PDA

View Full Version : Never a effing penalty



Ants
15-02-2010, 12:37 AM
Kenny Millar was already falling before the Bamba tackle....
Anyone with SKY+/HD slow it down and watch......

Never a penalty......

This is definetly time for TV evidence to be resurrected.

How long can these 2nd rate city low lives get away with this????

My friends from the west side of the city were absolutely gobsmacked at this decision... ENOUGH SAID.

Lets get rid of these cheating West of Scotland ****s... both of them...

Introduce the state of the art TV cameras, time out exclusions (if needed), or even the famous "we shall not be cheated by the brother from the lodge" dodgy decision brigade, might have been evident today....
By the way, Ive now calmed down alot......

Liam89
15-02-2010, 12:40 AM
agreed, what will it take for them to bring it in? A vital decision on the world cup final? :grr::grr:

FastEddieFelson
15-02-2010, 12:41 AM
kenny miller diving for the penalty, boyd intentionally elbowing zouma and only getting booked, and mculloch's reaction after he jumped in to liam miller, will all be brushed under the carpet.

nothing to see here boys.

utterly disgusting.

Gatecrasher
15-02-2010, 12:41 AM
Kenny Millar was already falling before the Bamba tackle....
Anyone with SKY+/HD slow it down and watch......

Never a penalty......

This is definetly time for TV evidence to be resurrected.

How long can these 2nd rate city low lives get away with this????

My friends from the west side of the city were absolutely gobsmacked at this decision... ENOUGH SAID.

Lets get rid of these cheating West of Scotland ****s... both of them...

Introduce the state of the art TV cameras, time out exclusions (if needed), or even the famous "we shall not be cheated by the brother from the lodge" dodgy decision brigade, might have been evident today....
By the way, Ive now calmed down alot......


TBF to the ref it did LOOK like a penalty in real time, it wasnt untill i saw the replay i saw it wasnt.

i was on the fence regarding TV evidence but the France v Ireland game swung it for me, its making a mockery of the game now :agree:

J-C
15-02-2010, 12:51 AM
Miller played the ref right, overhit the ball and with Bamba sticking out his leg, it was perfect for him to run into Bamba and get a penalty. The ref was blatantly biased towards Rangers all game, Boyd with an elbow to Zouma, Katy,McCulloch,Papac and Bougera all fouling when a player was straight through, not enough yellows.

Ants
15-02-2010, 12:54 AM
TBF to the ref it did LOOK like a penalty in real time, it wasnt untill i saw the replay i saw it wasnt.

i was on the fence regarding TV evidence but the France v Ireland game swung it for me, its making a mockery of the game now :agree:

Wot are they cheating barstewards as well ?

Hibernating (Im a stoopid yam tramp)
15-02-2010, 01:00 AM
Miller has done that trademark dive many times in royal blue and got his penalty award. It does leave a very bad taste in the mouth, but that's Scottish football and it will never change.

Banter
15-02-2010, 02:09 AM
:tin hat:

Soft but I reckon it was a penalty, more so than for example zanders hand ball on wednesday.

Also refs stopping games to run to the touchline to rewind their sky tv plasma HDD players might get a bit tedious?

BoltonHibee
15-02-2010, 07:11 AM
:tin hat:

Soft but I reckon it was a penalty, more so than for example zanders hand ball on wednesday.

Also refs stopping games to run to the touchline to rewind their sky tv plasma HDD players might get a bit tedious?

Did Bamba actually touch him?:confused:

berwickhibee
15-02-2010, 07:16 AM
Did Bamba actually touch him?:confused:

exactly,bamba never touched him.

miller kicked his leg out to try and fall over bamba:grr:

the amount of decisions the huns have had this season is breathtaking:bitchy:

MoantheCabbage
15-02-2010, 08:24 AM
Tio be honest I thought the ref didnt have too bad a game, ive seen far worse than that this year.

It was never a penalty in a million years though, Neil McCann said that Bamba didnt catch miller he obstructed him WTF????????

Rangers were cute in the tackle and made challenges in areas where the danger could be contained, Professional fouls.

3 nil flatterd them and they will know that. Im all for tv evidence to come into play and I also feel that refs in Scotland should now be made to turn professional so they can be held accountable like our English neighbours.

Hibbyradge
15-02-2010, 08:28 AM
Miller played the ref right, overhit the ball and with Bamba sticking out his leg, it was perfect for him to run into Bamba and get a penalty. The ref was blatantly biased towards Rangers all game, Boyd with an elbow to Zouma, Katy,McCulloch,Papac and Bougera all fouling when a player was straight through, not enough yellows.

