youtube of the goals

[At The Edge]

heres the goals, thanks to some Arabic commentry, the game sounds ok!:greengrin
Pity the result isn't,
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD5rpsVE3Q&feature=player_embedded)

[Mikey]

How can Elliot not be interfering with play there? He had to duck to get out of the way of the ball and was right in front of Stack.

[Gatecrasher]

How can Elliot not be interfering with play there? He had to duck to get out of the way of the ball and was right in front of Stack.
how was that 1st goal allowed to stand?

[Saorsa]

how was that 1st goal allowed to stand?because the officials were ***** and the ref was a h****s ****?

[LancashireHibby]

No way on earth that first goal should have stood. That said, I don't think we'd have had the impetus to push forward for our goal had we not been one down.

Dreadful defending for the second goal and fair play to Skacel for his finish for the third. They were just much smarter than us in front of goal.

[Malthibby]

Still looking for that bit of luck to turn things around, I was at the opposite end of the ground for their first but sounds like it should have been disallowed.
We were pash in the first half but at least put them under pressure for the first 10/15 minutes of the second.
Gotta keep the faith.
GG

[madabouthibs]

First goal was clearly offside.
Second....... a lucky swipe from Webster which went through a hell of a lot of legs/bodies without touching the sides.
The third...... A classic quick counter attack and an excellent finish from a pretty poor pass, but he had time to recover because our defenders were so far behind!

Nope, still don't feel any better....... :rolleyes:

[Pinkie]

First goal was clearly offside.
Second....... a lucky swipe from Webster which went through a hell of a lot of legs/bodies without touching the sides.
The third...... A classic quick counter attack and an excellent finish from a pretty poor pass, but he had time to recover because our defenders were so far behind!

Nope, still don't feel any better....... :rolleyes:

Might I add... The third goal was offside - even more so than the first. When the goalie kicks the ball, the hearts guy who collects the ball to middle it for Scacel is at least 2 yards offside. The linesman is bang in line. Cannot believe that he didn't raise the flag.

And nope, I don't fell any better for that either.

[.Sean.]

Who's meant to be picking up Webster for their 2nd? :confused:

[hibsway]

why doesnt stack put players on the posts at corners?,2 goals easily avoided if men where there :confused:

[Spike Mandela]

Anyone spot Griffiths running past Hammil at our goal celebration and saying something to him that got a reaction.:cb

[Franck Stanton]

How can Elliot not be interfering with play there? He had to duck to get out of the way of the ball and was right in front of Stack.

Stack still managed to save that initial shot even with Elliot being there, would he have been able to hold it if Elliot wasn't there ? Debatable.

[Steve-O]

First goal offside without a shadow of a doubt but we should know by now we get NOTHING against these pricks, ever.

[Baader]

Didn't think the 3rd was offside as thought Sutton runs past O'Hanlon.

1st definitely shouldn't have stood by why are we not having bodies on posts? Was a simple clearance if there's a man there.

Hate to say it but we did not deserve anything out of the match.

[truehibernian]

Hanlon was pedestrian all game, and very much at fault for the first goal. Watch him lose McGowan....in fact no, watch him not even lose him, watch him stand and ball watch as he always does.

Second goal was superb hold up play from a player we would love to have, Sutton.....strong, good lay back, good player and good finish.

Third was a clinical attack. Good finish from a decent player.

That said, Stack pulled off two great saves, they missed a penalty, Templeton hit the post and they had one cleared off the line, in addition to their goals.


At home, 4-5-1......that in itself is an invitation for all the above. We play with fear, they play with confidence in these games. That boils down to mentality of the players.

They played as men....we played as clueless wee boys. I thought Ian Black was simply tremendous today for the whole game. Drew fouls, spread play, dictated, kept the head, had shots on target, set piece deliveries excellent. Our midfield.......................................... .................................................. .........................

[PeeJay]

How can Elliot not be interfering with play there? He had to duck to get out of the way of the ball and was right in front of Stack.

It's interesting to see that not one single Hibs players calls for offside - as if they're not really aware of what's going on...:confused:

[son of haggart]

It's interesting to see that not one single Hibs players calls for offside - as if they're not really aware of what's going on...:confused:

As you had no one on the posts, only Stack would have been in a position to spot that but he would have been concentrating on the header.

3rd goal never offside - watch from 3.04 on the video and Sutton runs from an onside position

[Beefster]

Who's meant to be picking up Webster for their 2nd? :confused:

I think Palsson challenged him for a header (and lost) before completely failing to stay with him as he got the shot away.

[PeeJay]

As you had no one on the posts, only Stack would have been in a position to spot that but he would have been concentrating on the header.

