O'Connor cleared of diving

[Golden Bear]

These bloody journalists will just not leave this alone.

Headline in tonight's Evening News:-

"It's crackers - Saint left baffled as Gaz cleared of dive"

The Reporter,(some tube called Alex Schweitzer-Thompson) then goes on at great lengths to highlight the apparent sense of injustice which is being felt by friggin St Johnstone.

Not a spokesman for Hibs in sight or maybe it was case that it wouldn't suit the reporter's viewpoint to ask them.

It's very disappointing for a supposedly Edinburgh newspaper.

:grr:

[jdships]

These bloody journalists will just not leave this alone.

Headline in tonight's Evening News:-

"It's crackers - Saint left baffled as Gaz cleared of dive"

The Reporter,(some tube called Alex Schweitzer-Thompson) then goes on at great lengths to highlight the apparent sense of injustice which is being felt by friggin St Johnstone.

Not a spokesman for Hibs in sight or maybe it was case that it wouldn't suit the reporter's viewpoint to ask them.

It's very disappointing for a supposedly Edinburgh newspaper.

:grr:



Not sure what your point is ?
The matter has been looked at by the "powers that be" and a decision made .
What need is there for further comment to be made by HFC ?
It is closed and we move on

:confused:

[blackpoolhibs]

I thought he made a meal of it and dived, others think it was a foul. Talking about how the authorities got their decision right does not make good reading for the hacks, carrying on with the story by getting these players to give interviews telling us just how much they cant believe it does the job, and makes the story last longer during a quiet week for football at club level.

Time for us to forget about it, we are adding to this by being outraged at the outraged. :greengrin

[Golden Bear]

Not sure what your point is ?
The matter has been looked at by the "powers that be" and a decision made .
What need is there for further comment to be made by HFC ?
It is closed and we move on

:confused:

Even a simple one liner in the report stating that Hibs were known to be delighted about the decision would have gone some way to creating a sense of balance and impartiality. As things stand, the Report is heavily slanted towards an apparant injustice that has been suffered by St Johnstone.

[matty_f]

I think the fact that the Saint Johnstone defender concedes that there was contact kind of takes a fair bit of weight away from his reaction.

[jdships]

Even a simple one liner in the report stating that Hibs were known to be delighted about the decision would have gone some way to creating a sense of balance and impartiality. As things stand, the Report is heavily slanted towards an apparant injustice that has been suffered by St Johnstone.


Question
Why keep the argument going when the matter has been dealt with and a line has been drawn.?
If St J wan't to keep it going that's their business
GO/HFC have been vidicated so what is there to comment on ?

It's a quiet weekend football wise and this article smacks of a " stocking filler "

Blackpool H says it all IMO
"Time for us to forget about it, we are adding to this by being outraged at the outraged " :agree:

[Moulin Yarns]

He's one of our own, he's one of our oowwnn.Garry O'Connor, he dives like a swan.

[Jonnyboy]

Not read the whole thread but assume that opinion is pretty much divided. Personally when I saw it in real time the angle I saw it from suggested a bodycheck but when I saw the video I could clearly see McCracken leave his leg out as he turned his back. OK, Garry may have hit his leg and went over which most players would do in similar circumstances IMO.

What really pisses me off though is the hysterical reaction from the Sportsound team. Given that the ref was five yards away and was 100% certain it was a foul (they should never award a penalty unless 100% sure it is justified) and an independent panel has studied the footage and determined there was no case to answer because "a foul had been committed" I wonder if the Sportsound mob will have the good grace to apologise for calling him a cheat and a diver.

I won't be holding my breath

Edit: I wonder what that mob of so called pundits would have made of John McDonald

[Kato]

....when I saw the video I could clearly see McCracken leave his leg out as he turned his back. OK, Garry may have hit his leg and went over which most players would do in similar circumstances IMO.

