PDA

View Full Version : Question Tattoo Man's dangerous attack on McPake (Appeal Rejected/Fined 2 Tattoos)



Pages : [1] 2

lapsedhibee
03-01-2013, 11:04 PM
Not dealt with by ref in real time.

Can Tattoo Man get a retrospective ban when beaks see the video evidence? :dunno:

Gatecrasher
03-01-2013, 11:05 PM
Not dealt with by ref in real time.

Can Tattoo Man get a retrospective ban when beaks see the video evidence? :dunno:
I hope so, it was a possible leg breaker imo

blackpoolhibs
03-01-2013, 11:05 PM
Not dealt with by ref in real time.

Can Tattoo Man get a retrospective ban when beaks see the video evidence? :dunno:

I'd be very surprised if he was not offered at least a 2 game ban?

Gala Foxes
03-01-2013, 11:09 PM
Shocking lunge - ref had a reasonable view of it

HIBERNIAN-0762
03-01-2013, 11:09 PM
It's all ready been highlighted on Sky Sports News and I fully expect the SFA to deal with it. A shocking tackle and watching these absolute cretins at the front near the pitch claiming he didn't do anything nearly made me physically sick.

Pretty Boy
03-01-2013, 11:11 PM
Am I right in thinking that Collum didn't even.award us a free kick for it?

Baldy Foghorn
03-01-2013, 11:12 PM
Thought it was a shocker in real time, got home and saw it on TV and it was a horrific two footed lunge, quite how Collum missed it is beyond me.....Fair play to McPake for not making a huge deal of it.....

Mon Dieu4
03-01-2013, 11:12 PM
although Collum missed that incident i actually thought he had a decent enough game

Westie1875
03-01-2013, 11:14 PM
McPake was very lucky to walk away from that without a broken leg. Deserving of a lengthy ban IMO.

Billy Whizz
03-01-2013, 11:16 PM
although Collum missed that incident i actually thought he had a decent enough game

He was man of the match
Great refereeing performance in my opinion

...WentToMowAnSPL
03-01-2013, 11:16 PM
although Collum missed that incident i actually thought he had a decent enough game

Absolutely I'd trade no red card for avoiding the pen ...

RIP
03-01-2013, 11:16 PM
Reckless my arse.

Pre-meditated attack from the fud

Judas Iscariot
03-01-2013, 11:16 PM
McPake should've stayed down and made the most of it to get that circus sideshow freak a red..

Utter howler from Gollum, not even a yellow given, pathetic refereeing!!!!!

VickMackie
03-01-2013, 11:22 PM
I was hoping someone would break him after it.

sbell1875
03-01-2013, 11:23 PM
Am I right in thinking that Collum didn't even.award us a free kick for it?

Correct. He gave a Hibs throw in.

I though Collum had an absolute shocker tonight. By far one of the worst refereeing performances I've witnessed all season.

blackpoolhibs
03-01-2013, 11:39 PM
Correct. He gave a Hibs throw in.

I though Collum had an absolute shocker tonight. By far one of the worst refereeing performances I've witnessed all season.

I must have watched a different game, he ref'd the game well and let it flow. He was not perfect but none of them are.

bob12345
03-01-2013, 11:40 PM
Correct. He gave a Hibs throw in.

I though Collum had an absolute shocker tonight. By far one of the worst refereeing performances I've witnessed all season.

Couldn't disagree more. I think he did an excellent job of keeping the game under control. Another referee could have dished out 10+ bookings - most for us, but he was sensible and let the game flow. The bookings that were handed out were stonewallers.

The two big contentious decisions... pretty sure the Stevenson tackle was blind side for the referee, with him tearing down the wing and bodies surrounding the area. The referee is only human. The penalty - a blatant penalty, but advantage is played. You don't get a free shot inside the penalty area and then have it taken back for a penalty when you've messed it up.

Well done ref.

sbell1875
03-01-2013, 11:40 PM
I must have watched a different game, he ref'd the game well and let it flow. He was not perfect but none of them are.

Might just be me then but I felt he pulled up pretty much every single niggly foul.

Speedy
03-01-2013, 11:41 PM
Absolutely I'd trade no red card for avoiding the pen ...

I've not quite decided what my opinion on that was, there were a few things to consider which might have went the wrong way.

-McPake's challenge was a foul
-Driver was given and advantage
-Driver looked like he might've been offside so maybe it should've been a penalty

I honestly can't decide without looking at replays again.

PatHead
03-01-2013, 11:43 PM
I think if any Hearts player had been on the end of a lunge like that they would have rolled around and got the Hibs player sent off. Can't make my mind up if Hibs players should do the same.

Boyle89
03-01-2013, 11:53 PM
Clear red. Clearest red you will see all season! Terrible decision from Collum. Regarding Hearts penalty, if they hadnt had a clear shot at goal then yes bring it back. Thought Collum had an ok game. Dont see how he booked spoony for diving though, from where I was it looked like that wee fanny halved him, and how touill (sp) wasnt booked was beyond me. He had about 5 fouls and wasnt even spoken to. Though he could have booked deegan for persistant fouling aswell I suppose.

Boyle89
03-01-2013, 11:56 PM
Just watched the highlights. It looks worse in slow motion! How James walked away from that is a miracle.

FromTheCapital
04-01-2013, 12:25 AM
I thought Collum gave them every 50-50... Poor performance imo!

greenlex
04-01-2013, 12:29 AM
Just watched the highlights. It looks worse in slow motion! How James walked away from that is a miracle.

Hes lucky to be alive.

Sir David Gray
04-01-2013, 12:32 AM
Hes lucky to be alive.

#prayformcpake

hibsbollah
04-01-2013, 12:32 AM
[/PHP]
I must have watched a different game, he ref'd the game well and let it flow. He was not perfect but none of them are.

Correct.

Biggie
04-01-2013, 12:40 AM
Defo red card for me....but also defo pen....so I'll take two **** ups by Collum....

lapsedhibee
04-01-2013, 12:50 AM
Dont see how he booked spoony for diving though, from where I was it looked like that wee fanny halved him,

Nah. Spoony had one of our very few chances to drive forward out of defence and threaten them, and he chucked that away by diving with the sole intention of getting the yam yellow-carded. Very poor from the Spoon.

Ryan91
04-01-2013, 01:06 AM
Nah. Spoony had one of our very few chances to drive forward out of defence and threaten them, and he chucked that away by diving with the sole intention of getting the yam yellow-carded. Very poor from the Spoon.

Looked like Taouil stuck his leg out and caught Spoony whilst watching on the TV replay in the H&C.

matty_f
04-01-2013, 01:17 AM
Thought the ref was decent tonight, I wasn't convinced at their penalty shout and even then he gave an advantage. Should have sent off Stevenson but by and large I thought the ref was pretty good. I've definitely seen worse this season.

The Harp Awakes
04-01-2013, 01:23 AM
Looked like Taouil stuck his leg out and caught Spoony whilst watching on the TV replay in the H&C.

:agree:

Definite foul. Yellow card was a crazy decision.

JohnStephens91
04-01-2013, 03:04 AM
The tackle was horrendous, definite red card for leaving the ground with two feet. Hearts **** and a fat bassturd.

PeeJay
04-01-2013, 07:33 AM
Not dealt with by ref in real time.

Can Tattoo Man get a retrospective ban when beaks see the video evidence? :dunno:

Hope so! Thought the ref had a decent game overall, but watching this on the SPL replay Stevenson really should have been off with a straight red - this sort of thuggery has no place in football. He could have seriously injured McPake. Stevenson (IMO) knew it was a sending-off offence tackle, but he committed anyway, and he gave McPake no consideration when he got up afterwards as if nothing had happened. Shocking stuff...

Bristolhibby
04-01-2013, 07:53 AM
Hope so! Thought the ref had a decent game overall, but watching this on the SPL replay Stevenson really should have been off with a straight red - this sort of thuggery has no place in football. He could have seriously injured McPake. Stevenson (IMO) knew it was a sending-off offence tackle, but he committed anyway, and he gave McPake no consideration when he got up afterwards as if nothing had happened. Shocking stuff...



And his tats are ****.

Pikey bar steward.

What is the moment in a mans life where he wakes up and thinks that a **** off rose on his neck looks good? Or tattooed knuckles?

J

JimBHibees
04-01-2013, 07:58 AM
Thought Collum had a decent game however that is 2 red cards for the Yams he has missed in derbies this season.

EdinMike
04-01-2013, 08:01 AM
Taouil ? Didn't get booked the whole game ?!

How much was the bribe for that to occur... Was given a "last warning" after his 2nd foul.. Think I counted 4 more after that.

Hibs Class
04-01-2013, 08:25 AM
Looked like Taouil stuck his leg out and caught Spoony whilst watching on the TV replay in the H&C.


Watched the replay a few times and inconclusive for me as whether or not Spoony dived. Do think the ref has to be pretty sure if he’s going to brand a player a diver. May have been influenced by Taouil’s protest of innocence. Shortly after that, Taouil brought Leigh down on the edge of the box and immediately turned to Collum and said “I never touched him” when the replay of that foul clearly showed he brought him down.

Peevemor
04-01-2013, 08:30 AM
Looked like Taouil stuck his leg out and caught Spoony whilst watching on the TV replay in the H&C.

:agree: Taouil caught him.

Bristolhibby
04-01-2013, 08:32 AM
Sky are definitely pushing the "disgraceful Stevenson challenge".

I expect some retrospective action, especially due to the media coverage. That and the fact the only talking points after the game were that and the "penalty".

J

brog
04-01-2013, 08:52 AM
It was a shocker from Stevenson & was full of intent. That's 2 awful tackles in 2 days, Black vs Annan was other, where somehow a red card was avoided. Anyone spot the commonality in the 2 players?? The pathetic thing is they're both cowards & if position had been reversed they would have been rolling around & Hibs player would have been off. Luckily for them James is a big man, in the truest sense of the word, a throwback to players like McNamee!!
I said last night it was good that Collum took no action, that allows Lunny the Hunny to step in & hammer Stevenson. Maybe his wages could be docked - - oh wait!!

Pretty Boy
04-01-2013, 08:59 AM
Just watched again and its a shocking challenge.

McPake goes in.controlled and takes the ball. Stevenson is late, off the ground, 2 footed and out of control.

How the ref doesn't even award a free kick is unbelievable. Not often I agree with Kenny Shiels but referees really should have to explain decisions that are that bad.