3rd goal never offside - watch from 3.04 on the video and Sutton runs from an onside position

Can't agree with that - a "switched-on" team must see something like that - Stack definitely should have protested - how could he concentrate on the header when your guy was blocking his view ... he should have been thinking "where's my lot, then and how come I'm surrounded by Hearts players?"

As to the third goal - it's not where you are when you collect the ball, it's where you are when it is kicked - and he is clearly (as in miles) offside when the ball is first kicked from the Hearts goalie (your 3:04 reference doesn't show where he was when the goalkick was taken, but where he was after running back - believe me, you have to run it further back to the time of the goalkick itself!), but he 'cleverly' runs back into an 'onside position' - looks like a clear wrong decision to me - no idea what the linesman was doing, wasn't really difficult to spot - maybe he was a former Hearts supporter too??:cb

Can't change anything now, but the officials were absolutely dire!

[McCrae]

It's interesting to see that not one single Hibs players calls for offside - as if they're not really aware of what's going on...:confused:

That's because it wasn't offside and the players know the rule. From a corner a player cannot be offside, Websters header and the corner count as one move.

[son of haggart]

Can't agree with that - a "switched-on" team must see something like that - Stack definitely should have protested - how could he concentrate on the header when your guy was blocking his view ... he should have been thinking "where's my lot, then and how come I'm surrounded by Hearts players?"

As to the third goal - it's not where you are when you collect the ball, it's where you are when it is kicked - and he is clearly (as in miles) offside when the ball is first kicked from the Hearts goalie (your 3:04 reference doesn't show where he was when the goalkick was taken, but where he was after running back - believe me, you have to run it further back to the time of the goalkick itself!), but he 'cleverly' runs back into an 'onside position' - looks like a clear wrong decision to me - no idea what the linesman was doing, wasn't really difficult to spot - maybe he was a former Hearts supporter too??:cb

Can't change anything now, but the officials were absolutely dire!

Yes I think Stack could have protested but he was probably focussed on saving the header and maybe didn't realise Elliott was last man (at a corner yo'd be expecting one of your own players to be on one of the posts - mostly the linos fault. Re the third goal you the Al Jezeera video doesn't show the kick out. I've just looked at the Sky coverage and you are right - lino at fault though these aren't all that easy to spot as the tendency to look at the kicker then look down the line , by which time he was probably level.

Where was the lino from?

[PeeJay]

That's because it wasn't offside and the players know the rule. From a corner a player cannot be offside, Websters header and the corner count as one move.

... so the players are in on this then, that explains a lot ...:greengrin

[PeeJay]

Yes I think Stack could have protested but he was probably focussed on saving the header and maybe didn't realise Elliott was last man (at a corner yo'd be expecting one of your own players to be on one of the posts - mostly the linos fault. Re the third goal you the Al Jezeera video doesn't show the kick out. I've just looked at the Sky coverage and you are right - lino at fault though these aren't all that easy to spot as the tendency to look at the kicker then look down the line , by which time he was probably level.

Where was the lino from?

No idea about the lino, sorry!

I think in a good team that is focused on the task at hand (a derby against Hearts!) the back four and the keeper woudl have given the ref / linesman hell for that ridiculous decision - we're not a good team ATM of course, I think things like this reveal a lot about our states of mind at the club.

[son of haggart]

That's because it wasn't offside and the players know the rule. From a corner a player cannot be offside, Websters header and the corner count as one move.

You really are persisting with this, aren't you!

The latest Fifa rules I can find state:

Offence
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball
touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,
involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position

No offence
There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:
• a goal kick
• a throw-in
• a corner kick

They do not state that the corner kick, and the next touch by the player receiving it count as one move. Webster received the ball directly from the corner kick = no offence, Elliott was (arguably) interfering with play/an opponent and therefore was (arguably) offside.

[Broken Gnome]

That's because it wasn't offside and the players know the rule. From a corner a player cannot be offside, Websters header and the corner count as one move.

Could you find this rule please, which no one else seems to know about? The first player to touch the ball obviously can't be offside - everything there after is a normal pattern of play.

The 3rd - can't be offside from a goal kick. About the worst goal Hibs have ever conceded.

[PeeJay]

Could you find this rule please, which no one else seems to know about? The first player to touch the ball obviously can't be offside - everything there after is a normal pattern of play.

The 3rd - can't be offside from a goal kick. About the worst goal Hibs have ever conceded.

OOPs - you're right - take it all back... :hide:

[McCrae]

So if it was offside then....

Why didn't any Hibs players call it out .....

[Broken Gnome]

So if it was offside then....

Why didn't any Hibs players call it out .....

I don't know - too busy blaming themselves, depression?

A rule book's a better guide than what you're suggesting though.

[PeeJay]

I don't know - too busy blaming themselves, depression?

