Ivan's booking

[scoopyboy]

Now that the little fud Pawlett has had a two game ban for diving should Ivan's booking not be wiped from the records?

[lapsedhibee]

Now that the little fud Pawlett has had a two game ban for diving should Ivan's booking not be wiped from the records?

:agree: The booking and the penalty award should be rescinded.

[pentlando]

It looked to me as if he was booked for his reaction to the penalty, rather than the foul itself, so even if bookings can be rescinded i doubt a booking for giving it tight to the ref could be removed.

[Mikey]

I haven't been paying attention. Is this the penalty and winning goal on Saturday we're talking about here?

[cabbageandribs1875]

I haven't been paying attention. Is this the penalty and winning goal on Saturday we're talking about here?http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/290913Goodwin could be offered a two-match suspension for his punch on Motherwell midfielder Steve Jennings while Pawlett is ready to be handed the same punishment for his penalty dive in the weekend win over Hibsironically, Pawlett's weekend red card for his tackle on Lewis Stevenson will be rescinded but his punishment will be doubled for simulation.

[scoopyboy]

It looked to me as if he was booked for his reaction to the penalty, rather than the foul itself, so even if bookings can be rescinded i doubt a booking for giving it tight to the ref could be removed.

I would agree with that.

However he wouldn't have given it tight to the referee if the penalty hadn't been awarded.

[scoopyboy]

I haven't been paying attention. Is this the penalty and winning goal on Saturday we're talking about here?

yes

[Beefster]

If a result is shown to have been affected by cheating, the game should be replayed IMHO. Can you imagine if we were relegated because of that lost point?

[lapsedhibee]

If a result is shown to have been affected by cheating, the game should be replayed IMHO. Can you imagine if we were relegated because of that lost point?

Or, like FC Sion earlier this season, the team doing the cheating should be chucked out of the competition.

[Don Giovanni]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/290913Goodwin could be offered a two-match suspension for his punch on Motherwell midfielder Steve Jennings while Pawlett is ready to be handed the same punishment for his penalty dive in the weekend win over Hibsironically, Pawlett's weekend red card for his tackle on Lewis Stevenson will be rescinded but his punishment will be doubled for simulation.Jeezo! Whit a mess, although this review process is progress I suppose. What it certainly highlights is the inability of our top referees to get the big decisions correct at the time - when it really matters. Retrospective action, whilst an improvement is a distant second to getting the call right first time. [Bring back the foreign refs!]

[bingo70]

If he was booked for the foul I'd agree but when its for dissent the booking should stand imo.

There is going to be times the ref gets it wrong (there'll be loads actually) but footballers need to stop with all this abusing the refs and just get on with the game.

The thing that annoys me is whenever we play against rangers their players continually pester and bully the refs but nothing ever happens to them, mcculloch and weir being the worst culprits, totally inconsistent

[Hibs Class]

Jeezo! Whit a mess, although this review process is progress I suppose. What it certainly highlights is the inability of our top referees to get the big decisions correct at the time - when it really matters. Retrospective action, whilst an improvement is a distant second to getting the call right first time. [Bring back the foreign refs!]

What it actually highlights is the willingness of players to try to cheat the oppisition and con the referees and unfortunately they are so good at it that it is sometimes successful. You cannot always blame the ref if he gets a decision wrong.

[Bristolhibby]

Jeezo! Whit a mess, although this review process is progress I suppose. What it certainly highlights is the inability of our top referees to get the big decisions correct at the time - when it really matters. Retrospective action, whilst an improvement is a distant second to getting the call right first time. [Bring back the foreign refs!]

I have said one, and I will say it a thousand times.

TMO (television match official), like they do in rugby.

When the ref is not sure he should make a wee box with his arms and the decision goes up to a referee watching on TV.

This adds at most a minute onto the game safe in the assumption that decisions that will have major influence on the game are decided by the referee with the best view (ie multi camera angles) of the incident.

This also could have been used for the sending off.

IMO, that would have resulted in no penalty for Aberdeen and Aberdeen having 11 men on the pitch.

Use it for goal awards (crossed the line or not, off side or not), penaltys and sending offs only.

Its soooo ****in obvious.

Why dont the SPL just go ahead and do it, let FIFA complain after the event.

J

[BEEJ]

I have said one, and I will say it a thousand times.

TMO (television match official), like they do in rugby.

When the ref is not sure he should make a wee box with his arms and the decision goes up to a referee watching on TV.

This adds at most a minute onto the game safe in the assumption that decisions that will have major influence on the game are decided by the referee with the best view (ie multi camera angles) of the incident.

This also could have been used for the sending off.

IMO, that would have resulted in no penalty for Aberdeen and Aberdeen having 11 men on the pitch.

Use it for goal awards (crossed the line or not, off side or not), penaltys and sending offs only.

Its soooo ****in obvious.

Why dont the SPL just go ahead and do it, let FIFA complain after the event.

J
:agree: It must happen eventually.