That's what gets me. If you watch it you must come away with the thought that at least there may have been contact. The defender pulls his leg away as GOC is falling.



What really pisses me off though is the hysterical reaction from the Sportsound team.

Don't let it get to you - that's what they want.


Given that the ref was five yards away and was 100% certain it was a foul (they should never award a penalty unless 100% sure it is justified) and an independent panel has studied the footage and determined there was no case to answer because "a foul had been committed" I wonder if the Sportsound mob will have the good grace to apologise for calling him a cheat and a diver.

No chance.


Edit: I wonder what that mob of so called pundits would have made of John McDonald


I distinctly remember at the time of that game they showed the highlights (it was when highlights were 20 mins of a game, not 20 secs) and they showed the dive and the aftermath with the Hibs players complaining.

These days they wouldn't show it.

[seven nowt]

Look at again with this interpretation in mind. O'Connor is moving toward goal and the defenders turns his back on him but leaves his leg trailing behind. The only contact required to put GOC down is the defender's trailing leg and GOC as he moves to get to the ball. You can see the defender's pulling once GOC is going to ground.

Agreed

[HibsMax]

Has anyone looked at the BBC replay of the incident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14998324.stm

The defender clearly turns towards his own goal and lifts his back left leg to trip Garry?

I missed this the first couple of times I watched it and most other observers including McInnes and Billy Brown probably did too

I said the same thing. I can't look at the reply on BBC because they block out of UK viewers.

[HibsMax]

Video evidence wouldn't have helped in this instance though, as the camera angles were totally inconclusive. The ref had the best view of all, and he called it right, despite what you might think.

Video evidence WOULD help if there were enough cameras with good enough quality. Yes, I am spoiled by NFL replays were practically nothing goes unnoticed.

[AFKA5814_Hibs]

Not read the whole thread but assume that opinion is pretty much divided. Personally when I saw it in real time the angle I saw it from suggested a bodycheck but when I saw the video I could clearly see McCracken leave his leg out as he turned his back. OK, Garry may have hit his leg and went over which most players would do in similar circumstances IMO.

What really pisses me off though is the hysterical reaction from the Sportsound team. Given that the ref was five yards away and was 100% certain it was a foul (they should never award a penalty unless 100% sure it is justified) and an independent panel has studied the footage and determined there was no case to answer because "a foul had been committed" I wonder if the Sportsound mob will have the good grace to apologise for calling him a cheat and a diver.

I won't be holding my breath

Edit: I wonder what that mob of so called pundits would have made of John McDonald

In a programme from a Hibs v Rangers game, about 1984, Erich Schaedler was asked who his favourite actor was and said John McDonald. :thumbsup:

TBH, at the time, from my seat in the West Stand Upper which I thought I was in a great position to view the incident, I beleived it was a dive, maybe it was just the way O'Connor fell down. :dunno: I will now accept the expert advice from the panel and retract my original thoughts. :greengrin

[NaeTechnoHibby]

When I seen this oan the TV news, first time, I couldnae understand the furore:agree:

Jeezo, the rules are simple, really, he tried to "obstruct" Garry but wisnae able so he "planted" his leg and Garry wisnae able to continue as he was "tripped" ....:agree:

Ref was right :thumbsup:

[clerriehibs]

I wonder if the Sportsound mob will have the good grace to apologise for calling him a cheat and a diver.

I won't be holding my breath

I wasn't listening,but I'm sure "sport"sound would have discussed it today. So ... was there an apology forthcoming?

[Iggy Pope]

Video evidence WOULD help if there were enough cameras with good enough quality. Yes, I am spoiled by NFL replays were practically nothing goes unnoticed.

I think this might be a good reason for not introducing video evidence. The game has been around too long to be turned into the NFL.

[greenginger]

Just seen the photo published with Gordon Waddell's piece in the Sunday Mail.

It looks like its been photo-shopped to make look like there was nobdy near Garry when he hit the deck.

