Hanlon's tackle on Elliott...

[3pm]

I note Messers McCann and Walker were adamant said incident was a stonewall pen. I am not so sure and I have watched it a good dozen times.

So am I blatantly biased or as it's known across town, deluded?

[easty]

Sometimes you get a challenge in the box and a foul isnt given, yet outside the box 9 times out of 10 it would be a freekick. The Hanlon challenge on Elliot though, I would have been surprised if that'd even been given as a foul outside the box, there was nothing to it at all, as far as I'm concerned.

[M11BMO]

I note Messers McCann and Walker were adamant said incident was a stonewall pen. I am not so sure and I have watched it a good dozen times.

So am I blatantly biased or as it's known across town, deluded?

In all honesty, I think it was a pen.

[IWasThere2016]

From ref's angle Hanlon gets the ball (but he didn't)

From behind goals it looks like Hanlon catches Elliot

From East there looks like no contact.

I think we got a break because it was so early in the game.

[Removed]

Sometimes you get a challenge in the box and a foul isnt given, yet outside the box 9 times out of 10 it would be a freekick. The Hanlon challenge on Elliot though, I would have been surprised if that'd even been given as a foul outside the box, there was nothing to it at all, as far as I'm concerned.

:agree: I was getting texts at the game about "their penalty" and didn't have a clue what they were on about. Still don't. Never a foul in a month of Sundays imo.

[JimBHibees]

:agree: I was getting texts at the game about "their penalty" and didn't have a clue what they were on about. Still don't. Never a foul in a month of Sundays imo.

:agree: Little or no contact and Elliott dives, correct decision imo.

[Westie1875]

:agree: Little or no contact and Elliott dives, correct decision imo.

This is how I saw it at the time, haven't seen it on tv yet.

[Saorsa]

:agree: Little or no contact and Elliott dives, correct decision imo.:agree:

[3pm]

From ref's angle Hanlon gets the ball (but he didn't)

From behind goals it looks like Hanlon catches Elliot

From East there looks like no contact.

I think we got a break because it was so early in the game.

It defo looked like that from the East! :o)

[_hucks_]

The highlights show contact between Hanlon and Elliot. Slight, but there all the same.

[Forza Fred]

I think some just refuse to take their green tinted glasses off.:greengrin

watching the replays, if I was a ref..an ubiased one that is - then I would have given a penalty if I seen it.

Obviously he didnt', thank Eric:not worth

[easty]

The highlights show contact between Hanlon and Elliot. Slight, but there all the same.


I think some just refuse to take their green tinted glasses off.:greengrin

watching the replays, if I was a ref..an ubiased one that is - then I would have given a penalty if I seen it.

Obviously he didnt', thank Eric:not worth

Just because there is slight contact doesnt mean the player can go down and is automatically entitled to a pen, christ I bumped past someone getting off the bus today and she didnt fall to the ground screaming then jump up and run to the driver, arms spread, like a mad women. :greengrin

[essexhibee]

Stonewall imo. No contact with the ball. Still fuming from yesterday!!

[PeeJay]

I note Messers McCann and Walker were adamant said incident was a stonewall pen. I am not so sure and I have watched it a good dozen times.

So am I blatantly biased or as it's known across town, deluded?

Hanlon didn't connect with the ball at all, he connected with Elliot who he'd obviously lost track of, Elliot went down - we would have demanded a penalty, surely? We were lucky to get away with it, I feel.

[easty]

Stonewall imo. No contact with the ball. Still fuming from yesterday!!

Stonewall? Behave.:confused:

[easty]

Hanlon didn't connect with the ball at all, he connected with Elliot who he'd obviously lost track of, Elliot went down - we would have demanded a penalty, surely? We were lucky to get away with it, I feel.

He did make contact with Elliot, but barely.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Stonewall? Behave.:confused:

:agree:

A penalty could have been given, but it would have been soft. Elliott was looking for it.

[thebakerboy]

In my opinion Elliot just beat Hanlon to the ball and then clattered Hanlon and went down and Hanlon stayed on his feet. Later in the game Thornhill beats Hearts player to the ball and then clatters Hearts player , Hearts player goes down screaming like his ankles broken (as usual) and the Ref says foul to Hearts , double standards no , I'll take my green tinted specs now , what a surprise I still see it the same way.

[Hibs7]

Elliot dived. Simples.

[Removed]

........ Hearts player goes down screaming like his ankles broken (as usual) and the Ref says foul to Hearts

:agree: They get taught how to do that at Riccarton

[lyonhibs]

From ref's angle Hanlon gets the ball (but he didn't)

From behind goals it looks like Hanlon catches Elliot

From East there looks like no contact.

I think we got a break because it was so early in the game.

:agree: :agree: - I'd have been HOWLING for that to be a pen if the shirts had been the other way around. Got a spot lucky IMO

[easty]

:agree: :agree: - I'd have been HOWLING for that to be a pen if the shirts had been the other way around. Got a spot lucky IMO

So would most people, doesnt make it any more legitimate a penalty claim though.

[Twa Cairpets]

It was tough call, and as referee myself, was thinking from my vantage in the East not far from the incident at the time that Brines has dropped a huge bollock there, that was a pen. Watching it at half time on the replay, I actually think he made a strong, correct decision. It was a tackle, no more, no less. Hanlon played for the ball clearly and fairly, wasnt reckless and the fact bodily contact was made, was, in the instance, entirely immaterial. You can tackle someone, make physical contact, and its not a free kick. It depends on the very specific circumstances of the incident and is judged on intent, carelessness, etc.

