PDA

View Full Version : Media Hibs v Killie - BBC Highlights



hibees59
13-02-2011, 06:25 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/9396433.stm

Prof. Shaggy
13-02-2011, 06:36 PM
One of the more blatant examples of simulation...

Gatecrasher
13-02-2011, 06:41 PM
im not sure killies one was a penalty, dickoh seemed to get the ball quite clearly

how did the ref get 5 bookings from that :confused: Mixu made the situation worse than it should have been

hibsboy90
13-02-2011, 06:57 PM
One of the more blatant examples of simulation...
I think that the Killie defender's arm smacks deek in the face.

Arch Stanton
13-02-2011, 06:59 PM
im not sure killies one was a penalty, dickoh seemed to get the ball quite clearly

how did the ref get 5 bookings from that :confused: Mixu made the situation worse than it should have been

Not only did he win the ball cleanly but he wouldn't have seen the Killie player who was coming in behind him. And even if the Killie player was caught on the follow through there is no way he could have scored a goal without crippling Dickoh!!

hibbytam
13-02-2011, 07:01 PM
second killie chance.... How on earth wasn't he given offside? The guy's practically off the pitch when the ball's played. Comically awful decision.

Broken Gnome
13-02-2011, 07:05 PM
second killie chance.... How on earth wasn't he given offside? The guy's practically off the pitch when the ball's played. Comically awful decision.

Booth played it back rather than the Killie player playing it forward.

The highlights lean towards our view of the incidents. Looked less in the Sodje/Pascali incident that it seemed at the time; you'd get a free kick for Sissoko's arm in Riordan's anywhere else, so no matter how soft a penalty it might seem there's justifcation for it; it wasn't a Killie penalty, and Scott played the ball before Clancy was anywhere near making it a 50/50 so it's not exactly one of these excessive force/dangerously play cases. Still think Killie might've had a case for handball in the box in injury time though....

Hibs Class
13-02-2011, 07:18 PM
Kilmarnock pen and Dickoh red card both clearly wrong. Fortunately didn't affect the result but Hibs should appeal the sending off.

Aldo
13-02-2011, 07:27 PM
Never a foul for Sodje's goal, the killie boy fell over his own legs.

As for the penalties, Deek ripped the Killie boy a new one and stuck his right arm out...verdict penalty.

As for Dicoh...If it was at the other end would we want a penalty..answer Yes. both were penalties IMHO.

As for Mixu he can GTF. Scott won the ball fair and square and the killie no 2 jumped right into him. Mixu caused the bother cos his laddies pussied out of the challenge endof.

Removed
13-02-2011, 07:29 PM
Kilmarnock pen and Dickoh red card both clearly wrong. Fortunately didn't affect the result but Hibs should appeal the sending off.

:agree:

Hibernia Na Eir
13-02-2011, 07:31 PM
Mixu almost caused a riot. What a fool.

sixtwo
13-02-2011, 07:47 PM
Mixu is a buffoon. He has had his purple patch. He will now start to struggle and as the pressure mounts these outbursts and tantrums at the sidelines will become more frequent. He is like a petulant child.

Arch Stanton
13-02-2011, 07:47 PM
Never a foul for Sodje's goal, the killie boy fell over his own legs.

As for the penalties, Deek ripped the Killie boy a new one and stuck his right arm out...verdict penalty.

As for Dicoh...If it was at the other end would we want a penalty..answer Yes. both were penalties IMHO.

As for Mixu he can GTF. Scott won the ball fair and square and the killie no 2 jumped right into him. Mixu caused the bother cos his laddies pussied out of the challenge endof.

Sorry, but absolutely not. (Well OK, maybe yes but only on the principle you always appeal for everything!)

The Killie player was always going to be second to the ball - and since he never got near the ball through the whole incident any late tackle was HIS and NOT Dickohs.

sahib
13-02-2011, 07:48 PM
Never a foul for Sodje's goal, the killie boy fell over his own legs.