Judas Iscariot
04-01-2013, 09:03 AM
Surely the compliance officer will look at this no?

merritthibees
04-01-2013, 09:08 AM
I watched the game on tv, and there was nothing really said at all about the lunge! Just talk about the penalty claim... What got me was that Stevenson actually looks up and seen mcpakes and then went in like that! It was an absolute shocker! :|

Peevemor
04-01-2013, 09:20 AM
I watched the game on tv, and there was nothing really said at all about the lunge! Just talk about the penalty claim... What got me was that Stevenson actually looks up and seen mcpakes and then went in like that! It was an absolute shocker! :|

:confused: For me they made more of the Stevenson incident than the penalty claim.

SmashinGlass
04-01-2013, 09:24 AM
I'm aware that mcglynn's general petty after match comments are covered in another thread. With regard to this incident though, his comments both astound and disgust me in equal measure. Apparently, Stevenson's challenge was "a full blooded derby challenge", the type normally seen in any derby game. Admittedly, he acknowledged that he hasn't seen a replay, but for comments of that nature to have been made without having seen a replay smacks of arrogance in the extreme. Given the reaction to the challenge, how could he realistically be so sure of himself. I think that the club in general are so arrogant when it comes to derbies that, firstly, they encourage players to make such challenges and, secondly, they find it acceptable to brush it under the carpet. Absolute ****!

merritthibees
04-01-2013, 09:25 AM
I didn't watch the last five mins, must have been then! Was sick of hearing about the penalty claim so turned it over! My mistake! There won't be enough said about that lunge till he gets banned for a couple of games by the sfa! IMO

Bill Milne
04-01-2013, 09:35 AM
I think the reaction in today's papers will force Vincent Lunny at the SFA to take action here.

Bristolhibby
04-01-2013, 10:01 AM
I think the reaction in today's papers will force Vincent Lunny at the SFA to take action here.

What's being said?

lucky
04-01-2013, 10:10 AM
Stevenson actually looked to see where McPake was before his two foot lunge. Should have been a red. As for uncle fester he is really clueless, hope they keep him. When was the last they had a manager that could not win a derby

hibsbollah
04-01-2013, 10:12 AM
Is there footage anywhere?

#FromTheCapital
04-01-2013, 10:16 AM
Is there footage anywhere?

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

#FromTheCapital
04-01-2013, 10:21 AM
He has a wee look up before going in which to me confirms that it was intentional and malicious, especially because it was not long after the penalty incident which seemed to upset that fat ugly wee scrote more than anyone else.

EdinMike
04-01-2013, 10:26 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stWqDmqKzZE

That's disgusting. Seen it 4 or 5 times again now. He does (and I never noticed this last night) look at Mc Pake, and clearly decides to lunge.

With all the fuss over it, surely he'll get a retro-ban.. or a decent tattoo... I wouldn't hold out for either...

hibsbollah
04-01-2013, 10:31 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stWqDmqKzZE

Its definitely a dangerous tackle, but the 'look up' from Stevenson doesn't prove anything IMO.

Onion
04-01-2013, 10:42 AM
Not dealt with by ref in real time.

Can Tattoo Man get a retrospective ban when beaks see the video evidence? :dunno:

If the authorities hand out a ban to Stevenson post match for this latest Yam horror, then Hibs need to ask serious questions. It would be the THIRD time in 2 years that a Yam should have been red carded, but the ref chose to turn a blind eye to. These are the key decisions that have massive impact on matches. Little wonder we cannot buy a win against this lot in the SPL when the man in charge is shirking their responsibilities.

#FromTheCapital
04-01-2013, 10:46 AM
If the authorities hand out a ban to Stevenson post match for this latest Yam horror, then Hibs need to ask serious questions. It would be the THIRD time in 2 years that a Yam should have been red carded, but the ref chose to turn a blind eye to. These are the key decisions that have massive impact on matches. Little wonder we cannot buy a win against this lot in the SPL when the man in charge is shirking their responsibilities.

To be honest i'm just happy they didn't get that penalty so it kind of balances out. The main thing here is that James didn't get injured although he very easily could of had his leg broken

SmashinGlass
04-01-2013, 10:50 AM
Its definitely a dangerous tackle, but the 'look up' from Stevenson doesn't prove anything IMO.

I would have to say I disagree, purely because a good deal of time elapses between the look across and the challenge. He could have taken the decision not to have jumped in, but didn't and decided to go for McPake. The look wouldn't prove conclusive if it was milliseconds before contact, but in this situation, there was a good 1-1.5 seconds where a conscious decision was made. That is how I, and I'm sure many others, interpret it.

Cropley10
04-01-2013, 10:51 AM
Its definitely a dangerous tackle, but the 'look up' from Stevenson doesn't prove anything IMO.

You reckon? He looks up, before deciding to jump, two footed at the on-coming McPake. As you say, it's dangerous, as he's not in control, and it's excessive. But the look proves intent.

With regards to the penlaty incident, I don't think it is, or ever could be, the Jambo has released the ball, then McPake tries to block the cross/pass/shot. It's about being in control of the ball and Hertz player was no longer in control of the ball, in fact, the ball had been played to Driver, who then very narrowly misses. It's not a foul because McPake is clearly attempting to cut off the play, not the player.

So, where's the foul? After the player has released the ball and found a team-mate, when he's no longer in control of the ball and his team have possession and a chance on goal?

hibsbollah
04-01-2013, 10:56 AM
I would have to say I disagree, purely because a good deal of time elapses between the look across and the challenge. He could have taken the decision not to have jumped in, but didn't and decided to go for McPake. The look wouldn't prove conclusive if it was milliseconds before contact, but in this situation, there was a good 1-1.5 seconds where a conscious decision was made. That is how I, and I'm sure many others, interpret it.

It probably was deliberate. But I doubt whether the compliance officer, or whoever is involved, can pin intent on him solely based on him looking at McPake. Players look at each other all the time. A very nasty tackle nonetheless.

HibeeN
04-01-2013, 10:58 AM
So, where's the foul? After the player has released the ball and found a team-mate, when he's no longer in control of the ball and his team have possession and a chance on goal?

If a player goes in for a late challenge in midfield and takes the player, not the ball, then it's a foul, so why wouldn't it be one in the box?

Cropley10
04-01-2013, 11:05 AM
If a player goes in for a late challenge in midfield and takes the player, not the ball, then it's a foul, so why wouldn't it be one in the box?

Depends if the player was in possession and control of the ball, or whether he'd released it, and if the tackling player attempted to play the ball or the man, nothing to do with where the play occurrs.

SmashinGlass
04-01-2013, 11:06 AM
It probably was deliberate. But I doubt whether the compliance officer, or whoever is involved, can pin intent on him solely based on him looking at McPake. Players look at each other all the time. A very nasty tackle nonetheless.

Fair point. FWIW I think it probably will get a retrospective ban, deservedly so in my opinion. I do accept your point though, even if I may disagree.

StevieC
04-01-2013, 11:14 AM
I must have watched a different game, he ref'd the game well and let it flow. He was not perfect but none of them are.

I agree. He could have dished out half a dozen yellow cards in the first 20 minutes but kept his cards in his pocket for the most part to try and make a game of it. That might explain Stevenson getting away with his tackle as he may have only deemed it a yellow and was trying to keep some consistency with a word in the ear instead of a card.

In retrospect it will actually increase the possibility of punishment, than if he had given a yellow.

HibeeN
04-01-2013, 11:28 AM
Depends if the player was in possession and control of the ball, or whether he'd released it, and if the tackling player attempted to play the ball or the man, nothing to do with where the play occurrs.

I agree, that's why I think it's a definite penalty. If a player is running down the wing, releases the ball to another player and then gets taken out by a late challenge, it's a foul. So even if the Hearts player had played the ball, McPake still went in and took him out late which should have been a penalty.

Of course, the ref has the option of playing advantage, which makes it more of a grey area as I'm not sure if he played advantage or just missed the foul.

grunt
04-01-2013, 12:35 PM
Hearts' official site carries an interview with Stevenson where he describes it as a 50-50 challenge.
"Much of the media focus has been on the first half 50-50 challenge ..."
So that's how they're spinning it.

Peevemor
04-01-2013, 12:42 PM
I agree, that's why I think it's a definite penalty. If a player is running down the wing, releases the ball to another player and then gets taken out by a late challenge, it's a foul. So even if the Hearts player had played the ball, McPake still went in and took him out late which should have been a penalty.

Of course, the ref has the option of playing advantage, which makes it more of a grey area as I'm not sure if he played advantage or just missed the foul.

I think the ref played advantage. If Driver hadn't have been there then it would have been a penalty IMO.

SmashinGlass
04-01-2013, 12:46 PM
I agree. He could have dished out half a dozen yellow cards in the first 20 minutes but kept his cards in his pocket for the most part to try and make a game of it. That might explain Stevenson getting away with his tackle as he may have only deemed it a yellow and was trying to keep some consistency with a word in the ear instead of a card.

In retrospect it will actually increase the possibility of punishment, than if he had given a yellow.

Thing is, he can't have thought that, as he gave a throw in, not a foul. He didn't even speak to the player as I remember it.


Hearts' official site carries an interview with Stevenson where he describes it as a 50-50 challenge.
"Much of the media focus has been on the first half 50-50 challenge ..."
So that's how they're spinning it.

Of course they are, it's in their interests to do so. Unfortunately for them though, it is only them who view it that way...

Cropley10
04-01-2013, 12:47 PM
Hearts' official site carries an interview with Stevenson where he describes it as a 50-50 challenge.
"Much of the media focus has been on the first half 50-50 challenge ..."
So that's how they're spinning it.

Surprise, surprise...

IIRC Leigh got a two match ban for an arm pump to the opposition fan last season. What does a two-footed dangerous studs up challenge get you these days.

#prayformcpake (he could have been killed)

--------
04-01-2013, 12:57 PM
It was a shocker from Stevenson & was full of intent. That's 2 awful tackles in 2 days, Black vs Annan was other, where somehow a red card was avoided. Anyone spot the commonality in the 2 players?? The pathetic thing is they're both cowards & if position had been reversed they would have been rolling around & Hibs player would have been off. Luckily for them James is a big man, in the truest sense of the word, a throwback to players like McNamee!!

I said last night it was good that Collum took no action, that allows Lunny the Hunny to step in & hammer Stevenson. Maybe his wages could be docked - - oh wait!!




I like Jake, and I agree he's a big man, but trust me, he's not in the same League as Big Bad John.

NOBODY did that sort of thing to BBJ - no with any expectation of living long afterwards, anyway.

It was a deliberate assault with intention of doing serious damage. I hope Lunny acts on it and suspends the thug (preferably by his testicles) but I'm not holding my breath.

blackpoolhibs
04-01-2013, 01:01 PM
Can anyone imagine what Fergie would have to say about that assault? :greengrin The tattooed lady will get a ban, i'm pretty certain of that. :thumbsup:

brythehibby
04-01-2013, 01:05 PM
Just watched it again, how he didnt get a red is beyond me. Stonewall penalty for them though. I'll take that, he'll get his ban.