I dont think Elliott dived particularly, but it was not a free kick/penalty.

[greenlex]

If it had been at the other end I would be calling it soft. I would have taken it but not a pen for me.

[seanraff07]

How can Andy Walker say that was a stonewaller but Zaliukas' red card was so, so harsh? Erse.

[PeeJay]

It was tough call, and as referee myself, was thinking from my vantage in the East not far from the incident at the time that Brines has dropped a huge bollock there, that was a pen. Watching it at half time on the replay, I actually think he made a strong, correct decision. It was a tackle, no more, no less. Hanlon played for the ball clearly and fairly, wasnt reckless and the fact bodily contact was made, was, in the instance, entirely immaterial. You can tackle someone, make physical contact, and its not a free kick. It depends on the very specific circumstances of the incident and is judged on intent, carelessness, etc.

I dont think Elliott dived particularly, but it was not a free kick/penalty.

Surely the ball has to be involved through for a tackle to be clean - Hanlon never touched it, he only got Elliot: is that not then a penalty? Seemd to me Hanlon was surprised Elliot was actually there - it wasn't intentional, but he prevented Elliot getting to the ball, I feel. If the ref had given it I don't think we could have complained. (We would have complained, of course, but ...)

[Argylehibby]

Hanlon didn't connect with the ball at all, he connected with Elliot who he'd obviously lost track of, Elliot went down - we would have demanded a penalty, surely? We were lucky to get away with it, I feel.

:agree: Thought it was at the time and confirmed (IMHO) with the tv highlights.

[Removed]

How can Andy Walker say that was a stonewaller but Zaliukas' red card was so, so harsh? Erse.

:agree: I've met him and he's a fanny imo

[Wotherspiniesta]

Stonewall imo. No contact with the ball. Still fuming from yesterday!!

Pish.

And by the way, a few of your posts come across as pro hearts.

Are you sure you're not bi-yam?

[discman]

The referee didnt give it, the linesman didnt give it so it wasnt a pen end of. :greengrin

Last man deliberately preventing a goal scoring oppertunity, red card, again end of.:greengrin

[Badge]

I thought it was a penalty at the time and seen nothing in the highlights to change my mind.

[Judas Iscariot]

Pish.

And by the way, a few of your posts come across as pro hearts.

Are you sure you're not bi-yam?

:agree:

LTYF

[Stokesy]

How can Andy Walker say that was a stonewaller but Zaliukas' red card was so, so harsh? Erse.

He said that the rule is harsh. The ref applied the rules correctly but he doesn't agree with the rule.

[Twa Cairpets]

He said that the rule is harsh. The ref applied the rules correctly but he doesn't agree with the rule.

Mibbe so, but the man is still a fud of the first water.

[Cameron1875]

How can Andy Walker say that was a stonewaller but Zaliukas' red card was so, so harsh? Erse.

I noticed at the ayr game Walker was extremely critical of every single thing hibs did in the game. He is an absoltute bellend.

[FranckSuzy]

I noticed at the ayr game Walker was extremely critical of every single thing hibs did in the game. He is an absoltute bellend.

:agree: I thought that too. Maybe he's a pal of Yogi's and is bitter and twisted :confused:

[Cameron1875]

:agree: I thought that too. Maybe he's a pal of Yogi's and is bitter and twisted :confused:

I was a wee bit too young to follow us the season we were relegated (thank fk). He played for us then but was there any bitterness when Walker left or did he just pack in football at end of season?:confused:

[Sir David Gray]

I noticed at the ayr game Walker was extremely critical of every single thing hibs did in the game. He is an absoltute bellend.

To be fair, you'd have been hard pressed not to be extremely critical of every single thing that Hibs did in both games against Ayr Utd.

[New Corrie]

Looked a pen to me. Penalty incident apart, I fear for Hanlon, don't rate him at all.

[Pretty Boy]

Looked a pen to me. Penalty incident apart, I fear for Hanlon, don't rate him at all.

I wouldn't say i don't rate Hanlon but i have to say i don't get a lot of the fuss about him either. IMO he's got potential but he's nowhere near the finished product. A couple of centre backs would be right at the top of the shopping list if i was in Calderwoods position.

[brog]

Hanlon's foot made slight contact with Elliott's foot, I think that's undeniable. I don't think that contact caused Elliott to execute the double pike with backflip while appealing for a pen at the same time & may actually have acted against him.
If we're talking of stonewallers remember Deeks at corner of box uphill 2 or 3 years ago when we were already 1 up, through Fletch I think? The ref was about 5 yards from that with a totally unobstructed view & somehow failed to give it. We're due an occasional break against that manky lot!!

[New Corrie]

I wouldn't say i don't rate Hanlon but i have to say i don't get a lot of the fuss about him either. IMO he's got potential but he's nowhere near the finished product. A couple of centre backs would be right at the top of the shopping list if i was in Calderwoods position.

He's young, but he's had loads of first team games under his belt and really not moved in the right direction. positionally poor, a tad calamitous and not strong enough. Hope he proves me wrong, but likewise don't see what the fuss is about.

[bob12345]

I'm not going to bite at anyone saying that's a stoneway penalty. Clearly just trying to get a bit of 'ref was against us' press.