shocking tackle that he deemed to be just a booking in the Old Firm game.

As for the penalty today. Miller is a wee rat who cheated. And CONroy fell for it hook line and sinker. If he has any balls (and you should know 'Ragde), he should state tomorrow that he made an erse of the penalty and also that Boyd's yellow should have been a red.

If not, then you and Steve "Chase Me" Conroy should enjoy yourselves in CC's.

...WentToMowAnSPL
15-02-2010, 02:58 AM
this ... (http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/rangers/kris-boyd-should-have-been-sent-off-says-hibs-midfielder-zemmama-1.1006520?)

I always like it when Benji / Zemmama are interviewed.. they can be honest and much more vocal than the scots.. and we can pretend it's just cause they are foreign and don't realise that this is is supposed to happen when you play the old firm... OMG :grr:

hibsbollah
15-02-2010, 07:06 AM
I couldnt believe it when I saw it again, obstruction?:grr:

The likes of Lee Miller and Boyd just cant handle it when the wee maestro is on fire and have to resort to assault:rolleyes:

Danderhall Hibs
15-02-2010, 08:59 AM
Remember when Boozy got sent off at ER a few years back for bringing down Boyd? (iirc).
In the studio they discussed whether it was a red or a yellow, they were split in their opinion. Thus presenting the illusion of 'fairness' and objectivity.


That red still makes me angry. As you suggest, the situation was crying out for at least one of the commentators/pundits to say "That was never a red card in a million years - if anything, the hun fouled Boozy" - but no such comment emerged. Absolutely shocking (but not at all surprising).

It was never a red but IIRC it wasn't on the telly either so I'm not sure where the memory of the pundits in the studio is coming from?


Woooooooooooh - 2 bookings to 1. Moral victory!!!!! :top marks

Are you and Conroy having sexual relations?

If not, then you and Steve "Chase Me" Conroy should enjoy yourselves in CC's.

have a look at this...

YouTube - Kick Homophobia Out of Football. A film from the FA and Kick It Out. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1270cn0YxSo)

blackpoolhibs
15-02-2010, 09:00 AM
I couldnt believe it when I saw it again, obstruction?:grr:

The likes of Lee Miller and Boyd just cant handle it when the wee maestro is on fire and have to resort to assault:rolleyes:

Me neither, although i think everyone needed 2 takes on the incident to see it. Hence the booking.

lapsedhibee
15-02-2010, 10:09 AM
It was never a red but IIRC it wasn't on the telly either so I'm not sure where the memory of the pundits in the studio is coming from?
"Highlights" (where the BBC picks bits out of a game they've recorded earlier on and show them to the general public, accompanied by a discussion involving ex-OF intellectuals such as Terry Butcher giving their analysis using phrases such as "Bang it's a goal") :wink:

jdships
15-02-2010, 11:20 AM
Normally I am very reluctant to get involved on threads re ref's decisions as I always feel that these incidents usually level themselves out
However having looked at the the video replay which is on the BBC sport site now
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8516118.stm
this ref / ass't ref bottled it - big time

You will see from two angles that when Zouma attempts to step round Boyd he deliberately lifts his elbow and strikes him on the face.
Also as he walks away he looks at the Hibs player ,you can quite clearly read his lips , and calls him a "w....r"

RED CARD without a doubt

:confused:

silverhibee
15-02-2010, 11:31 AM
I thought he got all the major decisions right.

Bamba was naive and I would have given a penalty

He also could have given a penalty against us in the first half, but didn't as it was 6 and 2 threes between Weir and Hogg. (Mostly Hogg actually).

Rangers deserved to win over the 90 minutes, but they weren't 3 goals better than us.

Cannot agree with that, he should have booked Whittaker for going to celabrate with bitc in the main stand,:greengrin, every game i have watched this season when a player leaves the field of play to celabrate a goal in amongst there fans they get booked for it, why not SW.:confused:, when SW did get booked i thought he was off as it would be his second yellow card as i thought the ref had booked him for his celabration.
McCulloch should also have seen a second yellow card as well, i didn't think the referee was that bad, but he bottled the big decisions imo.
And not forgetting he bottled it to send Boyd of as well.

lapsedhibee
15-02-2010, 11:36 AM
Cannot agree with that, he should have booked Whittaker for going to celabrate with bitc in the main stand,:greengrin, every game i have watched this season when a player leaves the field of play to celabrate a goal in amongst there fans they get booked for it, why not SW.:confused:, when SW did get booked i thought he was off as it would be his second yellow card as i thought the ref had booked him for his celabration.
McCulloch should also have seen a second yellow card as well, i didn't think the referee was that bad, but he bottled the big decisions imo.
And not forgetting he bottled it to send Boyd of as well.