The mutant also kicked taiwo after he lost the ball to him right before wotherspoon's alleged 'dive'.

Apart from the 2 big incidents thought the ref was ok considering.

Argylehibby
04-01-2013, 01:24 PM
I think the ref played advantage. If Driver hadn't have been there then it would have been a penalty IMO.

The same ref gave a penalty to Utd in the Dundee derby in much the same circumstances as last night. Cross came in and the player taken out with a late challenge. Utd player misses the chance and ref gave a penalty for the late tackle on the guy that crossed the ball. So either WC didnt think the challenge was a penalty or after the Dundee derby he was marked down by the supervisor for making the wrong call and wasn't going to do the same again.

Hibernia Na Eir
04-01-2013, 01:30 PM
Reckless my arse.

Pre-meditated attack from the fud

Aye, the little Ayr scroat deserves all he's got coming to him. It was a tackle from a man who's realised he's no longer the player he was (if he ever was!)

Deegs ought to have butted him.

Sergio sledge
04-01-2013, 01:34 PM
Hearts' official site carries an interview with Stevenson where he describes it as a 50-50 challenge.
"Much of the media focus has been on the first half 50-50 challenge ..."
So that's how they're spinning it.

It was a 50-50 challenge, they both arrived at the ball at virtually the same time and both had a chance of winning the ball.

However, McPake chose to slide in safely whilst Stevenson chose to jump in with his studs up. If he had gone in safely like he should in normal 50-50 challenges then there wouldn't be any discussion.

Hibercelona
04-01-2013, 01:35 PM
How did they get through that game without any bookings what so ever?

hibsbollah
04-01-2013, 01:44 PM
It was a 50-50 challenge, they both arrived at the ball at virtually the same time and both had a chance of winning the ball.

However, McPake chose to slide in safely whilst Stevenson chose to jump in with his studs up. If he had gone in safely like he should in normal 50-50 challenges then there wouldn't be any discussion.

Exactly. It was 50/50 in the same way that Shawcross' assault on Eduardo for Stoke v Arsenal was a 50/50 a few years back.

lapsedhibee
04-01-2013, 01:49 PM
Exactly. It was 50/50 in the same way that Shawcross' assault on Eduardo for Stoke v Arsenal was a 50/50 a few years back.

Shawcross was Ramsey's break. Wasn't Eduardo a Birmingham player's "mistimed tackle"?

Hiber-nation
04-01-2013, 01:50 PM
Exactly. It was 50/50 in the same way that Shawcross' assault on Eduardo for Stoke v Arsenal was a 50/50 a few years back.

Was that not against Birmingham with Martin Taylor putting in the tackle? Shawcross gave Aron Ramsay a bad one.

Killiehibbie
04-01-2013, 01:51 PM
Aye, the little Ayr scroat deserves all he's got coming to him. It was a tackle from a man who's realised he's no longer the player he was (if he ever was!)

Deegs ought to have butted him.
He's not got the mental capacity to realise very much. If he was a bit quicker of thought his actions might not have been so noticeable.

hibsbollah
04-01-2013, 01:54 PM
Was that not against Birmingham with Martin Taylor putting in the tackle? Shawcross gave Aron Ramsay a bad one.

Yep, sorry, it was Ramsay I was thinking of.

Judas Iscariot
04-01-2013, 01:58 PM
It was a horrible, distgusting challenge made with the intent to do serious injury...

Willie Gollum should be hammered for not dealing with it at the time appropriately!

What good is it to us if the tattoo'd shemale gets a 2 match ban now?

inglisavhibs
04-01-2013, 02:36 PM
Hearts' official site carries an interview with Stevenson where he describes it as a 50-50 challenge.
"Much of the media focus has been on the first half 50-50 challenge ..."
So that's how they're spinning it.

They can spin it all they want but the tackle was over the ball and a leg breaker. Stevenson has history in this respect as I remember he broke big Davie White's (Brechin) leg when he was playing with Ayr. Although reported as an accident I know Davie was very unhappy to say the least with the tackle. It seems Stevenson has not learned from that incident.

hibsbollah
04-01-2013, 02:40 PM
It was a horrible, distgusting challenge made with the intent to do serious injury...

Willie Gollum should be hammered for not dealing with it at the time appropriately!

What good is it to us if the tattoo'd shemale gets a 2 match ban now?

Collum seems to be holding up two fingers when speaking to McPake. Without lip reading I don't know what he could be saying...'two of you going for the ball' 'you went in two footed as well':dunno:

Judas Iscariot
04-01-2013, 02:51 PM
Collum seems to be holding up two fingers when speaking to McPake. Without lip reading I don't know what he could be saying...'two of you going for the ball' 'you went in two footed as well':dunno:

McPake SLID in, the ladyboy LUNGED in, 2 feet off the ground..

Worst tackle I've seen in a while

Cropley10
04-01-2013, 02:53 PM
They can spin it all they want but the tackle was over the ball and a leg breaker. Stevenson has history in this respect as I remember he broke big Davie White's (Brechin) leg when he was playing with Ayr. Although reported as an accident I know Davie was very unhappy to say the least with the tackle. It seems Stevenson has not learned from that incident.

Anyone with that many bad tattoos obviously isn't quite right.

I'd love to know what Deegan said to him after.

--------
04-01-2013, 02:53 PM
McPake SLID in, the ladyboy LUNGED in, 2 feet off the ground..

Worst tackle I've seen in a while


I agree, but if Collum says he saw and dealt with what happened ....

... would mean that Stevenson has got away with it.

Judas Iscariot
04-01-2013, 03:02 PM
I agree, but if Collum says he saw and dealt with what happened ....

... would mean that Stevenson has got away with it.

Well if that is the case Gollum made a massive mistake and should be carpeted by whoever is in charge of the Ref's...

Geo_1875
04-01-2013, 03:11 PM
I agree, but if Collum says he saw and dealt with what happened ....

... would mean that Stevenson has got away with it.

But he didn't deal with it. He didn't punish Stevenson "admitting" he didn't see what happened.

--------
04-01-2013, 03:16 PM
But he didn't deal with it. He didn't punish Stevenson "admitting" he didn't see what happened.


We'll see.

But after watching Hibs suffer injustice after injustice for the past 50 years, I'm not holding my breath.

brog
04-01-2013, 04:00 PM
I like Jake, and I agree he's a big man, but trust me, he's not in the same League as Big Bad John.

NOBODY did that sort of thing to BBJ - no with any expectation of living long afterwards, anyway.

It was a deliberate assault with intention of doing serious damage. I hope Lunny acts on it and suspends the thug (preferably by his testicles) but I'm not holding my breath.


I agree no one could match Big John but McPake is as good as it gets for pure old fashioned centre half in the modern era. I remember being at a dinner many years ago when John McGrath, another old CH in Big John mould, talked about his first game for Newcastle. He asked the manager, Joe Harvey for instructions & JH replied, " Just see how fast the centre forward can limp son "!! Those were the days!

Bostonhibby
04-01-2013, 04:06 PM
I like Jake, and I agree he's a big man, but trust me, he's not in the same League as Big Bad John.

NOBODY did that sort of thing to BBJ - no with any expectation of living long afterwards, anyway.

It was a deliberate assault with intention of doing serious damage. I hope Lunny acts on it and suspends the thug (preferably by his testicles) but I'm not holding my breath.

:agree: Would love to have seen the payback after Stevenson bounced of Big Bad John. He wouldn't have had to worry about wages anymore!
Stevenson is thick as two short planks so not that bothered about his take on it, self evidently a red card offence, just about how the Compliance officer views it.

CallumLaidlaw
04-01-2013, 06:46 PM
What a surprise - a referee backing a fellow ref!

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/208417-stuart-dougal-referee-willie-collum-got-edinburgh-derby-decisions-correct/

Treadstone
04-01-2013, 06:50 PM
What a surprise - a referee backing a fellow ref!

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/208417-stuart-dougal-referee-willie-collum-got-edinburgh-derby-decisions-correct/

I stopped reading after this "McPake was unlucky he got to ball first".

The_Sauz
04-01-2013, 08:21 PM
Just shows how bad our past and present Refs are, when they don't know the rules of the game!

Definition: Dangerous play is the act of risking injury to an opponent with a reckless or clumsy challenge. The referee will award a free-kick to the opposition, and may give a yellow or red card to the perpetrator.Also Known As: Reckless Play.
Example: A player challenges an opponent with his studs up or foot too high.

Also found this http://spiffyd.hubpages.com/hub/Soccer-offences-Playing-in-a-dangerous-manner-versus-serious-foul-play

Hiber-nation
04-01-2013, 09:04 PM
What a surprise - a referee backing a fellow ref!

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/208417-stuart-dougal-referee-willie-collum-got-edinburgh-derby-decisions-correct/

That erse has hated Hibs ever since the Brebner red card was rescinded.

brog
04-01-2013, 09:12 PM
The more I look at it the worse it gets. For a start it's always at least a 60/40 in JM's favour. He's going across the park so is never going to hurt the tat. Stevenson on the other hand clearly knows he's going to be 2nd. He actually pulls his leg up to avoid a collision then once James has the ball he lunges forward with his studs & IMO is a deliberate & cowardly attempt to injure a player. He's a disgrace.

snooky
04-01-2013, 09:29 PM
Just read SD's comments on the tackle. What a plum. He can't even get a decision right after watching it x amount of times and in slo-mo.
FFS, what chance did he have of getting it right when he reffed?

Saorsa
04-01-2013, 09:35 PM
What a surprise - a referee backing a fellow ref!

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/208417-stuart-dougal-referee-willie-collum-got-edinburgh-derby-decisions-correct/
Stevenson's studs are slightly showing but he is clearly focused on the ball.complete and utter pish :bitchy:

Woody70x2
04-01-2013, 09:38 PM
My tuppence worth... It was a shocking tackle and deserved punishment at the time. He got away with and it's time to move on. If he went in to cause damage then he isn't a professional football player and what goes around comes around...

However, he needs banned for that tattoo on his neck. What is it? It looks like a massive and horrible looking love bite.

... I don't mind tattoos, but Stevenson looks like he needs a good scrub.

Baldy Foghorn
04-01-2013, 09:47 PM
My tuppence worth... It was a shocking tackle and deserved punishment at the time. He got away with and it's time to move on. If he went in to cause damage then he isn't a professional football player and what goes around comes around...

However, he needs banned for that tattoo on his neck. What is it? It looks like a massive and horrible looking love bite.

... I don't mind tattoos, but Stevenson looks like he needs a good scrub.