[CraigHibee]

If a result is shown to have been affected by cheating, the game should be replayed IMHO. Can you imagine if we were relegated because of that lost point?

agree with you 100% bud, surely if he is getting penalised for diving, and this dive got them the winning goal then surely said goal should then become null and void?

would make perfect sense? so either cancel their goal so the correct result is 0 - 0 or reply the match?

with this sort of thing it still encourages players to cheat/dive etc in order to gain their team victory with no real negative effect on their club apart from the player being disciplined or getting a ban

[Sir David Gray]

Has it actually been officially announced that Pawlett has been banned for two games for diving or is this only an assumption based on a newspaper report?

I've not seen it mentioned by any of the usual sources. :confused:

[PatHead]

agree with you 100% bud, surely if he is getting penalised for diving, and this dive got them the winning goal then surely said goal should then become null and void?

would make perfect sense? so either cancel their goal so the correct result is 0 - 0 or reply the match?

with this sort of thing it still encourages players to cheat/dive etc in order to gain their team victory with no real negative effect on their club apart from the player being disciplined or getting a ban

Pawlett would still get his win bonus as well through cheating. They should deduct that and give it to charity at the end of the season.

[easty]

Pawlett would still get his win bonus as well through cheating. They should deduct that and give it to charity at the end of the season.

And he would have went home happy that night, so we should take his Gameboy off of him for a few hours to make him sad for a while..

[snooky]

What it actually highlights is the willingness of players to try to cheat the oppisition and con the referees and unfortunately they are so good at it that it is sometimes successful. You cannot always blame the ref if he gets a decision wrong.

:agree:
Exactly. If the clubs and players want to stop this abhorent part of our game they have to look in the mirror (& I don't mean the Mirror newspaper, BTW).
I recall Rob Jones and a couple of other Hibs players berating Zemamma for a dive in a league game not long after Zooma joined us. It was a refreshing change.
I think our refs are pretty poor at the best of times however the diving squads don't make the ref's job any easier.
We've had/have the odd diver playing for us however, I'm confident in saying we are definitely in the lower half of the "Snipers Target" League.

[Don Giovanni]

What it actually highlights is the willingness of players to try to cheat the oppisition and con the referees and unfortunately they are so good at it that it is sometimes successful. You cannot always blame the ref if he gets a decision wrong.Yep. Thats a good point also. The new system isn't perfect but retrospective action is better than no action at all - which is what happened previously. In time these punishments might lead to a change in attitudes to cheating. It's got to start somewhere.

[Northernhibee]

Diving and resultantly conning the referee should carry the same penalty as getting more than four players sent off, or forfeiting the match - an automatic 3-0 loss. No player would risk it as they'd be villified by their team mates, manager and fans.

Should go in front of a panel of three or more independant experts who analyse each case when brought to their attention.

[SquashedFrogg]

If he was booked for the foul I'd agree but when its for dissent the booking should stand imo.

There is going to be times the ref gets it wrong (there'll be loads actually) but footballers need to stop with all this abusing the refs and just get on with the game.

The thing that annoys me is whenever we play against rangers their players continually pester and bully the refs but nothing ever happens to them, mcculloch and weir being the worst culprits, totally inconsistent

But why? If it's proved that he dived for the penalty surely Ivan was entitled to complain?

If he never dived for a penalty the ball would've rolled out for a corner and Ivan wouldn't have said a word and not received a booking.

For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction :cb

[Eyrie]

But why? If it's proved that he dived for the penalty surely Ivan was entitled to complain?

If he never dived for a penalty the ball would've rolled out for a corner and Ivan wouldn't have said a word and not received a booking.

For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction :cb
Because players are meant to be playing the game and not arguing with officials.

We could do worse than take a leaf out of rugby's book where only the captain is allowed to speak to the referee and teams get penalised for trying to influence him.

[SquashedFrogg]

Because players are meant to be playing the game and not arguing with officials.

We could do worse than take a leaf out of rugby's book where only the captain is allowed to speak to the referee and teams get penalised for trying to influence him.

:blah::coffee:

Oh dear.........:rolleyes:

So then the 'captain' gets booked for protesting against a cheat?

Is this the same Rugby where players gouge eye's , pull hair, elbow faces, fake injuries and can only last 80 minutes?

[Eyrie]

:blah::coffee:

Oh dear.........:rolleyes:

So then the 'captain' gets booked for protesting against a cheat?

Is this the same Rugby where players gouge eye's , pull hair, elbow faces, fake injuries and can only last 80 minutes?
As long as the captain is respectful to the ref, there isn't a problem. Background comments by the players aren't a good idea though. Don't you get pissed off watching footballers arguing with officials when it's clear that the decision was correct? Wouldn't you prefer that the game continued without such timewasting?

Rugby stamps down hard on the misconduct you refer to, and when was the last time you watched a football game where a player didn't fake an injury?

[SquashedFrogg]

As long as the captain is respectful to the ref, there isn't a problem. Background comments by the players aren't a good idea though. Don't you get pissed off watching footballers arguing with officials when it's clear that the decision was correct? Wouldn't you prefer that the game continued without such timewasting?

Rugby stamps down hard on the misconduct you refer to, and when was the last time you watched a football game where a player didn't fake an injury?

Fair enough, you make some valid points about footballers faking injury. :agree:

Rugby may stamp down on these areas but the players still do it..