I too would like to have seen three huns sent off in the same match at Hunbrox. I wonder if that's ever happened in a whole season, never mind one game.

silverhibee
15-02-2010, 11:39 AM
Becasue no-one knew he had been elbowed.

Neither would we have if it hadn't been shown in slow motion on the telly.

Sorry again, but straight away i said Boyd has to be red carded for using his elbow on Zemmama, and i was sitting at the back row of our support.
Its all these carrots eye eat, so my mum tells me.:greengrin

brythehibby
15-02-2010, 12:57 PM
Just seen it properly. Didnt see it at the game. Referee cant see it, linesman sees it clear as day and flags right away. Linesman should have told the ref it was a red and bottled it. This decision WOULD have affected the outcome of the game IMO and having seen it again feel very angry about the decision.

Riordans Boots
15-02-2010, 01:03 PM
Sorry again, but straight away i said Boyd has to be red carded for using his elbow on Zemmama, and i was sitting at the back row of our support.
Its all these carrots eye eat, so my mum tells me.:greengrin


Just seen it properly. Didnt see it at the game. Referee cant see it, linesman sees it clear as day and flags right away. Linesman should have told the ref it was a red and bottled it. This decision WOULD have affected the outcome of the game IMO and having seen it again feel very angry about the decision.

Red card definately :grr: Cheatin fat bassa :grr:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/hibernian/8515916.stm

brythehibby
15-02-2010, 01:11 PM
Red card definately :grr: Cheatin fat bassa :grr:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/hibernian/8515916.stm

Thats what i seen it on. Cant believe a booking was given for obstruction. You can see the linesman in that video is looking right at boyd as he does it.

I've no complaints about getting beat but that changes the game if he is sent off at 0-0 right before half time!! :grr:

Sir David Gray
15-02-2010, 01:18 PM
Just seen it on the BBC link as I couldn't really see what happened at the game.

Definite red card and that could have had a massive effect on the rest of the game.

Hardly surprising though that he escaped with a booking. :bitchy:

euro Hibby
15-02-2010, 01:26 PM
If he had been off no lafferty second half and we would have probably won the game. We have seen it all before !

Part/Time Supporter
15-02-2010, 01:35 PM
Celtc fan has Sky plussed the footage after the incident (http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=9194291&t=8245902)


No raised arm [to signal an indirect free kick] and why would rangers have a wall for an indirect free kick?

Conroy made that **** up after the fact.

CapitalHibs
15-02-2010, 01:44 PM
Overwhelming evidence of outright cheating and/or total incompetence. Will anything be done about it?????

Not bloody likely:grr:


Total joke.

lapsedhibee
15-02-2010, 01:46 PM
Celtc fan has Sky plussed the footage after the incident (http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=9194291&t=8245902)


:faf: Gotta love it when the petty corruption in Scottish fitba is laid bare for all to see.

TonyStokeprano
15-02-2010, 01:50 PM
Just read in the paper that rangers were denied a stonewall penalty. weir and hogg both had their hands on each other, there wasnt a foul either way. The rag doesnt mention that Boyd shood have definitely recieved a red card.

hibsbollah
15-02-2010, 04:45 PM
Me neither, although i think everyone needed 2 takes on the incident to see it. Hence the booking.

My major gripe is with Boyd for the assault, not for the ref for missing it. It was a sly, cowardly attack that could easily have popped his cheekbone out, but TBF to Conroy it wasnt easy to spot as it happened so fast. More evidence, as if it were needed, that Boyd is a total ****. In the context of the game it probably happened because Z was skinning them on the right.

Part/Time Supporter
15-02-2010, 05:00 PM
My major gripe is with Boyd for the assault, not for the ref for missing it. It was a sly, cowardly attack that could easily have popped his cheekbone out, but TBF to Conroy it wasnt easy to spot as it happened so fast. More evidence, as if it were needed, that Boyd is a total ****. In the context of the game it probably happened because Z was skinning them on the right.

