PDA

View Full Version : Should we have had a penalty?



Hibbyradge
25-04-2010, 03:49 PM
Was Deek tripped or did he dive? It looked like a penalty from my seat.

givescotlandfreedom
25-04-2010, 03:50 PM
Looked a stone waller. Just usual GFA cheating though.

HibbyAndy
25-04-2010, 03:50 PM
No.

bighairyfaeleith
25-04-2010, 03:51 PM
Yes, just watched the replay. Absolute penalty:grr:

hibbytam
25-04-2010, 03:51 PM
Stonewall penalty.

hibee_girl
25-04-2010, 03:51 PM
No

HFC07
25-04-2010, 03:54 PM
there is arguments for and against, the fact is witty came in with the foot and didn't connect with the ball and deeks went over. We have seen them given before, but it the end of the day ref's decision counts :grr:

blackpoolhibs
25-04-2010, 03:54 PM
A soft one, but yes in my opinion. The nish goal should have stood. There was minimal contact, and McCulloch did a pressley, and just dived over, conning the ref. :grr: Millers goal was onside, but they dont count.:wink:

Fat Stu
25-04-2010, 03:55 PM
wasn't there today but caught the second half on the telly, stonewall peno and nothing wrong with nish's goal.

hibeesdude
25-04-2010, 03:57 PM
From my seat in the west was either
a - stonewall penalty OR
b - stonewall booking for dive

What it wasnt was NEITHER

Jim_in_Canada
25-04-2010, 04:06 PM
Question, though -

Would have been a penalty the other way ?

Westie1875
25-04-2010, 04:07 PM
Thought it was a pen at the time and after seeing the replay it was a stonewaller, Deek wasn't going down until Whittaker tripped him.

Nish's goal also should have stood, as should have Miller's - ref was shocking.

jonty
25-04-2010, 04:07 PM
A soft one, but yes in my opinion. The nish goal should have stood. There was minimal contact, and McCulloch did a pressley, and just dived over, conning the ref. :grr: Millers goal was onside, but they dont count.:wink:


wasn't there today but caught the second half on the telly, stonewall peno and nothing wrong with nish's goal.
:agree:
We were also called offside in the first half, but it wasn't.

Bostonhibby
25-04-2010, 04:08 PM
Thought so, and so did both TV commentators but at the end of the day it was the refs call and he wasn't going to put the Huns title at risk, Nish's goal was a perfectly good one - fitba is still a contact sport.

Hermit Crab
25-04-2010, 04:12 PM
A soft one, but yes in my opinion. The nish goal should have stood. There was minimal contact, and McCulloch did a pressley, and just dived over, conning the ref. :grr: Millers goal was onside, but they dont count.:wink:


I was told the nish goal was disallowed for offside?

Kiddo
25-04-2010, 04:18 PM
anyone who thinks it was a stonewall penalty should take the green tinted glasses off, deek was going down as soon as he stepped into the box, few more steps and whitty was taking him down anyway,

Just Jimmy
25-04-2010, 04:26 PM
anyone who thinks it was a stonewall penalty should take the green tinted glasses off, deek was going down as soon as he stepped into the box, few more steps and whitty was taking him down anyway,

what about the commentators who noted it was 'a penalty everyday of the week'?

Nothing wrong with big Pish's effort either

KWJ
25-04-2010, 04:27 PM
anyone who thinks it was a stonewall penalty should take the green tinted glasses off, deek was going down as soon as he stepped into the box, few more steps and whitty was taking him down anyway,

Watching it live I didn't think it was a pen. Replay shows it's a clean stone wall pen. Whitty catches his trailing leg and then brings him down.

Westie1875
25-04-2010, 04:28 PM
anyone who thinks it was a stonewall penalty should take the green tinted glasses off, deek was going down as soon as he stepped into the box, few more steps and whitty was taking him down anyway,

With all due respect, that is complete nonsense.

crash
25-04-2010, 04:34 PM
Havent seen any TV pictures, but I was behind the goals.
Riordan was tripped from behind when going into the penalty box, should have been a penalty.
Nish pushed the defender in the back with both hands, referee was correct in awarding a free kick.

modsquad
25-04-2010, 04:41 PM
In my opinion as an uneducated Jambo, yes it was a penalty.

However, the crucial reason why I believe it wasn't given was in all honesty, the direction the ball went.