Had the misfortune of walking along Gorgay Road before the game, and 99% of yams look like they could do with a good dipping in bleach, absolutely mocket to a man......

Silversand
04-01-2013, 10:40 PM
9210





:tsk tsk:

...WentToMowAnSPL
04-01-2013, 11:03 PM
Just watched the incident on BBC website ... To me the hearts player looks to the right clocks mcpake about to go in for the challenge and decides to go in two footed and airborne

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/20916419?

Kato
04-01-2013, 11:22 PM
I stopped reading after this "McPake was unlucky he got to ball first".

Ditto. Disgraceful piece.

Biggie
04-01-2013, 11:38 PM
Stuart ****ing Dougal !?!...**** him...he was a twat when he refereed, no change there then.

EskbankHibby
04-01-2013, 11:41 PM
Only question should be red card or custodial sentence. Horrific challenge from the illustrated man.

poolman
05-01-2013, 08:24 AM
My tuppence worth... It was a shocking tackle and deserved punishment at the time. He got away with and it's time to move on. If he went in to cause damage then he isn't a professional football player and what goes around comes around...

However, he needs banned for that tattoo on his neck. What is it? It looks like a massive and horrible looking love bite.

... I don't mind tattoos, but Stevenson looks like he needs a good scrub.


So your more bothered him getting banned for a tattoo than that shocking tackle :rolleyes:

bingo70
05-01-2013, 08:35 AM
Sun journalist has tweeted this morning that Ryan Stevenson is saying in the paper that hibs are too soft, anyone read it?

Booked4Being-Ugly
05-01-2013, 08:42 AM
When you think back to Steven Fletcher's sending off for his 'brown trout' challenge at ER against them and the assault on McPake the other night, not even meriting a yellow card, it really doesn't make any sense.

It's no wonder we don't trust the officials - in saying that i think the ref had a decent game otherwise - just as long as it's not that **** Craig Thomson taking charge of the derby.

JohnStephens91
05-01-2013, 08:52 AM
Dougal is wrong to have come out and said what he did, almost every person under the sun can see it was a straight red offence and to try and deny that is abysmal. Stevenson should have been sent off for that tackle and McPake can count himself lucky not to have a broken leg. It is horrific to think that an ex-referee came out with comments like 'Stevenson's studs are slightly showing but he is clearly focused on the ball. McPake was unlucky he got to ball first" when it is the most blatant red card offence I've seen recently.

Woody70x2
05-01-2013, 08:52 AM
So your more bothered him getting banned for a tattoo than that shocking tackle :rolleyes:

Behave.

Part/Time Supporter
05-01-2013, 09:34 AM
Sun journalist has tweeted this morning that Ryan Stevenson is saying in the paper that hibs are too soft, anyone read it?

Got a bit to say for himself.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/feeds/smartphone/scotland/4727564/Man-up-Hibees.html


It’s a man’s game. Back in the day that would have been a GREAT tackle. I went for a ball I thought was there to be won. I went in trying to win it.

People will obviously have their opinion on it, but it is getting to the stage now where we are not allowed to make a challenge. Don’t get me wrong, when you look at it in slow motion it might look a bit bad. I would not pull out of a tackle like that in any game, let alone a derby. The Hearts fans won’t be happy if I just let him take the ball. Emotions are high in matches like that. I went in whole-heartedly and to be fair, so did McPake. It is not as though he pulled out of it either.

As soon as I knocked the ball down the line, I had a look to see how much time and space I had. I saw McPake coming over and knew he was going to go for it. I went for it, he went for it. Some people are making a mountain out of a molehill. A tackle is a tackle. I know when you slow it down it shows I have left the ground and people could argue that makes it a red card. But he went for it as much as me and in my book it was two men going in for a tackle. McPake did not seem to have much of a problem with it, although a couple of their other boys did have a go at me.

You have to expect that as emotions are running high, and people get caught up in the heat of the moment. But I’m not going to let what anyone says bother me.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4727336/I-couldnt-care-less-what-Hibs-say-about-me-weve-had-to-listen-to-them-bumping-their-gums-all-week.html


It was a big week with a lot of talk in the papers coming from Hibs. It was just disappointing we couldn’t get the three points.

As far as my tackle on James was concerned, I’m not bothered what Hibs say. I’m not going to take much notice of it.

But I would say that the way Hibs acted and handled themselves ahead of the game was pretty poor. Some of it was a bit dis-respectful, like the stuff about how the tide had turned. They’ve had a good season and, to be fair, they are a completely different side from last year. But to come out and say the tide had turned after winning the Cup game through a deflected goal — when we weren’t in any trouble — was pretty poor. Nothing was said from the Hearts side. The build-up was all Hibs bumping their gums with comments about how the tide had turned.

Well, I think it was evident at Tynecastle on Thursday night that’s not the case. It was something we spoke about before the game. The boy Eoin Doyle was in the paper saying he missed a couple of chances against Celtic — but he wouldn’t be missing any against Hearts. He said we’d be scared because they’d beaten Celtic and, as players, we found that disrespectful towards us. None of the Hearts players said anything about Hibs.

Then looking at the game, as thin we we were, I think there was only one team that was going to win. Everyone has been saying how good a season Hibs have been having. They have turned a corner — I’m not going to say they haven’t — but we have a game in hand and if we win that we’re only a couple of points behind them. We’re also in a cup semi-final, so it’s not all doom and gloom for us.”

It felt that way. In the first half, we had a lot of possession but just couldn’t get that vital goal. I had a chance which pretty much summed up the night when the ball fell to me after the keeper made a great save from a shot. It seemed to catch me off-guard when I thought I was about to tap the ball into an empty goal. I just think for how thin we were — and for the week we’ve had off the park in losing Ryan McGowan and Andy Webster to illness — the boys who came in were brilliant.

It’s a good deal for the club — £400,000 when he’s out of contract at the end of the season is a lot of money. It’s also a good move for Ryan and he deserves it more than anybody else. He could have gone to Rangers last season but didn’t. I know for a fact it’ll hurt him leaving. He loved it here. When he came into the club earlier this week you could see he was nervous about saying goodbye. He’ll miss the boys and we’ll miss him because he was a massive part of the team. With the situation we’re in just now, we can’t turn down that sort of money. If it keeps us going until the end of the season, then that’s the bigger picture. I imagine it will be a testing month in terms of who goes and who stays.

But I always tend to think that when one door shuts another opens. Dylan, Ryan’s brother, came in against Hibs and I thought he was outstanding. Scott Robinson did well before he got injured and Jason Holt came on and was great. We have enough young players here who can hopefully step up to the mark. Losing Gowser is going to be a major loss. But you could also argue that he wouldn’t have got his opportunity had Jamie Hamill not been injured. Ryan came in and took his chance, so hopefully one of the other boys can do the same.

Point he seems to be missing is that McPake, in "going for it", didn't leave the ground, which is a major criteria in determining whether a tackle is reckless and endangering an opponent.

lapsedhibee
05-01-2013, 09:46 AM
Got a bit to say for himself.
"Back in the day that would have been a GREAT tackle."


Think what he must mean there is that it would have been an acceptable challenge to make on an opponent at The Somme.

They just can't stop themselves harking back, can they? :bitchy:

Bostonhibby
05-01-2013, 09:53 AM
Got a bit to say for himself.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/feeds/smartphone/scotland/4727564/Man-up-Hibees.html



http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4727336/I-couldnt-care-less-what-Hibs-say-about-me-weve-had-to-listen-to-them-bumping-their-gums-all-week.html



Point he seems to be missing is that McPake, in "going for it", didn't leave the ground, which is a major criteria in determining whether a tackle is reckless and endangering an opponent.

:rolleyes: Still, on the positive side, at least the compliance officer now knows that Stevenson thinks the tackle was fine,so it makes his job easy, if he doesn't agree just take some action - Stevensons approach probably means there's a risk he'd do the same thing again as well since he can't see anything wrong with it. Next time the player receiving both feet and / or the studs may not be so lucky.

Wonder if the Tattooed twat would see a smack in the face as unintentional if it was actually intended to be a kick in the balls? Obviously in saying this no prosecution would be possible as the balls were the intended target.

jodjam
05-01-2013, 09:57 AM
He left the ground. He wasn't in control. It's a straight red card.

HIBERNIAN-0762
05-01-2013, 10:14 AM
Seems like we should "man up" to tackles like that, what a cretin and a typical classless comment from a yam like him, he seems to want to take over ratchels number one enemy to Hibs fans, I love it when he airbrushes out the fact he walked on out on them for non payment of wages and promptly walked right back in, what a clown, well suited to them.

matty_f
05-01-2013, 10:21 AM
What a prick. The Yams know **** all about respect. I detest that club.

#FromTheCapital
05-01-2013, 10:31 AM
Oh well can only hope someone crunches him with a similar challenge and see what the wee dick says then

superfurryhibby
05-01-2013, 10:35 AM
He left the ground. He wasn't in control. It's a straight red card.

That summarises all that needs said. Stevenson is a lying, cheating coward. His "tackle" was appalling and his comments just made it worse. If he has previous in respect of leg breaking then this just compounds his reckless and disrespectful attitude towards his fellow pros. Disgusting!

DaveF
05-01-2013, 11:02 AM
Oh well can only hope someone crunches him with a similar challenge and see what the wee dick says then

Yep, in this case I'll make an exception and hope that Stevenson is on the end of one of those tackles and takes aspell out the game injured as a result. After all, he can console himself with the wages he'll not be paid....

JimBHibees
05-01-2013, 11:21 AM
Stevenson is as thick as they come and just trying to ingratiate himself with the yam idiots. His tackle is as cowardly as you can get and he should be man enough to either shut it or apologise. It was a leg breaker tackle all day long and he knows it. Tow footed lunge. No idea what his comments about Hibs are either with this bumping their gums nonsense. Lets not forget he also clearly deliberately elbowed McGivern in the face near the end of the cup tie. He is a coward and a thick one which is the worst kind and symptomatic of Jongleurs FC at present.

Dougals opinions are of no consequence as he has no credibility whatsoever. Lunny better do his job on this one.

degenerated
05-01-2013, 11:48 AM
Seems like we should "man up" to tackles like that, what a cretin and a typical classless comment from a yam like him, he seems to want to take over ratchels number one enemy to Hibs fans, I love it when he airbrushes out the fact he walked on out on them for non payment of wages and promptly walked right back in, what a clown, well suited to them.

I wonder how the twat sleeps at night knowing that its the hard earned dosh conned out of folk who earn a fraction of what he does and the contents of bairns piggy banks that are being used to pay his wages.