Apart from when he didn't give them a penalty in the first half and when he didn't book Liam Miller for kicking McCulloch off the ball, right in front of the ref and then didn't book him for kicking someone else in the second half off the ball.

Mister P
15-02-2010, 08:42 AM
Boyd with an elbow to Zouma, .
bad news folks. boyd wasnt booked for the elbow, it was apparently obstruction, meaning that yellow gave him 2 disciplinary points rather than 3 for violent conduct. this means he can still be available to face celtic!!!!THE REF BOTTLED IT. its these more subtle bits of biase from refs that are worse, not the blatant displays of incompetency.

H18sry
15-02-2010, 08:45 AM
Tio be honest I thought the ref didnt have too bad a game, ive seen far worse than that this year.

It was never a penalty in a million years though, Neil McCann said that Bamba didnt catch miller he obstructed him WTF????????Rangers were cute in the tackle and made challenges in areas where the danger could be contained, Professional fouls.

3 nil flatterd them and they will know that. Im all for tv evidence to come into play and I also feel that refs in Scotland should now be made to turn professional so they can be held accountable like our English neighbours.

Obstruction is an in-direct free kick, Never a penalty but I cannot agree that the ref was biased, Boyd's elbow on Zouma was not seen by either of the officials and the foul was given for obstruction. As for the McCulloch and Miller incident the ref stopped play to stop the incident escalating.

Danderhall Hibs
15-02-2010, 09:21 AM
bad news folks. boyd wasnt booked for the elbow, it was apparently obstruction, meaning that yellow gave him 2 disciplinary points rather than 3 for violent conduct. this means he can still be available to face celtic!!!!THE REF BOTTLED IT. its these more subtle bits of biase from refs that are worse, not the blatant displays of incompetency.

If we want to catch Celtic isnít it good news that Boyd wonít miss the OF game?

Gatecrasher
15-02-2010, 09:33 AM
Wot are they cheating barstewards as well ?

Well Henry is

Hibbyradge
15-02-2010, 09:35 AM
bad news folks. boyd wasnt booked for the elbow, it was apparently obstruction, meaning that yellow gave him 2 disciplinary points rather than 3 for violent conduct. this means he can still be available to face celtic!!!!THE REF BOTTLED IT. its these more subtle bits of biase from refs that are worse, not the blatant displays of incompetency.

I couldn't care less about who is in the Rangers team to face Celtic.

However, as DH says, isn't that good news for Hibs?

jdships
15-02-2010, 09:52 AM
Miller has done that trademark dive many times in royal blue and got his penalty award. It does leave a very bad taste in the mouth, but that's Scottish football and it will never change.


This sort of incident has become the "acceptable face of sport" right across every sport that is played
You see " attempts to gain an unfair advantage" in tennis ,cricket, rugby (union & league) et al
"In it for the main chance come what may " comes to mind
:rolleyes: :confused:

Mister P
15-02-2010, 09:53 AM
If we want to catch Celtic isnít it good news that Boyd wonít miss the OF game?

yes....but its still bias/cheating/bottle merchant from the ref. boyd clearly elbowed zuma in the puss, no one could deny that.

J-C
15-02-2010, 10:18 AM
Apart from when he didn't give them a penalty in the first half and when he didn't book Liam Miller for kicking McCulloch off the ball, right in front of the ref and then didn't book him for kicking someone else in the second half off the ball.


What about the umpteen fouls by McCulloch, Thonson etc that should've seen either of them get a second yellow and off the park.

Or maybe the fact that Boyd deliberately elbowed Zouma in the face and bottled it by only yellow carding him for obstruction in stead of serious foul play.

Oh aye the so called penalty for them when Weir was grappling with Hogg and both of them fall over together at the same time, have a wee look at it again and get back to me on that one.

Miller didn't really have a hugely blatant kick at McCulloch, more of a slight graze on the back of his leg when their legs were tangled but then again maybe you missed that one as well eh!

fiolex1
15-02-2010, 10:19 AM
I just hate the Weedgie cheating **** they call RFC, if it's no going their way have the Ref bottle it, and then cheat, what a great institution RFC is.:grr:

emmjayfox
15-02-2010, 10:29 AM
Im pretty sure Celtic will be glad Boyd IS playing against them.His scoring record against them is poor.

paxtonhibby
15-02-2010, 10:44 AM
Did anyone see the grin on the assistant refs pus after boyds penalty?Even if he had seen the elbow on Zouma therse no way it would be highlighted.
Has something got to be done involving o/f supporting officials,or am I getting a bout of cellicparanoia:dunno:

MB62
15-02-2010, 10:54 AM
:tin hat:

Soft but I reckon it was a penalty, more so than for example zanders hand ball on wednesday.