When Whittaker puts his foot in, he makes no contact with the ball but the ball bobbles off looking like a fair tackle has been made. The contact with the player was minimal, but by the letter of the law I thought it should have been given

Its similar to the Villa game today, when you see that penalty, the Brum defender makes contact with the ball and the man. If the ball had shot off in the opposite direction from the tackler, there is no way a penalty would have been given but when you see it from where the referee was, it looks like no connection was made with the ball, so he gave a penalty

shamo9
25-04-2010, 04:46 PM
Riordan's not one to dive when he knows he's not the penalty taker - too greedy for that:wink: I recall another incident in the first half where Murray played the ball into him and, instead of falling over the lunge, he tried a stunted half-jump over it to try and turn with the ball.

In any case he played very well today. Riordan is one of the few players at Hibs right now who actually looks comfortable with the ball; never kicking it away aimlessly out of fear or lack of ideas.

Sylar
25-04-2010, 04:53 PM
In my opinion as an uneducated Jambo, yes it was a penalty.

However, the crucial reason why I believe it wasn't given was in all honesty, the direction the ball went.

When Whittaker puts his foot in, he makes no contact with the ball but the ball bobbles off looking like a fair tackle has been made. The contact with the player was minimal, but by the letter of the law I thought it should have been given

Its similar to the Villa game today, when you see that penalty, the Brum defender makes contact with the ball and the man. If the ball had shot off in the opposite direction from the tackler, there is no way a penalty would have been given but when you see it from where the referee was, it looks like no connection was made with the ball, so he gave a penalty

Yep - that was how I saw it as well. Definite penalty, but when it showed you the angle from the referee, he saw the ball moving away as if Whittaker had cleanly taken the ball.

Frustrating (for us anyway), but them's the breaks.

scoopyboy
25-04-2010, 05:12 PM
IMO a pen.

A few moments later you could see Whitts saying to Deeks it was a pen.

MWHIBBIES
25-04-2010, 05:53 PM
Tbh We were never ever gonna get a pen in that game.

Weir could have shot nish with a bazuka and the ref would have gave them a free kick.

tamig
25-04-2010, 07:29 PM
Thought it was a pen at the time and after seeing the replay it was a stonewaller, Deek wasn't going down until Whittaker tripped him.

Nish's goal also should have stood, as should have Miller's - ref was shocking.

Miller blatantly handled the ball to bring it under control though. He might've been pulled up wrongly for offside but the goal shouldn't have stood for the hand ball. Was right behind it and it was a clear hand ball.

Jonnyboy
25-04-2010, 07:31 PM
anyone who thinks it was a stonewall penalty should take the green tinted glasses off, deek was going down as soon as he stepped into the box, few more steps and whitty was taking him down anyway,

I think not Walter :wink:

Why would Riordan go down? Had he not been tripped he had a clear view of goal

iwasthere1972
25-04-2010, 07:37 PM
Was Deek tripped or did he dive? It looked like a penalty from my seat.

From where I was sitting I thought it should have been a penalty.

It would have been if Deeks had (god forbid) been wearing a blue strip. :agree:

iwasthere1972
25-04-2010, 07:39 PM
In my opinion as an uneducated Jambo, yes it was a penalty.



Are there any other kinds? :devil:

ronaldo7
25-04-2010, 07:39 PM
Was Deek tripped or did he dive? It looked like a penalty from my seat.

I told you at the match it was a stonewaller, and I've now watched the TV replay. It's a stick on pen.

Collum is a colon:grr:

matty_f
25-04-2010, 07:40 PM
I was sitting down the other end in the West, but from there it looked like a penalty. Haven't seen a replay of it yet either.

I didn't think there was anything wrong with Nish's goal, and I must have been daydreaming because I never noticed Miller having a goal chopped off for offside!:greengrin

Tha Cabbage Kid
25-04-2010, 07:42 PM
Was Deek tripped or did he dive? It looked like a penalty from my seat.

just another ref bottling it from old firm!

not convinced nish's goal was a foul and thought thomson should have been sent off. f--kin hate the old firm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bitchy::bitchy::bitchy::bitchy: :bitchy::bitchy:

iwasthere1972
25-04-2010, 07:45 PM
just another ref bottling it from old firm!

not convinced nish's goal was a foul and thought thomson should have been sent off. f--kin hate the old firm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bitchy::bitchy::bitchy::bitchy: :bitchy::bitchy:

Think he gave the hun a slight nudge or push but nothing much.

marleyhib
25-04-2010, 07:53 PM
yup - definite penalty

Sammy7nil
25-04-2010, 08:15 PM
well thats clear
It was a stone waller
It was not a pen

:greengrin

Hibs Class
25-04-2010, 08:18 PM
From the FF I thought Riordan was tripped and Nish's goal should have stood - just watched them both on TV and saw nothing to change my mind on either

Tha Cabbage Kid
25-04-2010, 08:27 PM
Think he gave the hun a slight nudge or push but nothing much.

if it was a hun would he have got the goal iwasthere1972??

gogs_t
25-04-2010, 08:48 PM
I think not Walter :wink:

Why would Riordan go down? Had he not been tripped he had a clear view of goal

Totally agree.

If Deeks has a half chance at goal he'll go for it. Not in his nature to go down when he has made a goal scoring opportunity

monktonharp
25-04-2010, 08:59 PM
Miller blatantly handled the ball to bring it under control though. He might've been pulled up wrongly for offside but the goal shouldn't have stood for the hand ball. Was right behind it and it was a clear hand ball.he was offside imho ,and he defo handled the ball.:agree:

monktonharp
25-04-2010, 09:04 PM
Was Deek tripped or did he dive? It looked like a penalty from my seat.Yup,definate penalty,looking through my green tinted glasses,but a penalty all the same.if Deek had got through that challenge,bang,goal for Hibernian,cos that's what he does.:grr:

Saorsa
25-04-2010, 09:23 PM
anyone who thinks it was a stonewall penalty should take the green tinted glasses off, deek was going down as soon as he stepped into the box, few more steps and whitty was taking him down anyway,Baws, stonewaller, would have been nae doubt had that been at the other end of the park. Little wrong with Nish's goal either, six of one or half a dozen of the other, other end it would have stood

iwasthere1972
25-04-2010, 09:48 PM
if it was a hun would he have got the goal iwasthere1972??


In short.......Yes.

ballengeich
25-04-2010, 10:09 PM
if it was a hun would he have got the goal iwasthere1972??

Would have - definitely

Should have - ?

Sir David Gray
25-04-2010, 10:42 PM
I thought it was a stonewall penalty at the time, I was going daft at the game. I've seen it once on TV since then and I still think that most referees would have given a penalty for that challenge.

We were never going to get it though as the ref was never going to jeopardise the title celebrations.

Saorsa
25-04-2010, 10:49 PM
I thought it was a stonewall penalty at the time, I was going daft at the game. I've seen it once on TV since then and I still think that most referees would have given a penalty for that challenge.

We were never going to get it though as the ref was never going to jeopardise the title celebrations.so he was biased (cheated) then, what a surprise, would have been a cert at the other end IMO.

53 league titles, I wonder why? :rolleyes:

basehibby
26-04-2010, 02:42 AM
Absolute stonewaller in my book - whittaker went in for the challenge, completely missed the ball and unmistakably made contact with Riordan's leg - certainly enough to make him stumble although he went down pretty easy - makes no odds though - a definite penalty - shame the ref never saw it that way :grr::grr::grr:

Baldy Foghorn
26-04-2010, 07:35 AM
I thought it was a stonewall penalty at the time, I was going daft at the game. I've seen it once on TV since then and I still think that most referees would have given a penalty for that challenge.

We were never going to get it though as the ref was never going to jeopardise the title celebrations.

Definite penalty, even BBC commentator could not understand why it was not given......

Nish breathed on McCulloch before he scored, pathetic refereeing yet again....

Biased, corrupt and inept

Beefster
26-04-2010, 07:37 AM
Definite penalty, even BBC commentator could not understand why it was not given......

Nish breathed on McCulloch before he scored, pathetic refereeing yet again....

Biased, corrupt and inept

I agree that both decisions were wrong but they had a perfectly good goal ruled offside. It's incompetence, not corruption.

hibbybrian
26-04-2010, 08:46 AM
Absolute stonewaller in my book - whittaker went in for the challenge, completely missed the ball and unmistakably made contact with Riordan's leg - certainly enough to make him stumble although he went down pretty easy - makes no odds though - a definite penalty - shame the ref never saw it that way :grr::grr::grr:

:agree:

5646

Arch Stanton
26-04-2010, 09:14 AM
I thought it was a stonewall penalty at the time, I was going daft at the game. I've seen it once on TV since then and I still think that most referees would have given a penalty for that challenge.