Normally I wouldn't want to see any player get injured but ill make an exception here and hope that he's on the receiving end of a similar tackle in the near future.

hibbybrian
05-01-2013, 11:52 AM
He left the ground. He wasn't in control. It's a straight red card.

:agree:

9211

and the ref had a clear view

Hiber-nation
05-01-2013, 11:53 AM
Think what he must mean there is that it would have been an acceptable challenge to make on an opponent at The Somme.

They just can't stop themselves harking back, can they? :bitchy:

Yep they did think that Berry's assault on Paul Wright was acceptable.

And probably Ally Mauchlen's on Darren Jackson.

degenerated
05-01-2013, 12:00 PM
:agree:

9211

and the ref had a clear view

Even that fat munter in the first row looks like she thinks its a shocker. Either that or the wind changed direction when she was giving a gam.

#FromTheCapital
05-01-2013, 12:04 PM
Got to laugh at all the jambos trying to defend tats saying its a great tackle. It was only 5 months ago they hated the fat wee ******* now he is some kind of hero because of a reckless challenge. I'm sure if it had happened in another game against another side and he had correctly been sent off they certainly wouldn't leap to his defence then. **** of the earth.

Swedish hibee
05-01-2013, 12:11 PM
"But I would say that the way Hibs acted and handled themselves ahead of the game was pretty poor."
“To come out and say the tide had turned after winning the Cup game through a deflected goal — when we weren’t in any trouble — was pretty poor.
“Nothing was said from the Hearts side. The build-up was all Hibs bumping their gums with comments about how the tide had turned.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4727336/I-couldnt-care-less-what-Hibs-say-about-me-weve-had-to-listen-to-them-bumping-their-gums-all-week.html#ixzz2H6PNKJF2


I could argue back, but I won't waste my breathe.

Thank-god my father made me a Hibs fan :not worth

OsloHibs
05-01-2013, 12:19 PM
Didn't Jon jo Shelvey get sent off against Utd for similar kinda challenge?

As long as we have sub-standard officiating in Scotland, we'll continue to see cr*p like this.

:rules:

FifeHibernian
05-01-2013, 12:23 PM
"But I would say that the way Hibs acted and handled themselves ahead of the game was pretty poor."
“To come out and say the tide had turned after winning the Cup game through a deflected goal — when we weren’t in any trouble — was pretty poor.
“Nothing was said from the Hearts side. The build-up was all Hibs bumping their gums with comments about how the tide had turned.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4727336/I-couldnt-care-less-what-Hibs-say-about-me-weve-had-to-listen-to-them-bumping-their-gums-all-week.html#ixzz2H6PNKJF2


I could argue back, but I won't waste my breathe.

Thank-god my father made me a Hibs fan :not worth

This guy is a moron. He goes on about hibs failing to respect hearts, oblivious to hearts' blatant disrespect of hibs. Zaliukase's "5-1" gesture at the last scottish cup game anyone? I don't mind all that sort of banter but he's a hypocritical idiot. Also, that "tackle" was absolutely appalling and he trys to justify it by saying that "in the good old days it would have been a great tackle". It would have been a great tackle if he'd got the ball, yes, but he didn't - He got two studs, right off the ground, into McPake's shin.

Sprouleflyer
05-01-2013, 12:31 PM
So, is this tackle going up to the review panel? Has anything been acknowledged that it's under review? Does anyone know or is it just being swept under the carpet!

brog
05-01-2013, 12:33 PM
:agree:

9211

and the ref had a clear view

To be fair to Collum, who i thought was better than usual, I don't think he did have a clear view. That's a great pic but it's taken from a different angle than Collum's view which I think was mainly obscured by the 2 bodies. Although you can see he's off ground there it was much more apparent from the opposite view as shown on TV. What it does show clearly is just how far away the ball is when Tat makes contact.

Hibercelona
05-01-2013, 12:39 PM
This guy is a moron. He goes on about hibs failing to respect hearts, oblivious to hearts' blatant disrespect of hibs. Zaliukase's "5-1" gesture at the last scottish cup game anyone? I don't mind all that sort of banter but he's a hypocritical idiot. Also, that "tackle" was absolutely appalling and he trys to justify it by saying that "in the good old days it would have been a great tackle". It would have been a great tackle if he'd got the ball, yes, but he didn't - He got two studs, right off the ground, into McPake's shin.

I'm glad they think that we didn't show them any respect.

I'd be worried if they thought we did.

bournehibby
05-01-2013, 12:52 PM
Even that fat munter in the first row looks like she thinks its a shocker. Either that or the wind changed direction when she was giving a gam.
:tee hee:

bh

Hibbyradge
05-01-2013, 12:55 PM
It’s a man’s game. Back in the day that would have been a GREAT tackle.

Back in the day, Ryan, players were allowed to barge goalkeepers into the net.

Like your tackle, that's not allowed anymore.

Fud.

HUTCHYHIBBY
05-01-2013, 01:01 PM
I think they've made a conscious decision since the final to be as obnoxious and disrespectful as a club as a whole with regard to all things Hibs, in saying that though, if Stevenson actually believes what he is saying is true he is even thicker than I thought and I'm not sure thats actually possible. He probably thinks Blacks assault in said game was fine too.

Killiehibbie
05-01-2013, 01:13 PM
I think they've made a conscious decision since the final to be as obnoxious and disrespectful as a club as a whole with regard to all things Hibs, in saying that though, if Stevenson actually believes what he is saying is true he is even thicker than I thought and I'm not sure thats actually possible. He probably thinks Blacks assault in said game was fine too.
Don't underestimate how thick he is, i've met him and he's even thicker than i'd been led to believe.

Mr White
05-01-2013, 01:17 PM
Its written all over his face, or at least his neck, that he's rowing with only the one oar.

lapsedhibee
05-01-2013, 01:21 PM
I think they've made a conscious decision since the final to be as obnoxious and disrespectful as a club as a whole with regard to all things Hibs, in saying that though, if Stevenson actually believes what he is saying is true he is even thicker than I thought and I'm not sure thats actually possible. He probably thinks Blacks assault in said game was fine too.

Might be since before the final, and more to do with the very noticeable Irish contingent now at the club - they probably see themselves as exacting some sort of revenge for our failure to support them during their WW2 success.

Saorsa
05-01-2013, 01:26 PM
Not normally one tae wish an injury on any player, even h****s **** but if that prick thinks that sort of tackle is acceptable I hope somebody goes in tae him like that and breaks his ****in' leg.

Then we'll see what he has tae say about it.

Baldy Foghorn
05-01-2013, 01:29 PM
Stevenson sees nothing wrong with challenge, which was a shocker, sums him up. He is clearly short of brain cells and is trying to ingratiate himself with the hordes of merricks......

Would be interesting to hear what he would say, if the tackle was the other way around.....That was a potential leg breaker, and if he thinks that's fair game, then he should be careful in future....What goes around comes around....

He is suited to the merricks as is McGlynn and various others, no brains, no class, no clue......:jmcp:

CallumLaidlaw
06-01-2013, 01:36 AM
So, is this tackle going up to the review panel? Has anything been acknowledged that it's under review? Does anyone know or is it just being swept under the carpet!

I read somewhere earlier that Lunny would be reviewing it this weekend so we're likely to hear on Monday.
I just don't see how they can let him get away with it, meaning that the tackle is deemed as acceptable, when they are trying to stop dangerous play.

I think Stevenson has spent the last 48 hours shouting his mouth off in the hope that people (Lunny) listen to him saying that it was a fair 50/50 challenge.

Any decent human being would have been in the paper the next day apologising for the challenge

StevesFamau5
06-01-2013, 01:41 AM
slow mo replay.... he actually looks like hes smiling before it happens. or my hd tv is lying to me

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

kaimendhibs
06-01-2013, 01:52 AM
Haven't read the whole thread but did he mention how he nashed when not being paid then crept Back when he realised he was too Raphael to make it in the English lower divisions? Trumpet right up there with the worst of them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pedantic_Hibee
06-01-2013, 02:37 AM
Ryan Stevenson was gangbanged by a packet of crayons. Nap.

JimBHibees
06-01-2013, 09:26 AM
I read somewhere earlier that Lunny would be reviewing it this weekend so we're likely to hear on Monday.
I just don't see how they can let him get away with it, meaning that the tackle is deemed as acceptable, when they are trying to stop dangerous play.

I think Stevenson has spent the last 48 hours shouting his mouth off in the hope that people (Lunny) listen to him saying that it was a fair 50/50 challenge.

Any decent human being would have been in the paper the next day apologising for the challenge

Thats where the problem is.

JohnStephens91
06-01-2013, 09:43 AM
I read somewhere earlier that Lunny would be reviewing it this weekend so we're likely to hear on Monday.
I just don't see how they can let him get away with it, meaning that the tackle is deemed as acceptable, when they are trying to stop dangerous play.

I think Stevenson has spent the last 48 hours shouting his mouth off in the hope that people (Lunny) listen to him saying that it was a fair 50/50 challenge.

Any decent human being would have been in the paper the next day apologising for the challenge

Stevenson is a tattooed vertical smile rather than a normal human

Geo_1875
06-01-2013, 11:53 AM
Seems like nothing will be done about this so next derby it's open season on yams.

Part/Time Supporter
06-01-2013, 01:15 PM
If Stevenson is banned by the SFA, that will be three Hearts players who should have been sent off in the last six derbies who weren't. R McGowan last new year (headbutt on Sproule) and Templeton last August (off the ball kick at McPake) being the others.

:rolleyes:

BroxburnHibee
06-01-2013, 01:25 PM
If Stevenson is banned by the SFA, that will be three Hearts players who should have been sent off in the last six derbies who weren't. R McGowan last new year (headbutt on Sproule) and Templeton last August (off the ball kick at McPake) being the others.

:rolleyes:

Still amazed they done nothing about Black's assault in the final.

Part/Time Supporter
06-01-2013, 01:38 PM
Still amazed they done nothing about Black's assault in the final.

True IMO, but that's opinion. The previous two cases plus possibly this one are situations where the SFA have publicly admitted that those players should have been sent off.

HibeeHendo
06-01-2013, 03:40 PM
Is anyone even remotely surprised at this belter's reaction to his assault on McPake? Their club is ****. From their arrogant fans, to their ****my thug football players and finally to their selfish, immoral owner. Our performance against them on Thursday wasn't up to scratch but since that game, and the aftermath in the media, I've never been so glad to be a Hibs supporter. McGlynn's post match interview was a disgrace. With lack of a better word he is just plain thick.