[snooky]

Just seen the photo published with Gordon Waddell's piece in the Sunday Mail.

It looks like its been photo-shopped to make look like there was nobdy near Garry when he hit the deck.

Because of the likes of photoshop these days a picture can tell a thousand lies.

[weecounty hibby]

The amazing thing for me is the way the media is portraying GO. I can remember Laudrup getting a pen at ER against Leighton when he clearly put his leg into JL and fell over. John MacDonalds nickname was Polaris as he dived so often. I have seen many many OF players get pens for nowt but none of them have had to put up with this level of persecution from the media.

When Laugharty dived to get the Aberdeen player sent off even he didn't have to put up with this and he is serial offender,being booked last week for a dive in the box against us, but nothing in the press about it.

The Scottish media are a total joke who only report what they want to, they very rarely deal with facts and only tackle issues when it is an easy target.

[Moulin Yarns]

Moira Gordon in the Scotland on Sunday yesterday, "needs to take a good look at herself"

http://www.scotsman.com/spl/Moira-Gordon-SFA-needs-to.6850229.jp

Proved not guilty by the SFA but that doesn't matter to some hacks!!!

[jdships]

Moira Gordon in the Scotland on Sunday yesterday, "needs to take a good look at herself"

http://www.scotsman.com/spl/Moira-Gordon-SFA-needs-to.6850229.jp

Proved not guilty by the SFA but that doesn't matter to some hacks!!!



:agree:
Moira WHO ?:confused:
She should be a politician !!
Keep having enquiries/votes until you get the result you want
:na na:

[JimBHibees]

Would Moira be so prone to such vehement opinion if it was Naismith or Hooper accused of the same inconclusive diving charge. I think we all know the answer to that one. Move on nothing to see.

[Andy74]

I didn't leave the game thinking there had been any great contraversy or any turning point that hinged on a refereeing decision.

You'd think this had been a last minute penalty when St johnstone already had a deserved point in the bag and that it was an obvious dive.

The fact is that Hibs were already 2-1 up and as I had been saying from the game in the reports it was looking quite comfortable, despite St Johnstone being nice on the ball at times they didn't do much threatening. We, however, looked like we could have got another anyway.

As it happened, there was contact, O'Connor made sure it was noticed and we eased up a bit as we tried to protect a two goal lead when we hadn't wona home game for so long, eventually allowig them back within a goal.

So, no great contraversy for me in terms of the outcome of the match and St Johnstone should therefore get on with it and stop making this the excuse for a game they looked like losing in any case.

[bawheid]

So, no great contraversy for me in terms of the outcome of the match and St Johnstone should therefore get on with it and stop making this the excuse for a game they looked like losing in any case.

:agree:

This is on a par with Matty Jack / Dundee United in terms of unjustified whinging.

Derek McInnes has probably held a grudge against Hibs since David Elliot straight-legged him out the park at Ibrox in the late-90s.

[lapsedhibee]

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r7vzo4R3YE&feature=related) is a proper dive.

[StevieC]

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r7vzo4R3YE&feature=related) is a proper dive.

No way .. THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3iUDg6JEo0&NR=1) is a proper dive.

:wink:

[greenginger]

Love the first comment below the S O S article from someone whose username is eighteen 74 so presumably a Jambo. He dos'nt think O'connor should be playing at all until his drugs charge has been dealt with as its setting a bad example to children.

How is Black's case progressing I wonder ? and as for that loaned out Hearts player Craig Thomson, a wonderful example of ethical behavior.

[silverhibee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpQTxZAAnIk&NR=1


They dont come any better than this. Cheats.

[brog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpQTxZAAnIk&NR=1


They dont come any better than this. Cheats.

That is an all time classic!! I previously asked about time limit ( after game is played ) on these cases being raised. Anyone know the answer?