We were never going to get it though as the ref was never going to jeopardise the title celebrations.

Since you would have needed goalside slo-mo replay to be certain it was a penalty then most referees would make as good a decision as they could in the circumstances and yes, a fair number would have given a penalty but I also think a fair number would have given nothing.

I'm also sure a fair few would have booked the player going down for diving - I seem to remember Benji getting booked for what should have been a pretty obvious penalty.

brog
26-04-2010, 09:32 AM
Scottish refs need to take lessons from their English counterparts & give themselves a second or 2 before making decisions. We constantly see them pointing to the spot ( or not! )/reaching for cards without pausing for breath. By doing this they don't take into consideration the reactions of the players. From the body language yesterday it was obvious both Whitty & Deek knew it was a penalty but Collum was shaking his head & departing the scene like a rocket.
Mind you the idiot Richmond gave Celtc a corner at ER recently when Scott Brown had sliced it out of play & Brown & the rest of the Celtc team were heading for the half way line waiting on the goal kick!!
Unfortunately Scots refs are at best incompetent. I don't believe many, if any are intentionally biased but they're aware they will never be criticised for favouring the Ugly Sisters so that must subconsciously affect every decision they make.

truehibernian
26-04-2010, 12:51 PM
Scottish refs need to take lessons from their English counterparts & give themselves a second or 2 before making decisions. We constantly see them pointing to the spot ( or not! )/reaching for cards without pausing for breath. By doing this they don't take into consideration the reactions of the players. From the body language yesterday it was obvious both Whitty & Deek knew it was a penalty but Collum was shaking his head & departing the scene like a rocket.
Mind you the idiot Richmond gave Celtc a corner at ER recently when Scott Brown had sliced it out of play & Brown & the rest of the Celtc team were heading for the half way line waiting on the goal kick!!
Unfortunately Scots refs are at best incompetent. I don't believe many, if any are intentionally biased but they're aware they will never be criticised for favouring the Ugly Sisters so that must subconsciously affect every decision they make.

You obviously didn't see the Villa v Birmingham game yesterday mate. English refs have missed clear goals going in and out the net (Man Utd v Spurs, Palace v Bristol City), they have not sent off players who have been carded (Graham Poll in World Cup), and in general, like up here, seem to shy away from dealing with the big team players appropriately. The ref's up here are inconsistent, but in general they are fair. At the start of the season I would say we were getting our fair share of ref's decisions......then in the last third, we have been penalised harshly on occasion. Video ref's for major decisions is the only answer and really not too much to ask in 2010 IMO.

drifter533814
26-04-2010, 01:09 PM
Collum is a colon:grr:

New song?

:wink:

Lucius Apuleius
26-04-2010, 01:20 PM
Stonewaller for me. Also Nish's goal should have stood. Yes there was contact but absolute minimal.

brydekirk
26-04-2010, 01:34 PM
Mc cullock should have been booked for simulation and the goal should have stood. :agree:

basehibby
26-04-2010, 02:49 PM
I agree that both decisions were wrong but they had a perfectly good goal ruled offside. It's incompetence, not corruption.

Did Stokes not have a chance ruled out in similar circumstances earlier in the game??? I certainly remember him being through one on one and getting pulled up for what must have been an extremely marginal offside - I certainly couldn't draw any clear conclusion from the action replay at the time anyway.

brog
26-04-2010, 04:13 PM
You obviously didn't see the Villa v Birmingham game yesterday mate. English refs have missed clear goals going in and out the net (Man Utd v Spurs, Palace v Bristol City), they have not sent off players who have been carded (Graham Poll in World Cup), and in general, like up here, seem to shy away from dealing with the big team players appropriately. The ref's up here are inconsistent, but in general they are fair. At the start of the season I would say we were getting our fair share of ref's decisions......then in the last third, we have been penalised harshly on occasion. Video ref's for major decisions is the only answer and really not too much to ask in 2010 IMO.

There will always be errors in games, no one expects our refs to be perfect but I honestly believe, having lived in London for 30 years, that English refs are far superior to refs in Scotland. It's been reflected in the lack of Scots refs at major finals in recent years. I find it hard to believe that refs such as Freeland, Richmond or Brines would ever be allowed to ref in the EPL. IMO we have one top class ref & that's Calum Murray.