And I do get pissed off with players constantly berating the ref over every decision, particularly when they know they're wrong. But when the decision is clearly incorrect, I can't be too critical.

Your analogy of rugby may be suitable but in my opinion its not the players who are at fault, it's the officials. In Rugby players can be (more or less) assured that the officials have made the correct decision, whereas in football it's been proven far too often that officials get it wrong.

The Aberdeen chaps suspension yet again proves this.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

I saw Thomson on the tele earlier saying that he had better days and while that is true, and while there is always the pressure of being in charge, for me, these were bread and butter decisions that he has to get right.

[Hibercelona]

Diving and resultantly conning the referee should carry the same penalty as getting more than four players sent off, or forfeiting the match - an automatic 3-0 loss. No player would risk it as they'd be villified by their team mates, manager and fans.

Should go in front of a panel of three or more independant experts who analyse each case when brought to their attention.

Exactly.

And we wouldn't have the issue with players only getting a yellow for diving during the game, because they'd be far too afraid to dive incase they did get the penelty award. :agree:

[matty_f]

I saw Thomson on the tele earlier saying that he had better days and while that is true, and while there is always the pressure of being in charge, for me, these were bread and butter decisions that he has to get right.


Spot on.:agree: A ref is judged by the big decisions in the game, and in this case the referee made the two biggest decisions badly. The ref should never have the influence on a result in the way that Thomson did on Saturday. Pawlett needs to take the biggest portion of the blame for the penalty if he's adjudged to have dived, because he's conned the referee. However, Thomson had a great view of the incident and saw what the rest of us saw, yet still decided it was a penalty, so he is culpable as well.

Referees will always make bad decisions, they're never going to get every foul, throw-in, corner, and penalty correct, however they need to get the big calls right consistently at the top level, and Thomson failed spectacularly with them on Saturday. The result of it is that we lost three points on Aberdeen, effectively through no fault of our own. It's frustrating, to say the least.

[Hibercelona]

Spot on.:agree: A ref is judged by the big decisions in the game, and in this case the referee made the two biggest decisions badly. The ref should never have the influence on a result in the way that Thomson did on Saturday. Pawlett needs to take the biggest portion of the blame for the penalty if he's adjudged to have dived, because he's conned the referee. However, Thomson had a great view of the incident and saw what the rest of us saw, yet still decided it was a penalty, so he is culpable as well.

Referees will always make bad decisions, they're never going to get every foul, throw-in, corner, and penalty correct, however they need to get the big calls right consistently at the top level, and Thomson failed spectacularly with them on Saturday. The result of it is that we lost three points on Aberdeen, effectively through no fault of our own. It's frustrating, to say the least.

Agree with most of that except the last part.

It mainly is our fault that we can't win games. If we ever actually looked remotely dangerious going forward and carving out enough chances to win a game, then we wouldn't be in the predicament. We wouldn't have any reason to complain about poor decision making, because we'd be too busy hammering teams to care about the odd cock up.

Thompsons poor decision making may have cost us 1 point, but no chance did it cost us 3, because we wouldn't have scored if we played that game for 180 minutes.

[Saorsa]

Spot on.:agree: A ref is judged by the big decisions in the game, and in this case the referee made the two biggest decisions badly. The ref should never have the influence on a result in the way that Thomson did on Saturday. Pawlett needs to take the biggest portion of the blame for the penalty if he's adjudged to have dived, because he's conned the referee. However, Thomson had a great view of the incident and saw what the rest of us saw, yet still decided it was a penalty, so he is culpable as well.

Referees will always make bad decisions, they're never going to get every foul, throw-in, corner, and penalty correct, however they need to get the big calls right consistently at the top level, and Thomson failed spectacularly with them on Saturday. The result of it is that we lost three points on Aberdeen, effectively through no fault of our own. It's frustrating, to say the least.Yet these same refs who consistently get these big decisions wrong had the gall tae ask for and got more money. IMO they had a ****in' brass neck taking what they were before, never mind asking for more.

[SmokieJoe]

Now that the little fud Pawlett has had a two game ban for diving should Ivan's booking not be wiped from the records?
Yes without doubt.

The beaks at sfa/spl hq in slumsville should ponder changing the points tally/goals for an against after the incedant had such a bearing on the result. The only way to stop these twats is to penalise the club by way of the afore mensioned goals tally/points total. (G O'C withstanding, because he was innocent ofc):greengrin

That would surely stop the blatent divers from considering challenging tom daley for his place at the 2012 olympics.:agree:

[matty_f]

Agree with most of that except the last part.

It mainly is our fault that we can't win games. If we ever actually looked remotely dangerious going forward and carving out enough chances to win a game, then we wouldn't be in the predicament. We wouldn't have any reason to complain about poor decision making, because we'd be too busy hammering teams to care about the odd cock up.

Thompsons poor decision making may have cost us 1 point, but no chance did it cost us 3, because we wouldn't have scored if we played that game for 180 minutes.


It cost us three in that it put Aberdeen 3 points further ahead of us, is what I meant when I said we lost three points on Aberdeen, we should have had a point, I don't think we did enough to win the game either.