[PaulSmith]

Luckily Hibs TV had another camera angle to show the contact between the two players, hence the reason that there was no case to answer. :agree:

[brog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpQTxZAAnIk&NR=1


They dont come any better than this. Cheats.

Anyone remember Moira Gordon's outrage at McGregor's dive? Thought not!

[Kato]

Luckily Hibs TV had another camera angle to show the contact between the two players, hence the reason that there was no case to answer. :agree:

If this is true Hibs TV should have the clip up on YouTube, pronto.

It would have the journos/weasels eating crow, too good a chance to miss.

[Pete]

People need to take the green glasses off.

It was an embarrassing dive that won us a penalty. If that decision was made against us we'd be up in arms to a man and not one of us would be looking at possible "contact".

This is exactly like the Eduardo dive against Celtic. The guy falls anticipating contact and cheats the referee. The player gets a decision that goes towards winning the game for the team. The powers that be try to do something about it by punishing people retrospectively....which 99% of football fans agree with. The club squirms out of it by using legal challenges even though everyone who saw that on replay knew it was a dive.

I don't like cheating and diving in the game...and I class what O'Connor did as such. He should have been made an example of and if he wasn't such an important player for us I reckon there would have been a lot more hibees cutting off our noses and allowing the guilty party to be punished harshly.

It's time for a stand to be made against cheats and if it's us then so be it.

[Pete]

I've read the thread and some of the replies are thoroughly depressing.

"There was contact so blah blah"

"the defender only has himself to blame for daring to suggest even looking like he might tackle the player...god forbid he might brush his leg because that might cause him to "lose his balance""

It's been a slow constant brainwashing towards a non-contact, deceptive sport. Even the media pundits are falling into the trap of saying "that's' the rules, there was contact therefore..." which is garbage.


We have to be very careful about what we wish for. Every one of these challenges based on nothing but vested interest will ultimately result in a poorer game and one that will turn people off in the long run.

If I want to see grown men pretending to be hurt I'll watch wrestling.

[Moulin Yarns]

The club squirms out of it by using legal challenges even though everyone who saw that on replay knew it was a dive.




I've read the thread

If you have read the thread, then you will know that everyone does not think it was a dive. and the club would not have challenged it if they did not think they had a chance of winning appeal (IMHO of course :wink:)

[Pete]

If you have read the thread, then you will know that everyone does not think it was a dive. and the club would not have challenged it if they did not think they had a chance of winning appeal (IMHO of course :wink:)

Deep down they have to think that was...and the hibs "people" can point to the arsenal case for back up.

Its sad and doesn't do the game any favours.

[Kato]

Deep down they have to think that was...and the hibs "people" can point to the arsenal case for back up.

Its sad and doesn't do the game any favours.

.......in your opinion.

[Arch Stanton]

I've read the thread and some of the replies are thoroughly depressing.

"There was contact so blah blah"

"the defender only has himself to blame for daring to suggest even looking like he might tackle the player...god forbid he might brush his leg because that might cause him to "lose his balance""

It's been a slow constant brainwashing towards a non-contact, deceptive sport. Even the media pundits are falling into the trap of saying "that's' the rules, there was contact therefore..." which is garbage.


We have to be very careful about what we wish for. Every one of these challenges based on nothing but vested interest will ultimately result in a poorer game and one that will turn people off in the long run.

If I want to see grown men pretending to be hurt I'll watch wrestling.

Actually it's you that's fallen into the trap of thinking that a small contact should not have a large impact - this is wrong. However, I'm not depressed - some people just don't understand things as well as I do :greengrin

btw, the following would be a dive in your book (i.e. absolutely minimal contact but making a meal of it by flinging himself headlong).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4PGZfloohQ

[Geo_1875]

I've read the thread and some of the replies are thoroughly depressing.

"There was contact so blah blah"

"the defender only has himself to blame for daring to suggest even looking like he might tackle the player...god forbid he might brush his leg because that might cause him to "lose his balance""

It's been a slow constant brainwashing towards a non-contact, deceptive sport. Even the media pundits are falling into the trap of saying "that's' the rules, there was contact therefore..." which is garbage.