Also refs stopping games to run to the touchline to rewind their sky tv plasma HDD players might get a bit tedious?

Refs would not be required to run to the touchline to rewind for t.v. replays.
We simply have a 4th or 5th official sitting in the stand viewing games on the monitor. They can easily contact the ref through their microphones which all SPL refs now have.

It wouldn't even slow play down that much as replays are pretty instant and can usually be reviewed BEFORE the game has restarted, as in the case of Boyd's elbow on Zouma.

Get T.V. evidence in to action now

jdships
15-02-2010, 11:01 AM
Miller has done that trademark dive many times in royal blue and got his penalty award. It does leave a very bad taste in the mouth, but that's Scottish football and it will never change.


This sort of incident has become the "acceptable face of sport" right across every sport that is played
You see " gaining an unfair advantage" in tennis ,cricket, rugby (union & league) et al
"In it for the main chance come what may " comes to mind
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

HuddsHibs
15-02-2010, 11:09 AM
What would we all have to talk about on a monday if TV evidence was used? In general, I like the controversy it generates, gets the passion going, raises the atmosphere for subsequent games etc.

I'm for anything that keeps up the pretence that football is still just a game and not big business. Making the game more exact and flawless would rip more soul out of it in my opinion - and in the long run the big teams would benefit most. It's the wee unexpected things that give smaller teams a chance in any given match.

Of course, in Scotland with it's glasgow bias, maybe it would make refs stop and think about the decisions they are giving. But I doubt it.

BoltonHibee
15-02-2010, 11:14 AM
I thought that the ref was one of the best we have had at an OF ground. There is no way he could be accused of siding with them as far as the decisions go. The penalty was not a penalty, and is more a case of Miller conning the ref. Whn you watch it at speed you could see why he gave it, obviously slowed down and viewed from other angles its not a penalty.

Hogg fouled Weir in the Box and the referee let it go, I am sure in seasons past that would have resulted in a Rangers spot kick.

The difference between the sides today was a whittaker goal, a cheating Miller dive and a slip by Mcbride that has resulted in an injury.

The ref was OK today in my book.

Booked4Being-Ugly
15-02-2010, 11:15 AM
It's just selective vision from the officials - they definitely all saw it was a penalty, no 2 ways about it, clear as crystal, but as for the elbow on Zuma:3wise smi:whistle:

EH6 Hibby
15-02-2010, 11:16 AM
Obstruction is an in-direct free kick, Never a penalty but I cannot agree that the ref was biased, Boyd's elbow on Zouma was not seen by either of the officials and the foul was given for obstruction. As for the McCulloch and Miller incident the ref stopped play to stop the incident escalating.

I'm not so sure, I think Zemmama would have been booked for simulation if neither the ref or the fourth official saw what actually happened. He was holding his face, so if the officials thought it was only obstruction, then Zemmama should have been booked.

J-C
15-02-2010, 11:19 AM
:tin hat:

Soft but I reckon it was a penalty, more so than for example zanders hand ball on wednesday.

Also refs stopping games to run to the touchline to rewind their sky tv plasma HDD players might get a bit tedious?[/QUOTE]

Refs would not be required to run to the touchline to rewind for t.v. replays.
We simply have a 4th or 5th official sitting in the stand viewing games on the monitor. They can easily contact the ref through their microphones which all SPL refs now have.

It wouldn't even slow play down that much as replays are pretty instant and can usually be reviewed BEFORE the game has restarted, as in the case of Boyd's elbow on Zouma.

Get T.V. evidence in to action now


Perfect example of 4th ref using video was in the Scotland/Wales game when Matt Evans scored. The ref wasn't sure if Evans ws onside or not and also wanted to make sure he was in bounds when he touched down, it took all of 30 seconds for the 4th ref to state inhis ear that it was a good try.

It would've taken a 4th ref 10 seconds to see that Boyd deliberately elbowed Zouma and another 30 seconds to see Miller dive, lets get it in now and stop all the controversy.

BoltonHibee
15-02-2010, 11:21 AM
[QUOTE=MB62;2353967]


Perfect example of 4th ref using video was in the Scotland/Wales game when Matt Evans scored. The ref wasn't sure if Evans ws onside or not and also wanted to make sure he was in bounds when he touched down, it took all of 30 seconds for the 4th ref to state inhis ear that it was a good try.

It would've taken a 4th ref 10 seconds to see that Boyd deliberately elbowed Zouma and another 30 seconds to see Miller dive, lets get it in now and stop all the controversy.