As for the penalties, Deek ripped the Killie boy a new one and stuck his right arm out...verdict penalty.

As for Dicoh...If it was at the other end would we want a penalty..answer Yes. both were penalties IMHO.

As for Mixu he can GTF. Scott won the ball fair and square and the killie no 2 jumped right into him. Mixu caused the bother cos his laddies pussied out of the challenge endof.

I don't agree about Dickoh ( as for us wanting it if it was at the other end -that is an irrelevance since fans want any thing that remotely looks like a penalty). Imagine you are looking at that situation through Dickoh's eyes, do you see a Killie player in front of you needing tackled? No you see a ball rolling across your box needing cleared . It was always Dickoh's ball.

PeterboroHibee
13-02-2011, 07:50 PM
Sodje barely touched the defender and he went over quite easily imo. Riordans was a bit soft but most strikers will go down in the box with contact like that.

As for the Killie incidents, really dont think think it was a penalty, Dickoh won the ball. Scotts challenge was a bit forceful but he won the ball, the boy he tackled wasnt bothered so dunno what Mixu was playing at.

Think a few of the first Killie chances are worrying though, glad we won the game but if that Agard they have had a bit of composure we could have been a couple down early on. Dont like how Dickoh slid in like that in the box, needs to stay on his feet, huge risk that he either gives away a penalty or gets skinned by the striker (as he did).

I'm_cabbaged
13-02-2011, 07:55 PM
Mixu almost caused a riot. What a fool.

:agree:

Then quietly slipped onto the dugout, he did the same at Ibrox when Smith followed him into our dugout.

ekhibee
13-02-2011, 07:56 PM
Never a foul for Sodje's goal, the killie boy fell over his own legs.

As for the penalties, Deek ripped the Killie boy a new one and stuck his right arm out...verdict penalty.

As for Dicoh...If it was at the other end would we want a penalty..answer Yes. both were penalties IMHO.

As for Mixu he can GTF. Scott won the ball fair and square and the killie no 2 jumped right into him. Mixu caused the bother cos his laddies pussied out of the challenge endof.
I've now seen a replay of the Killie penalty several times, and to me it clearly was NOT a penalty, Dickoh definitely gets the ball, the striker doesn't look as if he even touched the ball at all. Dickoh might well have been sent off for the reaction after though. Totally agree about Mixu though.

lucky
13-02-2011, 08:25 PM
Sodje's goal was fine.

deeks was a soft pen but made up for the non pen when sodje was barged away from the ball.

Killie was never a pen as you can see from Dickho reaction calling their player a diver

Scott won the ball fair and square the Killie player was late.

Mixup caused a barney over nothing.

Mixup should also look at his comments in to the media after the game and retracted them and apologise.

--------
13-02-2011, 08:32 PM
Never a foul for Sodje's goal, the killie boy fell over his own legs.

As for the penalties, Deek ripped the Killie boy a new one and stuck his right arm out...verdict penalty.

As for Dicoh...If it was at the other end would we want a penalty..answer Yes. both were penalties IMHO.

As for Mixu he can GTF. Scott won the ball fair and square and the killie no 2 jumped right into him. Mixu caused the bother cos his laddies pussied out of the challenge endof.


Both Paatelainen and the Killie number 8 had their hands raised to Scott.

Murray, tbf, didn't look as if he had any intention of acting as peacemaker - Sissoku may have done him a favour by steering him out of the melee. It looks to me as if it would all have settled down with a bit of help from the ref if MP had kept his mouth shut and his hands to himself.

Looking at this video and the other one of the players leaving the pitch, Ian seems to be moving awkwardly - stiffness in his lower back? Maybe the 2-match ban'll let him get some physio in. Doesn't look an entirely well laddie to me.

hibsbollah
13-02-2011, 08:35 PM
Watched it a couple of times and the only conceivable compaint he could have is the Riordan pen is a bit soft, could have gone either way. The Scott challenge was excellent, he clearly got the ball, and Mixu was a complete cock. Good to see Murray telling him to GTF.