We have to be very careful about what we wish for. Every one of these challenges based on nothing but vested interest will ultimately result in a poorer game and one that will turn people off in the long run.

If I want to see grown men pretending to be hurt I'll watch wrestling.

There's no brainwashing taking place. It's the proper application of the laws of the game. The laws change over time and unfortunately, in my opinion, we are no .longer playing in the 1970s when it was a contact sport played at 3:00pm on a Saturday. If these minimal contact laws are in force they are not just there to protect Messi, Ronaldo and Laugherty. So even if you believe Garry made a meal of the challenge he was entitled to a penalty as there was contact within the penalty area. And the SFA agree with me.

[brog]

I believe some folk on this thread are falling into the trap, as expressed by some of our idiotic Scottish commentators, that there are only 2 courses of action when a player goes down in the box, ie a penalty or the player's booked for simulation. In fact there are many valid reasons for neither awarding a penalty nor booking the player.
The GOC case is similar. I think it was a soft penalty & I would not have been happy to see it awarded against Hibs but I also don't think GOC deserved a booking at the time. What outraged me & many others however was the retroactive action taken against GOC & our club with the prospect of a totally disproportionate penalty for what may or may not have been an offence in the first place. If Hibs TV have an alternative view of the incident then that's excellent & I applaud us for using this but I'm afraid I subscribe more to the view that the SFA/SPL suddenly realised what a can of worms they were opening up. I doubt very much we'll see another retroactive simulation charge unless it's of the Laugherty or McGregor standard.

[basehibby]

I've read the thread and some of the replies are thoroughly depressing.

"There was contact so blah blah"

"the defender only has himself to blame for daring to suggest even looking like he might tackle the player...god forbid he might brush his leg because that might cause him to "lose his balance""

It's been a slow constant brainwashing towards a non-contact, deceptive sport. Even the media pundits are falling into the trap of saying "that's' the rules, there was contact therefore..." which is garbage.


We have to be very careful about what we wish for. Every one of these challenges based on nothing but vested interest will ultimately result in a poorer game and one that will turn people off in the long run.

If I want to see grown men pretending to be hurt I'll watch wrestling.

You must have had a brilliant view of the incident from over there in Australia Pete :wink:

[Hibbyradge]

If these minimal contact laws are in force they are not just there to protect Messi, Ronaldo and Laugherty.

There are no such laws.


So even if you believe Garry made a meal of the challenge he was entitled to a penalty as there was contact within the penalty area.

"Contact within the penalty area" isn't against the laws of football.

However, a free kick should be awarded if a player attempts to trip an opponent. The attempt need not be successful.

Was it the view of the referee that the defender tried to trip O'Connor? If so, a penalty was the correct decision.

[Kaiser1962]

If one of our guys "takes a tumble" tonight and the resultant set piece sends us through to the play-off's will the SFA et all withdraw the side from the competition?

[Hibbyradge]

If one of our guys "takes a tumble" tonight and the resultant set piece sends us through to the play-off's will the SFA et all withdraw the side from the competition?

Why would they do that?

The SFA had nothing to do with the O'Connor incident, did they?

Even if they did, he was cleared of diving.

[basehibby]

There are no such laws.



"Contact within the penalty area" isn't against the laws of football.

However, a free kick should be awarded if a player attempts to trip an opponent. The attempt need not be successful.

Was it the view of the referee that the defender tried to trip O'Connor? If so, a penalty was the correct decision.

:confused: I'm sure this is only part of the story?!? Many a foul has been (rightly) given when a defender makes an HONEST attempt to get the ball but completely misses - getting the attacker instead. This is what happened in the GOC incident in question IMO. The notion that the St Js player was maybe trying to get out of the way when contact was made is pretty irrelevant - the fact is that having put himself in the way, he illegally impeded (even if only slightly) the attacking player - which is why a penalty was given.