:agree:

The amount of time it would have taken the 4th official to look at the incident would have been less than the actual time the game was stopped for anyway...

ancient hibee
15-02-2010, 11:28 AM
It's just selective vision from the officials - they definitely all saw it was a penalty, no 2 ways about it, clear as crystal, but as for the elbow on Zuma:3wise smi:whistle:
Quite a few selective views on here too.The referee didn't cost us the game -we did by not getting enough attempts on target.It's much easier to use TV evidence in rugby because the game has been stopped .With a penalty incident in football the game is continuing-the idea that 30 seconds later the ref can be told that there should be a penalty is daft.

lapsedhibee
15-02-2010, 11:33 AM
Quite a few selective views on here too.The referee didn't cost us the game -we did by not getting enough attempts on target.It's much easier to use TV evidence in rugby because the game has been stopped .With a penalty incident in football the game is continuing-the idea that 30 seconds later the ref can be told that there should be a penalty is daft.

:confused: In this case, the game was stopped. Before the Fat Thug Hun took the kick, video ref could have confirmed the award, or advised ref to book Miller and free kick to Hibs.

J-C
15-02-2010, 11:34 AM
Quite a few selective views on here too.The referee didn't cost us the game -we did by not getting enough attempts on target.It's much easier to use TV evidence in rugby because the game has been stopped .With a penalty incident in football the game is continuing-the idea that 30 seconds later the ref can be told that there should be a penalty is daft.

Not so, it takes around 2-3 mins to take a penalty, and only 30-45 seconds to look at evidence. What would you rather have, penalties and decisions going against you or wait a few seconds and get the right decision.

How many seconds and minutes are wasted by players taking ages with corners, throw ins and free kicks, does the ref add on every second that is wasted or is it just rounded up and an approximate is added at the end. Just check the stats, the game in meant to be played over 90 mins but the ball is generally only in play around 50-60 mins.

ancient hibee
15-02-2010, 11:35 AM
:confused: In this case, the game was stopped. Before the Fat Thug Hun took the kick, video ref could have confirmed the award, or advised ref to book Miller and free kick to Hibs.
I'm not talking about this case-what about when the game is continuing-you can't have one procedure for when the ref gives a penalty and a different one for when he doesn't.

J-C
15-02-2010, 11:38 AM
I'm not talking about this case-what about when the game is continuing-you can't have one procedure for when the ref gives a penalty and a different one for when he doesn't.

Video evidence would only be used for controversial decisions such as penalties, serious foul play and offside decisions where a goal is scored.

ancient hibee
15-02-2010, 11:39 AM
Not so, it takes around 2-3 mins to take a penalty, and only 30-45 seconds to look at evidence. What would you rather have, penalties and decisions going against you or wait a few seconds and get the right decision.

How many seconds and minutes are wasted by players taking ages with corners, throw ins and free kicks, does the ref add on every second that is wasted or is it just rounded up and an approximate is added at the end. Just check the stats, the game in meant to be played over 90 mins but the ball is generally only in play around 50-60 mins.
Once again I'll try and explain-if no penalty is given you can't stop a game therefore the game continues therefore there is a passage of play then the referee gets told by the way it should be a penalty=it would be shambolic.In rugby video evidence is only used to see if a try has been scored.The game has stopped and will be restarted either by a conversion attempt or a drop out.

lapsedhibee
15-02-2010, 11:42 AM
what about when the game is continuing-you can't have one procedure for when the ref gives a penalty and a different one for when he doesn't.

Why not? :confused: Blowing the whistle to stop play, and not blowing the whistle to allow play to continue, are different actions - why shouldn't there be different consequences? :dunno:

This conflict already exists in the "advantage" rule - the ref has to decide whether to blow and stop the game, or not blow and allow the game to continue.

ancient hibee
15-02-2010, 11:50 AM
Why not? :confused: Blowing the whistle to stop play, and not blowing the whistle to allow play to continue, are different actions - why shouldn't there be different consequences? :dunno:

This conflict already exists in the "advantage" rule - the ref has to decide whether to blow and stop the game, or not blow and allow the game to continue.
There are different consequences in blowing or not blowing-don't understand what you mean.The point I am trying to make obviously in a very laboured fashion is that if there are disputes on a field of play they all have to be refereed in the same fashion.For example -the ref has no thought of giving a penalty until half a minute later a voice says to him "You should have given a penalty for a trip"What trip"he says "the one on the home team number 10 by the away team number 5"he's told."I didn't see tthat are you sure".Meanwhile he's trying to referee what's going on.Are you really saying this is how we want football to go.