PaulSmith
13-02-2011, 08:41 PM
Kilmarnock pen and Dickoh red card both clearly wrong. Fortunately didn't affect the result but Hibs should appeal the sending off.

You cannot appeal this offence.

Removed
13-02-2011, 08:43 PM
You cannot appeal this offence.

Really. Why not?

TheBall'sRound
13-02-2011, 09:37 PM
Have to say, I thought the commitment to dive by the Killie player was top notch. Reminded me of something....

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSSdJXLAGWixdymaVHabpUQQPRjqcpFO WJbAh32Ztwu33hnGgcNjA

KeithTheHibby
13-02-2011, 09:37 PM
Really. Why not?

You can only appeal violent conduct I think. Rediculous but true.

Sas_The_Hibby
13-02-2011, 09:50 PM
Sodje's goal was fine.

deeks was a soft pen but made up for the non pen when sodje was barged away from the ball.

Killie was never a pen as you can see from Dickho reaction calling their player a diver
Scott won the ball fair and square the Killie player was late.

Mixup caused a barney over nothing.

Mixup should also look at his comments in to the media after the game and retracted them and apologise.

If only life were that simple!

The Harp Awakes
13-02-2011, 10:02 PM
Mixu has made a complete erse of himself both after the Scott tackle but also in his biased and clearly wrong after match comments on Killie being on the end of bad decisions.

Clearly not a foul in the lead up to Hibs 1st goal & Clearly not a penalty for Killie. Hibs penalty was not clear cut but most refs would have given it IMO.

By the way, what was Scott booked for? He put in a hard but clean tackle then got pushed about by 3 Killie players but didn't retailiate.

Removed
13-02-2011, 10:02 PM
You can only appeal violent conduct I think. Rediculous but true.

Just been searching th SFA website but can't find anything that explains the process/rules

Westie1875
13-02-2011, 10:09 PM
You can only appeal violent conduct I think. Rediculous but true.

I'm sure we appealed a red card Boozy received against the huns a few years ago for a last man challenge in which Boyd clearly dived (can't see how it would have been given for violent conduct), in fact I'm pretty sure the decision was ridiculously upheld because the ref that day refused to admit he had made a mistake.

DaveF
13-02-2011, 10:23 PM
I'm sure we appealed a red card Boozy received against the huns a few years ago for a last man challenge in which Boyd clearly dived (can't see how it would have been given for violent conduct), in fact I'm pretty sure the decision was ridiculously upheld because the ref that day refused to admit he had made a mistake.

Correct http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/hibernian/6614609.stm

Charlie Richmond the referee :rolleyes:

Sir David Gray
13-02-2011, 10:25 PM
We can definitely appeal the red card.

A club can appeal a red card in the case of mistaken identity and wrongful dismissal and that includes cases of denying a goalscoring opportunity, which was the reason for Dickoh's sending off.

However, this appeal can only be heard in "very exceptional circumstances".

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/DisciplineExplained/DisciplinaryProcedures/06%20Players%20Misconduct%20%28General%20Provision s%29.pdf

Removed
13-02-2011, 10:27 PM
We can definitely appeal the red card.

A club can appeal a red card in the case of mistaken identity and wrongful dismissal and that includes cases of denying a goalscoring opportunity, which was the reason for Dickoh's sending off.

However, this appeal can only be heard in "very exceptional circumstances".

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/DisciplineExplained/DisciplinaryProcedures/06%20Players%20Misconduct%20%28General%20Provision s%29.pdf

:hmmm: That means if it's Rangers :wink:

PC Stamp
13-02-2011, 10:41 PM
Surely the fact that the decision was completely wrong and made by a linesman who was further away from the incident than the ref who originally saw no wrong is exceptional enough? Or maybe the authorities will see fit to back their officials even when they make a complete mess of it?

matty_f
13-02-2011, 10:49 PM
Surely the fact that the decision was completely wrong and made by a linesman who was further away from the incident than the ref who originally saw no wrong is exceptional enough? Or maybe the authorities will see fit to back their officials even when they make a complete mess of it?