A similar thing happened in a St. Johnstone v Rangers game earlier in the season. Collin Samuel had been ripping the pish out of their slow central defence (Bougherra had gone AWOL after playing for Algeria) and scored the opening goal. Early in the second half and with Saints on top, McCulloch committed an assault on Samuel similar to (arguably worse than) Boyd's.

Referee booked McCulloch and there was no further comment.

:confused:

h185forever
15-02-2010, 05:14 PM
aren't there precedents for video evidence being used to catch such cowardly attacks ?..........or does that only work in the old firm's favour thses days ?

:dunno:

Big Frank
15-02-2010, 05:18 PM
A similar thing happened in a St. Johnstone v Rangers game earlier in the season. Collin Samuel had been ripping the pish out of their slow central defence (Bougherra had gone AWOL after playing for Algeria) and scored the opening goal. Early in the second half and with Saints on top, McCulloch committed an assault on Samuel similar to (arguably worse than) Boyd's.

Referee booked McCulloch and there was no further comment.

:confused:

:top marks:agree:

James70
15-02-2010, 05:21 PM
I am just amazed that they didn't highlight the incident more in the after match coverage on Sky. When McGeady was sent off at ER there were replays of the incident from all angles trying to prove he didn't dive, we also had several replays of the "penalty" incident with Hogg and Weir trying to prove that Rangers were denied a stonewall penalty. However a blatant violent assault is brushed under the carpet as obstruction when even Stevie Wonder could have seen the intent and the deliberate movement of Boyd's elbow. We are very lucky that Zemmamma wasn't seriously injured. Boyd really is a despicable individual of the highest order.

lapsedhibee
15-02-2010, 05:25 PM
Is it more correct to say "Fat Hun Thug" or "Fat Thug Hun"? I suppose Hun is more commonly used as an adjective than Thug is, but I nevertheless slightly prefer Fat Thug Hun.

Bayern Bru
15-02-2010, 05:33 PM
SFA making up their own rules as usual :greengrin

TalkSport mentioned Boyd's booking earlier, they were confused as to why there are different rules in Scotland. It's a good point - when FIFA sets the laws of the game, why are individual associations allowed to make their own rules for things like disciplinary points?

So that Rangers and Celtc get an easy ride?
:wink:

hibsbollah
15-02-2010, 06:26 PM
A similar thing happened in a St. Johnstone v Rangers game earlier in the season. Collin Samuel had been ripping the pish out of their slow central defence (Bougherra had gone AWOL after playing for Algeria) and scored the opening goal. Early in the second half and with Saints on top, McCulloch committed an assault on Samuel similar to (arguably worse than) Boyd's.

Referee booked McCulloch and there was no further comment.

:confused:


...which suggests the orders are probably coming from Uncle Walter:rolleyes:

blackpoolhibs
15-02-2010, 07:16 PM
My major gripe is with Boyd for the assault, not for the ref for missing it. It was a sly, cowardly attack that could easily have popped his cheekbone out, but TBF to Conroy it wasnt easy to spot as it happened so fast. More evidence, as if it were needed, that Boyd is a total ****. In the context of the game it probably happened because Z was skinning them on the right.

:agree: It was difficult to see the incident first time, but when seeing it again, it was clear boyd did it on purpose. A twat of a man, i'd never tire of smacking his face with a baseball bat.

EasterRoad4Ever
15-02-2010, 07:42 PM
Boyd should have been straight red. At 0-0 would haver been a key decision. Previous week, Well are denied a perfectly fine goal at 1-0 which would have put the game beyond the Huns.

As they say, "these things all even out in the end" Translated means, that Celtic will be given 2 equally shocking decisions in their favour against some other SPL fodder to make sure none of the officials receive death threats from the OF luvin media :bitchy:

PatHead
15-02-2010, 08:29 PM
Can anyone tell me why the linesman gives Zemamma gets a lecture after the incident? Did he hurt McCulloch#s elbow or something?

Moody Mulder
15-02-2010, 08:42 PM
a dirty sleekit offence by a dirty sleekit human being !!

degenerated
15-02-2010, 08:47 PM
Celtc fan has Sky plussed the footage after the incident (http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=9194291&t=8245902)



Conroy made that **** up after the fact.

never noticed that at the time, but i'd like to hear conroy talk his way out of that one.

as an aside how paranoid would you have to be to be taping your rivals games on the off chance something contentious happens, i wouldn't look out my back window if the sparryheids were playing in my back garden never mind record the ****in thing :confused:

Barney McGrew
15-02-2010, 09:02 PM
as an aside how paranoid would you have to be to be taping your rivals games on the off chance something contentious happens

At least we now know what Jack Reagan's username on Kerrydale Street is :whistle:

:greengrin

Sylar
15-02-2010, 09:13 PM
Even having seen the initial slow motion replay during the game, I didn't think there was anything malicious in it, and that he had just obstructed Zemmama. Having watched the BBC video, I've well and truly changed my tune. Absolutely farcical officiating.