[Hibbyradge]

:confused: I'm sure this is only part of the story?!? Many a foul has been (rightly) given when a defender makes an HONEST attempt to get the ball but completely misses - getting the attacker instead. This is what happened in the GOC incident in question IMO. The notion that the St Js player was maybe trying to get out of the way when contact was made is pretty irrelevant - the fact is that having put himself in the way, he illegally impeded (even if only slightly) the attacking player - which is why a penalty was given.

Yes, that's only part of the law.

It's a free kick if a player trips or attempts to trip.

Copied from here: (http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/LawsofFootballIndex/0,,10794~1354202,00.html)


A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

- kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
- trips or attempts to trip an opponent
- jumps at an opponent
- charges an opponent
- strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
- pushes an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences:

- tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
- holds an opponent
- spits at an opponent
- handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from where the offence occurred.

PENALTY KICK

A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.

I your example, it could be argued that an HONEST attempt to get the ball which completely misses is a careless attempt and is therefore a foul.

[Golden Bear]

If this is true Hibs TV should have the clip up on YouTube, pronto.

It would have the journos/weasels eating crow, too good a chance to miss.

:agree:

I totally agree.

[Kaiser1962]

Why would they do that?

The SFA had nothing to do with the O'Connor incident, did they?

Even if they did, he was cleared of diving.



Who employ's the "compliance officer" and who held the "fast track Tribunal"?


I never said GOC dived but was merely raising the issue that if, for example, Naismith dived (perish the thought) tonight to win a decisive penalty, and this was subsequently proved to be the case, would the SFA and the press with their new found sense of morality, be so inclined to move to withdraw the Scotland team from the competition.

[Hibbyradge]

Who employ's the "compliance officer" and who held the "fast track Tribunal"?


I never said GOC dived but was merely raising the issue that if, for example, Naismith dived (perish the thought) tonight to win a decisive penalty, and this was subsequently proved to be the case, would the SFA and the press with their new found sense of morality, be so inclined to move to withdraw the Scotland team from the competition.

I see what you're saying.

Calling an OF player a cheat would be tantamount to signing a death warrant for a media person's career so it rarely happens.

There is also the hypocrisy factor to consider.

If a Hibs player dives, most Hibs fans find a way to condone it. If it's anyone else, we condemn.

Same applies to Scottish media and the national team, I guess.

[Jonnyboy]

People need to take the green glasses off.

It was an embarrassing dive that won us a penalty. If that decision was made against us we'd be up in arms to a man and not one of us would be looking at possible "contact".

This is exactly like the Eduardo dive against Celtic. The guy falls anticipating contact and cheats the referee. The player gets a decision that goes towards winning the game for the team. The powers that be try to do something about it by punishing people retrospectively....which 99% of football fans agree with. The club squirms out of it by using legal challenges even though everyone who saw that on replay knew it was a dive.

I don't like cheating and diving in the game...and I class what O'Connor did as such. He should have been made an example of and if he wasn't such an important player for us I reckon there would have been a lot more hibees cutting off our noses and allowing the guilty party to be punished harshly.

It's time for a stand to be made against cheats and if it's us then so be it.

Does that include the match referee who was five yards away and awarded the penalty?

Does it also include the independent review panel who adjudged there to have been no offence because "a foul was committed?"

Sure there are Hibbies on here who view things through green coloured specs. I guess we all do at times but there is no doubt that an offence was committed and so the public flogging of GOC was a joke IMO

[Iggy Pope]

Moira Gordon in the Scotland on Sunday yesterday, "needs to take a good look at herself"

http://www.scotsman.com/spl/Moira-Gordon-SFA-needs-to.6850229.jp

Proved not guilty by the SFA but that doesn't matter to some hacks!!!

Moira Gordon hates Hibs. Fact.