That's what'll happen, IMHO.:agree:

PaulSmith
13-02-2011, 10:54 PM
The Dikoh one though is clearly about opinion, in the opinion of the Asst referee he got the decision correct and even seeing it in slow motion several times one could still argue that it was the correct decision.
No appeal and I'm afraid end of story.

matty_f
13-02-2011, 11:01 PM
The Dikoh one though is clearly about opinion, in the opinion of the Asst referee he got the decision correct and even seeing it in slow motion several times one could still argue that it was the correct decision.
No appeal and I'm afraid end of story.

That's the same as every decision, though. The linesman's opinion was that it was a foul, but retrospectively the ref can see that it wasn't, no?:dunno:

Sir David Gray
13-02-2011, 11:30 PM
The Dikoh one though is clearly about opinion, in the opinion of the Asst referee he got the decision correct and even seeing it in slow motion several times one could still argue that it was the correct decision.
No appeal and I'm afraid end of story.

Whether or not it was a goalscoring opportunity is down to a matter of opinion so we probably can't appeal from that point of view.

However, whether Dickoh made contact with the ball first or not isn't down to a matter of opinion. Dickoh either got the ball first or he didn't and from looking at the footage on Sportscene, it appears that he did get to the ball first. With that in mind, the linesman's decisions to give a penalty and subsequently get the referee to show a red card were both wrong.

That would seem to tie in with the referee's initial thoughts as he immediately waved play on, before the linesman got involved.

matty_f
13-02-2011, 11:33 PM
Whether or not it was a goalscoring opportunity is down to a matter of opinion so we probably can't appeal from that point of view.

However, whether Dickoh made contact with the ball first or not isn't down to a matter of opinion. Dickoh either got the ball first or he didn't and from looking at the footage on Sportscene, it appears that he did get to the ball first. With that in mind, the linesman's decisions to give a penalty and subsequently get the referee to show a red card were both wrong.

That would seem to tie in with the referee's initial thoughts as he immediately waved play on, before the linesman got involved.

Has to have been considered a goal scoring opportunity otherwise it's a booking, so there is an appeal on that basis.

PC Stamp
13-02-2011, 11:58 PM
Has to have been considered a goal scoring opportunity otherwise it's a booking, so there is an appeal on that basis.

Yup. it has to be either a red card for denying a goalscoring opportunity or for violent conduct. I'd be surprised if it were the latter.

Sir David Gray
13-02-2011, 11:58 PM
Has to have been considered a goal scoring opportunity otherwise it's a booking, so there is an appeal on that basis.

Yes but my argument isn't to do with whether or not he denied a goalscoring opportunity, it's to do with whether or not it was actually a foul at all.

If our appeal is on the basis that he played the ball, and I think TV pictures show that he did, and the referee and the review panel agrees with that then he won't receive any sanction at all.

It's going to be a lot harder to appeal it on the basis of it being/not being a goalscoring opportunity. If we're accepting that Dickoh committed a foul but we are trying to say that he didn't deny the Kilmarnock player a goalscoring opportunity, I think the SFA will throw it out immediately because they'll just say that "in the opinion of the assistant referee he did deny a goalscoring opportunity".

The SFA website states that they will not entertain appeals over incidents that are a matter of opinion, except in exceptional circumstances. We have very little chance of a successful appeal unless we actually challenge the decision to give a foul.

matty_f
14-02-2011, 12:02 AM
Yes but my argument isn't to do with whether or not he denied a goalscoring opportunity, it's to do with whether or not it was actually a foul at all.

If our appeal is on the basis that he played the ball, and I think TV pictures show that he did, and the referee and the review panel agrees with that then he won't receive any sanction at all.