A rule book's a better guide than what you're suggesting though.

The rule book does actually say "not from a corner" but in this instance it's after the corner, the game's moved on - so I think it is offside - confusing enough (for me anyway) at the best of times, wonder what it's like for a ref and linesman in the heat of a derby??

[Broken Gnome]

Think of the instances when a team takes a short corner, the defending team immediately comes off the posts and the initial corner taker is given offside when the ball is touched back to him. Same deal really.

[Pinkie]

Could you find this rule please, which no one else seems to know about? The first player to touch the ball obviously can't be offside - everything there after is a normal pattern of play.

The 3rd - can't be offside from a goal kick. About the worst goal Hibs have ever conceded.

Seriously? I don't doubt you, but in 30 years of playing and watching football, I have never been aware of this rule. I guess that I've never played at a good enough level for a by kick to reach the half-way line, and that in all my time watching Hibs, we've never been caught out in this way before. :wink:

[Broken Gnome]

Seriously? I don't doubt you, but in 30 years of playing and watching football, I have never been aware of this rule. I guess that I've never played at a good enough level for a by kick to reach the half-way line, and that in all my time watching Hibs, we've never been caught out in this way before. :wink:

Tis true. I've looked like a right @rse trying to play offside from them in the past :greengrin

[son of haggart]

Tis true. I've looked like a right @rse trying to play offside from them in the past :greengrin

I played at such a low level the opposition could rarely kick the ball all the way up to the half way line so it was never an issue!


Re the 1st goal

• "interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from
playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s
line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in
the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent

Elliott almost certainly did this( and if he had got to the rebound would also have been offside for that)

[McCrae]

Elliott almost certainly did this( and if he had got to the rebound would also have been offside for that)

yep, agree if Elliot had touched the ball it would have been given offside. Would count as a new phase.


It's like a player who is offside tapping a goal bound shot in. If he hits it it's offside if he doesn't it counts.

[Part/Time Supporter]

yep, agree if Elliot had touched the ball it would have been given offside. Would count as a new phase.


It's like a player who is offside tapping a goal bound shot in. If he hits it it's offside if he doesn't it counts.

You don't have to touch the ball to be offside. Obstructing an opponent's view or deliberately distracting an opponent (while in an offside position) is also offside. He should have been given offside anyway. The Yams complained about a somewhat similar Hibs goal in a derby 5-6 years ago (Fletcher skipped over a shot by Riordan that went in).

[haagsehibby]

yep, agree if Elliot had touched the ball it would have been given offside. Would count as a new phase.


It's like a player who is offside tapping a goal bound shot in. If he hits it it's offside if he doesn't it counts.

Apparently you can't read. You have been given numerous links and quotes from the Laws of football yet you persist in your incorrect views. I can only assume you are trolling.

[Eyrie]

yep, agree if Elliot had touched the ball it would have been given offside. Would count as a new phase.


It's like a player who is offside tapping a goal bound shot in. If he hits it it's offside if he doesn't it counts.
You're embarrassing yourself by persisting with this argument. Everyone else, including Son of Haggart, knows the offside law and agrees that Elliot was both in an offside position and interfering with play as soon as the header came in.

If he hadn't been there, Stack would have had more time to react to the shot and may have caught it or may have parried it wide of the goals instead of turing it towards the post.

[McCrae]

Think of the instances when a team takes a short corner, the defending team immediately comes off the posts and the initial corner taker is given offside when the ball is touched back to him. Same deal really.

Nope this is different because he would touch the ball a second time. If he didn't touch the ball he would not be called offside.

In your example Elliot is the same position as the corner taker. Unless he touches the ball he would not be offside, even if all the Hibs players were on the edge of the box and he was on the goal line.

[haagsehibby]

Nope this is different because he would touch the ball a second time. If he didn't touch the ball he would not be called offside.

In your example Elliot is the same position as the corner taker. Unless he touches the ball he would not be offside, even if all the Hibs players were on the edge of the box and he was on the goal line.

Admins, how about emptying this Yam. Nine posts since 2005 pretty much all in the last two days defending a clearly offside goal against us and a user name of McCrae. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to come to the obvious deduction.

[machibby]

So if it was offside then....

Why didn't any Hibs players call it out .....

Tail between legs time

[Eyrie]

Nope this is different because he would touch the ball a second time. If he didn't touch the ball he would not be called offside.

In your example Elliot is the same position as the corner taker. Unless he touches the ball he would not be offside, even if all the Hibs players were on the edge of the box and he was on the goal line.
:troll:

[HibsMax]

Video has been taken down but I just started to look at the "highlights". You know it was a bad game when one of the highlights is of a cross that was played far too deep and ends up going out for a throw in. That was at 6:48 (game time).