Hearts FC - No class.

leggeto
06-01-2013, 03:44 PM
the refs just dont want to send them off remember mcgowan v sproule done after,templeton v mcpake done after, now stevenson v mcpake will be done after, standard of refs against them is really poor not to mention the final penalty too:flag:

JimBHibees
06-01-2013, 04:04 PM
If Stevenson is banned by the SFA, that will be three Hearts players who should have been sent off in the last six derbies who weren't. R McGowan last new year (headbutt on Sproule) and Templeton last August (off the ball kick at McPake) being the others.

:rolleyes:

Out of the 3 I could understand the Sproule one as dont think the ref had a view. The last two by Collum have been awful particularly the one earlier in the season where he was six yards away.

Geo_1875
06-01-2013, 04:47 PM
The problem is that referees are praised for keeping 11v11 when they should be slaughtered for not properly punishing offenders. There should be no such thing as a referees interpretation. They are there to apply the rules of the game not interpret them.

Jonnyboy
06-01-2013, 09:37 PM
Inkybod says "I would say that the way Hibs acted and handled themselves ahead of the game was pretty poor. Some of it was a bit dis-respectful, like the stuff about how the tide had turned. They’ve had a good season and, to be fair, they are a completely different side from last year. But to come out and say the tide had turned after winning the Cup game through a deflected goal — when we weren’t in any trouble — was pretty poor. Nothing was said from the Hearts side. The build-up was all Hibs bumping their gums with comments about how the tide had turned." His body painter needs to tattoo the meaning of the word irony in a suitably blank area.

Mikey
06-01-2013, 09:43 PM
His body painter needs to tattoo the meaning of the word irony in a suitably blank area.

Inside his napper :agree:

Phil MaGlass
07-01-2013, 09:54 AM
McPake should've stayed down and made the most of it to get that circus sideshow freak a red..

Utter howler from Gollum, not even a yellow given, pathetic refereeing!!!!!

Indeed he should have made more of it instead of looking directly at the ref after it had happened.

Dinkydoo
07-01-2013, 01:24 PM
For various reasons I could only manage to listen to the game on Radio Scotland and the funny thing is, all that was said about it at the time was "Oh, that was a meaty challenge, with both players going for the ball.". There was another incident in the first half where the general consenus was that Hearts should have had a penalty, but there might have been an offside..... they then had Chick Young watching it from all angles via replay for the next 5 minutes and then proceeded to call it THE "moment of controversy" during the first half, at half time.

It's become quite typical of the Scottish media and match coverage to be more 'pro Hearts' during the build up and within derbies. I wouldn't say they are anti-Hibs but we very rarely seem to get any praise - not that we've deserved an awful lot in the past few years mind you.

greenginger
07-01-2013, 01:27 PM
when will we hear if Mr Lunny thinks there was anything wrong with the assault ?

Part/Time Supporter
07-01-2013, 01:36 PM
when will we hear if Mr Lunny thinks there was anything wrong with the assault ?

He has offered Stevenson a two match ban.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=11173


Alleged party in breach: Ryan Stevenson, Heart of Midlothian FC

Match: Heart of Midlothian v Hibernian - 3rd January 2013

Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 200 (Serious Foul Play on an opponent, namely James McPake, Hibernian FC).

Fixed suspension offered: Yes (two matches)

Principal hearing date: Thursday, 10th January 2013

The player has until 3pm on Tuesday, 8th January 2013 to respond to the Notice of Complaint.

Should the player reject the fixed suspension offered, a Fast Track Tribunal will be convened on Thursday, 10th January 2013 to consider the complaint.

Rule 200: No player shall commit offences in the Schedule of Offences in Annex C. (Such offences may be dealt with by a Fast Track Tribunal following a Compliance Officer Reference under the Judicial Panel Protocol).

s.a.m
07-01-2013, 01:36 PM
when will we hear if Mr Lunny thinks there was anything wrong with the assault ?

at your service....:greengrin
Greg Maxwell‏@GregMax1 Stevenson has been offered a 2 match man and has until 3pm tomorrow to decide if he'll appeal

Treadstone
07-01-2013, 01:41 PM
This will be accepted, after all, you need money for an appeal.

JimBHibees
07-01-2013, 01:43 PM
when will we hear if Mr Lunny thinks there was anything wrong with the assault ?

Here you go.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2565&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=11173

Teo10
07-01-2013, 01:46 PM
Good.

Joke of a player for a JOKE of a club!

Haggis Hibby
07-01-2013, 01:47 PM
:aok: about time to hot from SSN

Mr White
07-01-2013, 01:49 PM
So in just slighlty over 12 months hearts players have been given bans totalling 6 games for actions committed in derbies, but on each occasion the player in question has been allowed to complete the match, not even booked, and the consequences offer no advantage to Hibs whatsoever. Hibs have taken 2 points from these 3 games and in the one we lost the player who should have been sent off went on to score hearts opening goal. Call me paranoid but there is no way in hell the opposite would ever happen where we got such a run of good fortune from referees in games against them- no chance.:cb

edit- mcgowan had already scored by the time of the incident with sproule, but still....

Beefster
07-01-2013, 01:51 PM
Justice done.

blackpoolhibs
07-01-2013, 01:51 PM
I'd be very surprised if he was not offered at least a 2 game ban?

:wink:

JimBHibees
07-01-2013, 01:55 PM
So in just slighlty over 12 months hearts players have been given bans totalling 6 games for actions committed in derbies, but on each occasion the player in question has been allowed to complete the match, not even booked, and the consequences offer no advantage to Hibs whatsoever. Hibs have taken 2 points from these 3 games and in the one we lost the player who should have been sent off went on to score hearts opening goal. Call me paranoid but there is no way in hell the opposite would ever happen where we got such a run of good fortune from referees in games against them- no chance.:cb

Which game was this? only 3 retrospective sending offs were McGowan in approx 60 minute with game at 1-1. Result 1-3.
Templeton - 25th minute score 0-0. Game ends 1-1.
Stevenson - approx 30th minute score 0-0. Game ends 0-0.

I know that ten men teams commonly hold on for results however I think it would be reasonable to assume we would have won both league games this year with Hearts down to 10 men with an hour to play. Very poor to be honest and Collum should be severely slated for missing both especially IMO the Templeton one where he had a perfect view 6 yards away.

If you throw in the Black SCF one then there is a bit of a theme developing which is hurting our team quite badly in our biggest games.

hibby rae
07-01-2013, 01:55 PM
:aok: about time to hot from SSN

Just heard from ssn as well. Sitting watching it with my flatmate ( Jambo season ticket holder) and he's raging!:na na::na na::na na::na na::thumbsup::top marks:flag::greengrin:fenlon

hibsbollah
07-01-2013, 01:56 PM
2 game ban offered.

I assume Hertz will appeal, since it was apparently a '50/50' challenge? :greengrin

Mr White
07-01-2013, 01:58 PM
:aok: yeah you're right Jim, thought it was the other way round, just checked and mcgowan's butt on sproule was indeed after he'd scored, my mistake. The rest of it though?:grr:

JimBHibees
07-01-2013, 01:58 PM
2 game ban offered.

I assume Hertz will appeal, since it was apparently a '50/50' challenge? :greengrin

Yep they must do, Hibs just need to man up apparently.

Hibbyradge
07-01-2013, 02:01 PM
Kickback is going mental about it.

"It was a fair challenge"!

:rolleyes:

cabbageandribs1875
07-01-2013, 02:01 PM
excellent stuff :aok: i hope the sun do another interview with the tatooed freak, just to ask him/it what his opinions are now :cb

calumhibee1
07-01-2013, 02:03 PM
Which game was this? only 3 retrospective sending offs were McGowan in approx 60 minute with game at 1-1. Result 1-3.
Templeton - 25th minute score 0-0. Game ends 1-1.
Stevenson - approx 30th minute score 0-0. Game ends 0-0.

I know that ten men teams commonly hold on for results however I think it would be reasonable to assume we would have won both league games this year with Hearts down to 10 men with an hour to play. Very poor to be honest and Collum should be severely slated for missing both especially IMO the Templeton one where he had a perfect view 6 yards away.

If you throw in the Black SCF one then there is a bit of a theme developing which is hurting our team quite badly in our biggest games.

I hadn't noticed that till it was pointed out. What a joke.

Jones28
07-01-2013, 02:07 PM
Good, should've been a red on the night.

Leithenhibby
07-01-2013, 02:15 PM
Kickback is going mental about it.

"It was a fair challenge"!

:rolleyes:


Apparently. :greengrin

Aye, right enough!..... :wink:

hibsmad
07-01-2013, 02:17 PM
Good news but was there not also a Hearts player retrospectively punished after the ER derby earlier in the season? I could be wrong but if not then that is two derbies this season where they should have been reduced to 10 men but have gotten away with it and went on to take a point from the match. It would be good if refs could start doing a better job on the day.

JimBHibees
07-01-2013, 02:20 PM
Good news but was there not also a Hearts player retrospectively punished after the ER derby earlier in the season? I could be wrong but if not then that is two derbies this season where they should have been reduced to 10 men but have gotten away with it and went on to take a point from the match. It would be good if refs could start doing a better job on the day.

Unfortunately we get no benefit from it. Posted this on the tattoed freak thread.

Which game was this? only 3 retrospective sending offs were McGowan in approx 60 minute with game at 1-1. Result 1-3.
Templeton - 25th minute score 0-0. Game ends 1-1.
Stevenson - approx 30th minute score 0-0. Game ends 0-0.

I know that ten men teams commonly hold on for results however I think it would be reasonable to assume we would have won both league games this year with Hearts down to 10 men with an hour to play. Very poor to be honest and Collum should be severely slated for missing both especially IMO the Templeton one where he had a perfect view 6 yards away.

If you throw in the Black SCF one then there is a bit of a theme developing which is hurting our team quite badly in our biggest games.

hibsbollah
07-01-2013, 02:21 PM
Yep they must do, Hibs just need to man up apparently.

'i take it every single 50/50 challenge will be looked at by the "compliance officer" from now on?' :hilarious :yamlaugh:

Saorsa
07-01-2013, 02:23 PM
:aok: about time to hot from SSNGood, pity the bloody useless refs cannae get it right at the time it happens though. If they have the brass neck tae appeal it, should be increased tae 4.

JimBHibees
07-01-2013, 02:24 PM
'i take it every single 50/50 challenge will be looked at by the "compliance officer" from now on?' :hilarious :yamlaugh:

Quality. :greengrin

Only the ones where you glance at the player and then launch yourself with both feet with the intention of injuring your opponent.

lapsedhibee
07-01-2013, 02:24 PM
Hibs just need to man up

Tattoo Man had no option but to go in the way he did, as when he looked at McPake he saw that McPake was shaping to do him. :crazy:

hibsbollah
07-01-2013, 02:30 PM
My favourite

'the way the game is going the players would be as well going on the pitch in slippers and housecoats'

:Ummm:

hibsmad
07-01-2013, 02:31 PM
Unfortunately we get no benefit from it. Posted this on the tattoed freak thread.