It's going to be a lot harder to appeal it on the basis of it being/not being a goalscoring opportunity. If we're accepting that Dickoh committed a foul but we are trying to say that he didn't deny the Kilmarnock player a goalscoring opportunity, I think the SFA will throw it out immediately because they'll just say that "in the opinion of the assistant referee he did deny a goalscoring opportunity".

The SFA website states that they will not entertain appeals over incidents that are a matter of opinion, except in exceptional circumstances. We have very little chance of a successful appeal unless we actually challenge the decision to give a foul.

I misinterpreted your post in that case, I thought you were saying that the fact that the red card was given for denying a goalscoring opportunity was a matter of opinion, apologies. I agree with what you're saying.

Prof. Shaggy
14-02-2011, 12:03 AM
I think that the Killie defender's arm smacks deek in the face.

What on earth makes you think I'm referring either to a Killie defender or deek's face?

hibsboy90
14-02-2011, 12:19 AM
What on earth makes you think I'm referring either to a Killie defender or deek's face?
Thought you were referring to Deek's penalty incident, many on here think it was soft. Statement was rather ambiguous.

Arch Stanton
14-02-2011, 08:39 AM
Yes but my argument isn't to do with whether or not he denied a goalscoring opportunity, it's to do with whether or not it was actually a foul at all.

If our appeal is on the basis that he played the ball, and I think TV pictures show that he did, and the referee and the review panel agrees with that then he won't receive any sanction at all.

It's going to be a lot harder to appeal it on the basis of it being/not being a goalscoring opportunity. If we're accepting that Dickoh committed a foul but we are trying to say that he didn't deny the Kilmarnock player a goalscoring opportunity, I think the SFA will throw it out immediately because they'll just say that "in the opinion of the assistant referee he did deny a goalscoring opportunity".

The SFA website states that they will not entertain appeals over incidents that are a matter of opinion, except in exceptional circumstances. We have very little chance of a successful appeal unless we actually challenge the decision to give a foul.

We can but live in hope - it certainly makes sense to me that he couldn't be denying him a goal scoring opportunity if he hadn't in actual fact fouled him. The only way he could have had a goalscoring opportunity is if Dickoh had gone over to the sideline for a drink of water.

I guess another possibility though is that after Dickoh won the ball the linesman thought he tripped the striker as he ran through to get to the ball. However, since he was never going to get to the ball and made a theatrical dive over Dickok's leg I reckon that should count against him IMO.

we are hibs
14-02-2011, 08:43 AM
I think that the Killie defender's arm smacks deek in the face.

i wasa sitting in the famous five stand and the boy grabbed deeks face

GloryGlory
14-02-2011, 09:48 AM
Whether or not it was a goalscoring opportunity is down to a matter of opinion so we probably can't appeal from that point of view.

However, whether Dickoh made contact with the ball first or not isn't down to a matter of opinion. Dickoh either got the ball first or he didn't and from looking at the footage on Sportscene, it appears that he did get to the ball first. With that in mind, the linesman's decisions to give a penalty and subsequently get the referee to show a red card were both wrong.

That would seem to tie in with the referee's initial thoughts as he immediately waved play on, before the linesman got involved.

Not only that, but he is already lying on the ground when the forward falls (or dives) over him. When he is on the ground, he makes no move to block, trip or otherwise impede the forward.

Sir David Gray
14-02-2011, 12:15 PM
I misinterpreted your post in that case, I thought you were saying that the fact that the red card was given for denying a goalscoring opportunity was a matter of opinion, apologies. I agree with what you're saying.

Thank God for that. I was so tired last night, I thought I was going mad when I really didn't understand what you were saying! :greengrin

Glad to know it wasn't me after all! :wink:

EH6 Hibby
14-02-2011, 12:26 PM
i wasa sitting in the famous five stand and the boy grabbed deeks face

Are you Italian? :greengrin

StevieC
14-02-2011, 02:12 PM
Are you Italian?

Shaddapa Ya Face

:wink:

SunnyLeither
14-02-2011, 04:29 PM
Kilmarnock pen and Dickoh red card both clearly wrong. Fortunately didn't affect the result but Hibs should appeal the sending off.