J-C
15-02-2010, 11:50 AM
Once again I'll try and explain-if no penalty is given you can't stop a game therefore the game continues therefore there is a passage of play then the referee gets told by the way it should be a penalty=it would be shambolic.In rugby video evidence is only used to see if a try has been scored.The game has stopped and will be restarted either by a conversion attempt or a drop out.

If the ref sees it as a non penelty at the time like Weir on saturday then fine but when a penalty is awarded and there is some doubt then video should be used. The law of the game would be changed to make the game stop for any dubious conytact within the box to make sure of any slight contact.

Rugby league
Main article: Rugby league match officials (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Rugby_league_match_officials)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Rugby_league_video_referee_aus_vs_gb_18-11-06.jpg/200px-Rugby_league_video_referee_aus_vs_gb_18-11-06.jpg (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/File:Rugby_league_video_referee_aus_vs_gb_18-11-06.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/File:Rugby_league_video_referee_aus_vs_gb_18-11-06.jpg)
The video referee confirms a Try during a Australia (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Australia_national_rugby_league_team) vs Great Britain (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Great_Britain_national_rugby_league_team) match in the 2006 Rugby League Tri-Nations (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/2006_Rugby_League_Tri-Nations)


Video referees are used in rugby league (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Rugby_league) in the National Rugby League (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/National_Rugby_League) (Australia/New Zealand) and Super League (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Super_League_(Europe)) (Europe), as well as in international matches. In rugby league the video referee can be called upon by the match official to determine the outcome of a possible try (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Try). The "video ref" can make judgements on knock-ons (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/List_of_rugby_league_terms#Knock-on), offside (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Offside_(rugby)), obstructions (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Obstruction), hold-ups and whether or not a player has gone dead, but cannot rule on a forward pass (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Forward_pass). If a forward pass has gone un-noticed by the on-field officials it must be disregarded by the video ref, as such judgements cannot reliably be made due to camera angle effects.
[edit (http://www.hibs.net/w/index.php?title=Instant_replay&action=edit&section=10)] Rugby union

The laws of rugby union (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Rugby_union) allow for "an official who uses technological devices" to be consulted by the referee in decisions relating to scoring a try (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Try) or a kick at goal.[11] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-10) The decision to call on the video referee (now called "Television Match Official (TMO)" is made by the referee, then the call is made by the replay referee, who takes his place in the stand of the host team. He either tells the pitch referee by radio link-up or by the use of a big screen during televised matches. Unlike in the NFL, a coach cannot challenge a call made by the pitch referee.

TrinityHibs
15-02-2010, 11:57 AM
Did anyone see the grin on the assistant refs pus after boyds penalty?Even if he had seen the elbow on Zouma therse no way it would be highlighted.
Has something got to be done involving o/f supporting officials,or am I getting a bout of cellicparanoia:dunno:

Missed that one but he had a big cheery grin on his puss when Whittaker ran past him into the crowd after scoring. He didnae try and stop him. Mind you the ref didnae book hoim either:grr:

paxtonhibby
15-02-2010, 12:13 PM
Missed that one but he had a big cheery grin on his puss when Whittaker ran past him into the crowd after scoring. He didnae try and stop him. Mind you the ref didnae book hoim either:grr:

Apologies TH,could be wrong but doesnt take away from the fact that the little fat baldy hun enjoyed the moment.
Just previous to the pen the hun keeper nearly ballsed up with Zoumas shot,never mind,move on.

lapsedhibee
15-02-2010, 12:23 PM
There are different consequences in blowing or not blowing-don't understand what you mean.The point I am trying to make obviously in a very laboured fashion is that if there are disputes on a field of play they all have to be refereed in the same fashion.For example -the ref has no thought of giving a penalty until half a minute later a voice says to him "You should have given a penalty for a trip"What trip"he says "the one on the home team number 10 by the away team number 5"he's told."I didn't see tthat are you sure".Meanwhile he's trying to referee what's going on.Are you really saying this is how we want football to go.

Not particularly, but if the game's already stopped, for whatever reason - player injured, groundstaff clearing up Mikey Mikey's vomit, penalty kick awarded, whatever - there's no harm in using TV evidence to facilitate correct decision making. Just because there would be incorrect decision making when the game isn't stopped, or incorrect decision making in games without cameras, is neither here nor there. To deny the use of the facility on the grounds that it wouldn't be universally available would be like saying Arsenal shouldn't be allowed to play on a perfectly flat pitch at the Emirates because the cooncil pitches at [insert name of least favourite Edinburgh memory here] are bumpy as ****.