Which game was this? only 3 retrospective sending offs were McGowan in approx 60 minute with game at 1-1. Result 1-3.
Templeton - 25th minute score 0-0. Game ends 1-1.
Stevenson - approx 30th minute score 0-0. Game ends 0-0.

I know that ten men teams commonly hold on for results however I think it would be reasonable to assume we would have won both league games this year with Hearts down to 10 men with an hour to play. Very poor to be honest and Collum should be severely slated for missing both especially IMO the Templeton one where he had a perfect view 6 yards away.

If you throw in the Black SCF one then there is a bit of a theme developing which is hurting our team quite badly in our biggest games.

I understand that we get no benefit from it, I just described it as good news due to the fact that I despise the wee prick and am happy that he will be punished.

I also completely agree with your previous post quoted and that there is unfortunately a theme developing. I would stress though that I don't think that there is any sort of anti Hibs behaviour involved from the refs (Scottish Cup Final being an exception) and just think that we have been unlucky following poor refereeing decisions.

#FromTheCapital
07-01-2013, 02:32 PM
Good news although we don't benefit from it. We did benefit from the other decision not to give hearts a penalty though so I am happy with this, justice done

Bristolhibby
07-01-2013, 02:34 PM
If they appeal and he is still found guilty, do they up the punishment.

if not, there is nothing to lose from them appealing.

J

Boyle89
07-01-2013, 02:38 PM
Unfortunately we get no benefit from it. Posted this on the tattoed freak thread.

Which game was this? only 3 retrospective sending offs were McGowan in approx 60 minute with game at 1-1. Result 1-3.
Templeton - 25th minute score 0-0. Game ends 1-1.
Stevenson - approx 30th minute score 0-0. Game ends 0-0.

I know that ten men teams commonly hold on for results however I think it would be reasonable to assume we would have won both league games this year with Hearts down to 10 men with an hour to play. Very poor to be honest and Collum should be severely slated for missing both especially IMO the Templeton one where he had a perfect view 6 yards away.

If you throw in the Black SCF one then there is a bit of a theme developing which is hurting our team quite badly in our biggest games.

Its becoming a common occurrence.

Leithenhibby
07-01-2013, 02:42 PM
If they appeal and he is still found guilty, do they up the punishment.

if not, there is nothing to lose from them appealing.

J

I would hope so! :wink:

I'm I not right in saying that an appeal will cost them £1000?.... :aok:

Hibs Class
07-01-2013, 02:44 PM
If they appeal and he is still found guilty, do they up the punishment.

if not, there is nothing to lose from them appealing.

J

They cannot afford the appeal fee, and for all their protests they know an appeal would fail as the foul was clearly a shocker.

Sergey
07-01-2013, 02:46 PM
If they appeal and he is still found guilty, do they up the punishment.

if not, there is nothing to lose from them appealing.

J

I'm pretty sure that you're correct. At least I'm fairly certain that this is the ruling in England. IIRC - an appeal also costs £5k which isn't returned if the case is upheld.

That pretty much rules out Hertz appealing, then!

rossevenil
07-01-2013, 02:47 PM
Do teams not still have to put up about £2000 to appeal these decisions or was that only in the past? I`d imagine that scenario would knock any chance of an appeal on the head :greengrin:na na:

JimBHibees
07-01-2013, 02:47 PM
If they appeal and he is still found guilty, do they up the punishment.

if not, there is nothing to lose from them appealing.

J

Here is the process. It sounds like they can only increase if panel decides excessive misconduct. Cant see that applying in this case.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=8596

I see one of the games he would miss would be the League cup semi which is satisfying.

Looks like it costs them a grand to appeal and they lose it if lost. Honestly cannot see any chance they would win an appeal in this case given the tackle.

SmashinGlass
07-01-2013, 02:56 PM
Here is the process. It sounds like they can only increase if panel decides excessive misconduct. Cant see that applying in this case.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=8596

I see one of the games he would miss would be the League cup semi which is satisfying.

According to the BBC, he'll miss games against Celtic and the LC Semi.

Shame

Leithenhibby
07-01-2013, 03:00 PM
I'm pretty sure that you're correct. At least I'm fairly certain that this is the ruling in England. IIRC - an appeal also costs £5k which isn't returned if the case is upheld.

That pretty much rules out Hertz appealing, then!


Do teams not still have to put up about £2000 to appeal these decisions or was that only in the past? I`d imagine that scenario would knock any chance of an appeal on the head :greengrin:na na:


Here is the process. It sounds like they can only increase if panel decides excessive misconduct. Cant see that applying in this case.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1848&newsID=8596

I see one of the games he would miss would be the League cup semi which is satisfying.

Nothing in the SFA page that tell you the cost of an appeal :rolleyes:

So, is it 5k 2k 0r 1k?.....

JimBHibees
07-01-2013, 03:03 PM
I would hope so! :wink:

I'm I not right in saying that an appeal will cost them £1000?.... :aok:

That is right which they would lose if the appeal kicked out.

JimBHibees
07-01-2013, 03:06 PM
Nothing in the SFA page that tell you the cost of an appeal :rolleyes:

So, is it 5k 2k 0r 1k?.....

It is £1k. Clause 15.2.1.5

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/DisciplineExplained/Scottish%20FA%20Judicial%20Panel%20Protocol.pdf

Sergey
07-01-2013, 03:13 PM
It is £1k. Clause 15.2.1.5

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/DisciplineExplained/Scottish%20FA%20Judicial%20Panel%20Protocol.pdf

Cheers - I've just wasted 10 minutes of my life looking for that....to no avail.

It'll be £1000 of the fans money frittered down the drain, IMHO.

JimBHibees
07-01-2013, 03:18 PM
Cheers - I've just wasted 10 minutes of my life looking for that....to no avail.

It'll be £1000 of the fans money frittered down the drain, IMHO.

I dont think they will appeal what is the point, it will be knocked back in 5 mins.

vincipernoi
07-01-2013, 03:18 PM
Mrs Tat will be raging

two game ban means less win bonuses

oh ...hang on

Leithenhibby
07-01-2013, 03:24 PM
It is £1k. Clause 15.2.1.5

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/DisciplineExplained/Scottish%20FA%20Judicial%20Panel%20Protocol.pdf

:aok:


Cheers - I've just wasted 10 minutes of my life looking for that....to no avail.

It'll be £1000 of the fans money frittered down the drain, IMHO.

I know how you feel :wink:

hibsbollah
07-01-2013, 03:41 PM
According to the BBC, he'll miss games against Celtic and the LC Semi.

Shame

If the shrill voices on jambos broke bank are to be believed he'll not be missed. Kicking McPake is about he only thing he's done they like this season, apparently.

cabbageandribs1875
07-01-2013, 03:48 PM
i'm sure it was going to cost hibs £1000 if we appealed two seasons ago, can't remember who the player was that got offered the 1 or 2 game ban

JimBHibees
07-01-2013, 03:49 PM
i'm sure it was going to cost hibs £1000 if we appealed two seasons ago, can't remember who the player was that got offered the 1 or 2 game ban

Probably :giruy:

greenlex
07-01-2013, 03:54 PM
Hearts never have been and never will be appealing. Thought I'd point that out. :fenlon

ozzie
07-01-2013, 03:56 PM
According to the BBC, he'll miss games against Celtic and the LC Semi.

Shame

thats him & sallyhookis missing the celtic game.

cabbageandribs1875
07-01-2013, 03:57 PM
Probably :giruy:



no need to be rude :confused: it was only a guess







:greengrin

Mmmmm it was at least two seasons ago and the sparkmeister wasn't with us then ? might be wrong though :greengrin

HIBERNIAN-0762
07-01-2013, 04:03 PM
The correct decision all day long, he deserved it 100%

Fud...

SmashinGlass
07-01-2013, 04:09 PM
If the shrill voices on jambos broke bank are to be believed he'll not be missed. Kicking McPake is about he only thing he's done they like this season, apparently.

If I didn't know any different, I would say they were a fickle bunch, prone to revision... :greengrin

Hibernia Na Eir
07-01-2013, 04:14 PM
Time to Man Up and face the facts your a pub player hatchet man from the sticks. FACT.

LancashireHibby
07-01-2013, 04:15 PM
The annoying thing is that we get zero advantage from this, whereas if he'd have got a red card on the night (as he deserved and will surely be demonstrated when he gets his ban) then it would have been a game-changer, especially with so much of the game still to play.

The_Sauz
07-01-2013, 04:32 PM
I wonder what Mr Dougal thinks about this decision, after all he did say that the ref got it right :rolleyes:



btw....was it not him who sent off Brebner at ER against the Yams, the it was changed to a booking about a week later:confused:

NORTHERNHIBBY
07-01-2013, 04:37 PM
If they appeal, I think that it means they will need to go up to Ross County in camper vans for the rescheduled game.

What I don't understand, is if we are such a wee insignificant team, why do we suddenly become big enough to be involved in their " biggest games?". Not exactly consistent is it?

What would be consistent, would be seeing John McGlynn, Uncle Fester, The Reading Manager, Matt Lucas and the " grocer" from Masterchef, in one room at the same time, but that won't happen either.

Beefster
07-01-2013, 04:38 PM
Is it fair that five kids with Hearts-supporting bawbags as fathers went without their Christmas presents so that Hearts can appeal a stonewall red card?

JimBHibees
07-01-2013, 04:40 PM
I wonder what Mr Dougal thinks about this decision, after all he did say that the ref got it right :rolleyes:



btw....was it not him who sent off Brebner at ER against the Yams, the it was changed to a booking about a week later:confused:

Yes that was Dougal.

KeithTheHibby
07-01-2013, 04:49 PM
Let them appeal, waste of 1k and time.

A clear open and shut case.

All players make bad challenges, part and parcel of the game if you ask me. The thing that really got my goat was his pathetic claim that it was a fair challenge.
I actually think the guy is a few sandwiches short of a picnic, how else can you explain his walk out on the club then subsequent return 8 months later?

So he misses 2 of the biggest games of the season? Nae luck ya tattooed ****wit!!!!

lord bunberry
07-01-2013, 04:54 PM
Good news although we don't benefit from it. We did benefit from the other decision not to give hearts a penalty though so I am happy with this, justice done

i would rather he had given them the penalty and also sent off the tat man as big ben saves most of the penaltys anyway but even if they scored it i would still fancy us to have got at least one against ten men

jonty
07-01-2013, 05:03 PM
I wonder what Mr Dougal thinks about this decision, after all he did say that the ref got it right :rolleyes:



btw....was it not him who sent off Brebner at ER against the Yams, the it was changed to a booking about a week later:confused:


http://www.hibs.net/media/displayimage.php?album=30&pos=0 :greengrin

grunt
07-01-2013, 05:09 PM
James McPake ‏@JamesMcPake
Been getting a bit of stick 2day! Just 2 say I apologise for the tackle ON ME! I will try hard so it doesn't happen again!