No, but more importantly, it robbed our kitty of £52 as we had £2 at 25's on Palsson last goal, cheating, diving Killie Baaaaa & fekn useless linesman :grr::grr::grr:

PaulSmith
14-02-2011, 04:32 PM
Strange thing is that both the Sun and the Record led with reports how the asst referee got it spot on.

ancienthibby
14-02-2011, 04:43 PM
Strange thing is that both the Sun and the Record led with reports how the asst referee got it spot on.

And you expect TRUTH from these two??:bye::bye::bye:

hibs0666
14-02-2011, 04:56 PM
Mixu is a buffoon. He has had his purple patch. He will now start to struggle and as the pressure mounts these outbursts and tantrums at the sidelines will become more frequent. He is like a petulant child.

Utter nonsense. Kilmarnock are and will continue to be the best footballing side in the league by a country mile. Some of their football on Saturday was a joy to watch.

Argylehibby
14-02-2011, 05:04 PM
Strange thing is that both the Sun and the Record led with reports how the asst referee got it spot on.

Proof indeed then that it was the wrong decision.

brog
14-02-2011, 05:19 PM
Strange thing is that both the Sun and the Record led with reports how the asst referee got it spot on.

Colin Duncan in the DR today is ludicrous. I have never read a more biased or inaccurate article. He talks about a reckless challenge & an over the ball tackle from Scott. That would be the OTB tackle which won the ball perfectly cleanly, wasn't penalised & didn't draw a protest from the Killie player until Mixu threw his toys out the pram. According to that paragon of virtue, Manuel Pascali, he was expecting a red card for Scott!! Pascali of course also states he was fouled for the first goal but it looks a clear slip to me & again Pascali only protests after the ball's in the net.
Incidentally, Killie's 2 clearest chances in 1st half both came from unpunished pushes by Killie players on Booth & Murray respectively.
PS, to summarise the quality & accuracy of the DR, their list of top scorers still has Stokes as a Hibs player!!

PaulSmith
14-02-2011, 05:35 PM
And you expect TRUTH from these two??:bye::bye::bye:

No, I expect an unbiased opinion. Unless the DR and the Sun have an anti Hibs agenda or a pro Killie that I dont know about.

I can see how the pen was given and I can see the argument why it wouldn't as well.

Some of the posts are totally OTT.

fatbloke
14-02-2011, 05:47 PM
One of the more blatant examples of simulation...

Who Deeks?:greengrin

ancient hibee
14-02-2011, 06:31 PM
Riordan wasn't denied a goal scoring opportunity because he wasn't getting the ball.That means to me that it was for an arm in the face -therefore violent conduct and a red card.

Hamish
14-02-2011, 06:38 PM
The Dikoh one though is clearly about opinion, in the opinion of the Asst referee he got the decision correct and even seeing it in slow motion several times one could still argue that it was the correct decision.
No appeal and I'm afraid end of story.

Correct that it is about opinions. If a Hibs player had done what the Killie player did I would be embarrassed. The dive is ludicrous.

greenlex
14-02-2011, 08:20 PM
Riordan wasn't denied a goal scoring opportunity because he wasn't getting the ball.That means to me that it was for an arm in the face -therefore violent conduct and a red card.
Its possible to actually foul someone unintentionally and still foul them. In this case I doubt he even knows Deeks is there. An unintentional foul in the box = penalty without the need for a red as it was not violent conduct or a clear goalscoring opportunity.
There is another thing that bugs me while I'm at it. Because a player goes to ground in a challenge does not nessecarily means they have dived. It is quite possible to be in a collision with a defender without the defender fouling you and you taking a tumble. It doesnt mean you have dived to gain an advantage.
Sadly there are loads of examples of cheating diving bassas out there too.