5hit, here's, a, hoping, next, is, Conroy's, a hedgehog - rearrange to suit.

Filthy mason.

grunt
15-02-2010, 09:19 PM
as an aside how paranoid would you have to be to be taping your rivals games on the off chance something contentious happens

You'd have to be this paranoid: http://itcantbeparanoia.blogspot.com/ (http://itcantbeparanoia.blogspot.com/)

Sylar
15-02-2010, 09:22 PM
You'd have to be this paranoid: http://itcantbeparanoia.blogspot.com/ (http://itcantbeparanoia.blogspot.com/)

Christ, can you imagine if we were to keep tally of all the ludicrous decisions granted to the OF and "missed" to their opponents?

"Brass neck" comes to mind!

grunt
15-02-2010, 09:31 PM
I have to say the guy has done a pretty thorough job - he's got the BBC footage, his own taped footage of the resultant free kick showing it wasn't indirect (which it should have been if the offence was obstruction(?)), plus he's got a still showing the referee's unobstructed view. To cap it all he's got my personal favourite, the BBC match review where they describe it as a "cheeky elbow".

All he's missing is the Evening Times reporter who says that Conroy allowed himself to be duped by Zouma's "play acting".

Grrrr.

NAE NOOKIE
15-02-2010, 10:23 PM
1 ) McCulloch playacting trying to get Miller booked / sent off
2 ) Boyd, elbow on Zuma should have been red
3 ) Soft penalty as a result of no or if you want to be kind minimal contact

Perhaps the ref did call these as he saw them. Whats more to the point is how pathetic is it that a club who have spent many millions more on their team than us have to resort to this in order to get a result.

Thats the Gers for you though, nae class off the pitch and clearly even less on it.

:bitchy:

IberianHibernian
15-02-2010, 11:06 PM
Is one of the problems not that many fans ( including our own ) , members of press and refs tend to think that if Benji or Zemmama fall they`re diving ? If victim of Boyd assault had been a Scottish player there might have been more of a reaction at time instead of a day after .

Part/Time Supporter
16-02-2010, 08:06 AM
Is one of the problems not that many fans ( including our own ) , members of press and refs tend to think that if Benji or Zemmama fall they`re diving ? If victim of Boyd assault had been a Scottish player there might have been more of a reaction at time instead of a day after .

Probably true, there still is that instinct that foreigner = cheat.

Dare I say it, the Jumbo's foreign contingent under Romanov have suffered under the same perception at times. Once or twice they deserved it, but if you look at (for example) Mikoliunas' (http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=38755) disciplinary record against Rangers, it was unbelievable for a forward player (sent off 3 times in about 15 matches). Two of the Lithuanians were also sent off in derbies at Easter Road during the same period.

Even in England they're slowly starting to notice that Gerrard likes a dive now and again, but up here there still seems to be this reactionary thing going on. **** knows why, there's been enough Scottish divers going around the place as long as I've been watching football.

ancient hibee
16-02-2010, 12:54 PM
The trouble was that Zemamma hasn't been to any of Lafferty's acting classes.

Tyler Durden
16-02-2010, 01:10 PM
I take it all the people on the first few pages who were defending Conroy have now revised their opinions as it's quite clear he has an unobstructed view of the assault?

If Conroy and the linesman are not corrupt cheats, they are clearly incompetent. Never mind though, Im sure the referees inspector at the game was probably Willie Young or someone of a similar ilk who thought Conroy did well.

I don't know why I'm still surprised/outraged at these decisions as nothing ever changes.

brydekirk
17-02-2010, 06:56 AM
rangers will use any trick in the book and more to win. a team full of dummy spittin, whinging, cheating thugs. even the subs came of the bench to complain to the ref on sunday. should walter be held responsible ?

Hibbyradge
17-02-2010, 07:26 AM
They tricked everyone by scoring three goals and by playing better than Hibs.

hibsbollah
17-02-2010, 08:36 AM
They tricked everyone by scoring three goals and by playing better than Hibs.