Removed
14-02-2011, 08:25 PM
Its possible to actually foul someone unintentionally and still foul them. In this case I doubt he even knows Deeks is there. An unintentional foul in the box = penalty without the need for a red as it was not violent conduct or a clear goalscoring opportunity.
There is another thing that bugs me while I'm at it. Because a player goes to ground in a challenge does not nessecarily means they have dived. It is quite possible to be in a collision with a defender without the defender fouling you and you taking a tumble. It doesnt mean you have dived to gain an advantage.
Sadly there are loads of examples of cheating diving bassas out there too.

I've said this before on other threads and I still think it's the case - from my view FF lower I thought it was intentional at the time and I still do, and that's having watched it a few times on the tv. I think those of us in the FF saw what he did but you can't see that from a camera up high in the west.

FromTheCapital
14-02-2011, 08:35 PM
Scotts tackle was superb and why Mixu did that is beyond me......

Sodje never touched the defender.......

I feel it was a penalty on Riordan...........

And I feel Dickoh won the ball and had a Celtic or Huns player did that it would have been a corner.....

But altogether a good performance and a 3 points for :cgwa

down-the-slope
14-02-2011, 11:58 PM
OK - for once I was not there (trip to Mother in laws prevented :dummytit:) and i'm the first to moan / point out the difference betwen what you see live and radio / TV (even replays)
That said TV highlights for me show 2 pens that should not have been given and (having thought WW3 had broke out with 5 to go given radio commentary) a most handbags incident ever given 5 cards were shown......

Removed
15-02-2011, 12:00 AM
OK - for once I was not there (trip to Mother in laws prevented :dummytit:) and i'm the first to moan / point out the difference betwen what you see live and radio / TV (even replays)
That said TV highlights for me show 2 pens that should not have been given and (having thought WW3 had broke out with 5 to go given radio commentary) a most handbags incident ever given 5 cards were shown......

See #60. Ours was a pen. 100% sure :agree:

Future17
15-02-2011, 12:11 AM
Bad day for the referee but, to be fair, he was hardly helped by his assistants.

My opinions from the game haven't been changed by the tv evidence, so if I could see it from up in the stand, God knows how the ref couldn't see it on the pitch.

Early Killie chance - not offside as Booth plays it but Booth is then clearly taken out.

Didn't think either penalty was merited, but even if they were, why is one a red card and one a yellow? What is this rule nowadays?

The handbags incident - at the time I thought he was going to send Clancy off for the way he went in on Scott, who quite clearly played the ball. The fact that Scott was booked in that incident for absolutely nothing while Clancy walked away with nothing summed up the referee's performance.

Part/Time Supporter
15-02-2011, 09:02 AM
Strange thing is that both the Sun and the Record led with reports how the asst referee got it spot on.

The papers take their lead from what the managers and players say. Killie moaned like crazy about the referee (even though they got a ridiculous decision that was massively in their favour), so the journalists follow that up. Calderwood didn't really complain about their penalty and said he wouldn't expect the Hibs penalty to be given against Hibs. The journos file their copy before the highlights are shown so they don't check the TV evidence.

bingo70
15-02-2011, 09:09 AM
Having watched it on the highlights i'm still convinced we got lucky, Sodje definately tripped him, not clear from the highlights but i saw it at the time and there was definately contact and Riordans was never a penalty IMO, if that had gone against us we'd all be going bonkers and it wasn't a red as there was a covering defender.

I also think there's was a stonewaller of a penalty, even if he did get the ball, he came from behind him to get him and you can't do that, he let the striker get the wrong side of him so got punished for it.

It's the first time this season we've actually got a bit of luck during a game so i'm not complaining though

lucky
15-02-2011, 09:30 AM
Dickho came from the side and played the ball. Then there is a couple seconds delay and the striker falls. Never a pen. Also thoght the Killie player was offside.

Prof. Shaggy
15-02-2011, 03:37 PM
Dickho came from the side and played the ball. Then there is a couple seconds delay and the striker falls. Never a pen. Also thoght the Killie player was offside.

My point exactly.