:hijack:

down the slope
17-02-2010, 08:45 AM
Decisions like Sundays always backfire on the OF, because they get dodgy decisions in the SPL they then expect the same when they play in Europe and they are so shocked that refs are not swayed by who they are. Come September there will be payback time in the form of the CL.

sam armstrong
17-02-2010, 01:48 PM
I thought he got all the major decisions right.

Bamba was naive and I would have given a penalty

He also could have given a penalty against us in the first half, but didn't as it was 6 and 2 threes between Weir and Hogg. (Mostly Hogg actually).

Rangers deserved to win over the 90 minutes, but they weren't 3 goals better than us.

nearly them all, if he had seen what boyd actually did he would have been off. penalty was soft but understandable. decent ref though.

--------
17-02-2010, 02:06 PM
The trouble was that Zemamma hasn't been to any of Lafferty's acting classes.



Trouble was Zouma wasn't wearing a royal blue shirt. If he had been, and the offender had been one of our players, it'd have been a red card OK. No question.

As PTS says, there's an assumption that foreigner = cheat in the Scottish game, which is worse if the player has a dark skin or a 'funny' name. Zouma has both.

The only exceptions are those players who play for Rangers or Celtic. I recollect Bobo Balde putting Scott Brown 6 feet in the air at ER. The referee sent him off, but the immediate comment from Rob Maclean (for he it was at the microphone) was. "Well, Brown rather invited that challenge."

Now if Sol the Bam ever does that to McGeady.... :rolleyes:

lapsedhibee
17-02-2010, 02:10 PM
The only exceptions are those players who play for Rangers or Celtic.

Even after aw the years of watching the OFGTF get away with murder, I still find it utterly bizarre to be reading and hearing from the BBC that what The Fat Hun did on Sunday was "cheeky" or "naughty". Corruption's not too strong a word for this relentless pish.

hibsbollah
17-02-2010, 02:40 PM
Even after aw the years of watching the OFGTF get away with murder, I still find it utterly bizarre to be reading and hearing from the BBC that what The Fat Hun did on Sunday was "cheeky" or "naughty". Corruption's not too strong a word for this relentless pish.

:top marksNo matter how commonplace it is, sometimes I just wonder if the world is the right way up when you read stuff like that. Sometimes I think, 'maybe its just me and ive missed something'. If Zemmama had done it, there would be lots of outrage and a lot of xenophobic subtext.

Booked4Being-Ugly
17-02-2010, 02:58 PM
Interesting that all the referees gaffs that have involved Rangers matches this season have been in the Huns favor, never against. If you take the 'mistakes' out of the equation Celtic should be on something like 52pts and the Huns on 53pts!

The_Todd
17-02-2010, 06:05 PM
Interesting comments by Chick Young this week:


Our officials have been making a fish supper of it again recently. And in a curious coincidence the bonus ball has been bouncing the way of the team now nursing that 10-point lead.



Linesman John Gilmour looked like Clarence the cross-eyed lion when he decided that Motherwell's would-be winning goal at Fir Park against Walter Smith's side was offside.



And then at Ibrox on Sunday Rangers were awarded a penalty for a ghost tackle by Sol Bamba on Kenny Miller, for which there was a case for no penalty and a yellow card for the Rangers striker for synchronised diving.
And come here, there's more. Kris Boyd was yellow carded for obstruction and not violent conduct; keeping his penalty points below the threshold that would see him banned for the next Old Firm game.



Merouane Zemmama, I have to say, wouldn't be my first choice for a colleague in the trenches but there was contact, although in the eyes of the voices of reason in the Ibrox support in what used to be the main enclosure, it was a vicious attack on Boyd's elbow by the Hibs winger's face.



Should Boyd have seen red?



It was many things, but it sure wasn't obstruction, the verdict arrived at by referee Steve Conroy and assistant Martin Cryans.

Kaiser1962
17-02-2010, 06:29 PM
My major gripe is with Boyd for the assault, not for the ref for missing it. It was a sly, cowardly attack that could easily have popped his cheekbone out, but TBF to Conroy it wasnt easy to spot as it happened so fast. More evidence, as if it were needed, that Boyd is a total ****. In the context of the game it probably happened because Z was skinning them on the right.

This - with bells on! Boyd is a total ****bag and that was a very cheap shot at Zemmama.