JimBHibees
07-01-2013, 05:16 PM
James McPake ‏@JamesMcPake
Been getting a bit of stick 2day! Just 2 say I apologise for the tackle ON ME! I will try hard so it doesn't happen again!

Thats brilliant. :greengrin

:jmcp:

Bostonhibby
07-01-2013, 05:21 PM
Can see Fester paying for the appeal himself on this one as he is an expert in footballing matters, manages a big team and was absolutely certain in his view about the fairness of the tackle. He can pay it no problem on the sort of money he earns and he is a man of principle so can't see any way he will back down now. :trumpet:

Billy Whizz
07-01-2013, 05:21 PM
According to the BBC, he'll miss games against Celtic and the LC Semi.

Shame

There are a few down now for the League cup semi. No Stevenson, Barr or Mcgowan now.
Come on Inverness!!

Fife-Hibee
07-01-2013, 05:28 PM
Thats brilliant. :greengrin

:jmcp:

What a ....ing bunch of losers ! Hurry up and die ya Hearts f...s

#FromTheCapital
07-01-2013, 05:48 PM
i would rather he had given them the penalty and also sent off the tat man as big ben saves most of the penaltys anyway but even if they scored it i would still fancy us to have got at least one against ten men

Wouldn't of banked on any of that. I'm glad we got the draw on Thursday because we done nothing to deserve a win.

lord bunberry
07-01-2013, 06:21 PM
Wouldn't of banked on any of that. I'm glad we got the draw on Thursday because we done nothing to deserve a win.

But playing against 10 men would have made for a different game

Topographic Hibby
07-01-2013, 07:25 PM
Can see Fester paying for the appeal himself on this one as he is an expert in footballing matters, manages a big team and was absolutely certain in his view about the fairness of the tackle. He can pay it no problem on the sort of money he earns and he is a man of principle so can't see any way he will back down now. :trumpet:
Don't you mean Mrs Fester....get yer purse oot hen!! Its been a while since Matt Lucas fae Gorgie has had a "Credit" in his bank account (unless he's been dabling with Wonga.....oh, the delicious irony of borrowing from your employers spnosor!!).

TH

#FromTheCapital
07-01-2013, 07:25 PM
But playing against 10 men would have made for a different game

So would being a goal down.

SouthamptonHibs
07-01-2013, 08:18 PM
So would being a goal down.

I'm with you on this one, if ref gave them a pen = likely 1 down, then he sent tattoo man off I'm not sure we would have got a draw on Thursday. Our tactics were poor and we couldn't`t string 2 passes together. Don't think we had more than four men in there half until the final ten mins. I`'ll take the draw and run. Still annoyed that our full strength team never had a go at there New weakened team hail hail

#FromTheCapital
07-01-2013, 08:29 PM
I'm with you on this one, if ref gave them a pen = likely 1 down, then he sent tattoo man off I'm not sure we would have got a draw on Thursday. Our tactics were poor and we couldn't`t string 2 passes together. Don't think we had more than four men in there half until the final ten mins. I`'ll take the draw and run. Still annoyed that our full strength team never had a go at there New weakened team hail hail

Spot on

Onion
08-01-2013, 12:29 PM
I'm with you on this one, if ref gave them a pen = likely 1 down, then he sent tattoo man off I'm not sure we would have got a draw on Thursday. Our tactics were poor and we couldn't`t string 2 passes together. Don't think we had more than four men in there half until the final ten mins. I`'ll take the draw and run. Still annoyed that our full strength team never had a go at there New weakened team hail hail

Problem is this is just speculation. Who knows what impact it would have had on the game, what it might have done for Hibs and Yams confidence/shape/tactics. I am really pissed off about this latest (THIRD) incident where a Yam thug should have been given his marching orders in a match against Hibs.

Let's put it this way, if the Yams think that they can do virtually anything they like (retaliate/headbut, lash out and now fly in with potentially leg-breaking tackles) in full view of everyone knowing that the ref will do nothing - which is what is now happening regularly - then this alone is a game changer before a ball is kicked. Their attitude before and during the match can be different to Hibs. The Hartley assault in the final is a symptom of this.

Or let's put it another way, if a Hibs player carried out any of these offences, do you think they would have been sent off ? You can put your house on it !

To have ONE of these is bad enough but THREE in the recent matches ?? These referees are making decisions based on who is committing the offence, and Hibs need to seek an explanation.

JimBHibees
08-01-2013, 01:07 PM
I'm with you on this one, if ref gave them a pen = likely 1 down, then he sent tattoo man off I'm not sure we would have got a draw on Thursday. Our tactics were poor and we couldn't`t string 2 passes together. Don't think we had more than four men in there half until the final ten mins. I`'ll take the draw and run. Still annoyed that our full strength team never had a go at there New weakened team hail hail

I think it is safe to say that our tactics might have changed if we were against 10 men. You cant predict these things can you sometimes 10 men beat the 11 men most times the 11 men will win. One thing is for sure that is now 3 out of the last 5 derbies (4 out of 5 if you include Black in the final when Lunny was on a beach :greengrin) that Hearts have been given retrospective red cards which would if correctly given have given us an enormous chance to win these games. Two of the sending offs have been in the first half also. It is a highly unusual circumstance it has got to be said.

Famous Fiver
08-01-2013, 03:01 PM
It's gone 3 o'clock.

Did he decline the punishment?

lapsedhibee
08-01-2013, 03:04 PM
It's gone 3 o'clock.

Did he decline the punishment?

Surely he must have, as it was a hard but fair tackle. :confused:

Famous Fiver
08-01-2013, 03:09 PM
I Don't do irony.

I personally hope he declines it, there is hearing with £1,000 fee lodged. He is then found guilty and two games ban becomesfour.

Pick the ironic bones out of that.

Bostonhibby
08-01-2013, 03:19 PM
It's gone 3 o'clock.

Did he decline the punishment?

I imagined he would "man up" and fight it with the full backing of his manager who thought it was a fair challenge in line with what he would have expected from his players in a derby game. Probably just waiting on the £1000 being transferred from Lithuania or a giant Cup cake being pulled from the oven.

lapsedhibee
08-01-2013, 03:23 PM
I imagined he would "man up" and fight it with the full backing of his manager who thought it was a fair challenge in line with what he would have expected from his players in a derby game. Probably just waiting on the £1000 being transferred from Lithuania or a giant Cup cake being pulled from the oven.

Or he might have decided to take his punishment "like a man", unlike those soft, bleating, hobos.

PatHead
08-01-2013, 03:25 PM
Had a look on Kickback to see if there was any word on him appealing. None so I assume he won't. Can't get over how only a few see it as a shocking tackle. The main thing is that they think Hibs got him banned due to their "bleating" in this (and the other 2 previous incidents when their players got retrospective bans). They can't see how they got away with it during the games.

Finally they, almost to a man (mutant), believe McPake should have been sent off in the penalty incident. They know even less about football than I thought.

Russell The Dug
08-01-2013, 03:36 PM
He's rejected the ban according to twits.

HibeeN
08-01-2013, 03:38 PM
Scottish FA ‏@ScottishFA (https://twitter.com/ScottishFA)
Hearts' Ryan Stevenson rejects Compliance Officer's two-game suspension offer. Fast Track Tribunal will convene on Thurs to consider case.

JimBHibees
08-01-2013, 03:40 PM
Scottish FA ‏@ScottishFA (https://twitter.com/ScottishFA)
Hearts' Ryan Stevenson rejects Compliance Officer's two-game suspension offer. Fast Track Tribunal will convene on Thurs to consider case.

Another grand wasted, brilliant.

#FromTheCapital
08-01-2013, 03:41 PM
Don't understand where they are getting the 1k to appeal when it is as clear a red card as you will ever see. How can they corrupt ********s justify paying 1k?

brog
08-01-2013, 04:17 PM
They've shot themselves in the foot with all their 50/50 PR nonsense. They had no alternative but to appeal & will waste £1k, or 50 cake bakes as its known at PBS!!

PatHead
08-01-2013, 04:21 PM
Can the ban be increased as he has gone to appeal?

JimBHibees
08-01-2013, 04:27 PM
They've shot themselves in the foot with all their 50/50 PR nonsense. They had no alternative but to appeal & will waste £1k, or 50 cake bakes as its known at PBS!!

I agree with that they backed themselves into a corner with Fester and the Freak going on about a man's game and in days of old guff. They have IMO no chance of winning this appeal though I dont think the ban can be increased unless it is considered excessive misconduct which I dont think would apply in this case.

Personally think Stevenson is a cowardly piece of work and got away with one in the cup tie when he deliberately elbowed McGivern near the end of the game. Can also remember him going over the ball to Ian Murray in a league game where surprise, surprise Thomson decided it was a yellow even though it was 3 times worse than the Fletch challenge when he sent him off in the cup a few years back.

JimBHibees
08-01-2013, 04:30 PM
Can the ban be increased as he has gone to appeal?

I dont think it can. It mentions something in the rules about in cases of excessive misconduct it can be increased which I am assuming is in cases of violence etc. Cant see that applying in this case unfortunately.

Famous Fiver
08-01-2013, 04:31 PM
If Stevenson wins his case, what then?

A two footed,off the ground challenge, premeditated, because he had a clear look before he launched himself, not at the ball, but at his opponent, is deemed acceptable?

Can you begin to imagine the challenges that are going to go in from all teams with immediate effect. 'It was a fair challenge, the ball was there to be won.' Aye, right.

Ian Black will get Player of the Year!!.

In my view, he hasn't got a hope in succeeding.

And another grand down the swannie.

Tick Tock.

mjhibby
08-01-2013, 04:39 PM
The annoying thing is that we get zero advantage from this, whereas if he'd have got a red card on the night (as he deserved and will surely be demonstrated when he gets his ban) then it would have been a game-changer, especially with so much of the game still to play.

Thats the thing that always annoys me is although the retrospective ban is correct but like when thomson gave aberdeen a pen then pawlett got done for diving it still meant we lost a game we possibly could have won.iirc to rub salt into the wounds ivan was told not to have the temerity to say pawlett had dived.As for stevenson if you watch the tackle again you can see he walks away smugly from the tackle knowing he has got away with a shocking tackle.Had he been sent off im sure we would have got more space to play and most probably have won the game.It defies belief that anybody cant see it was a straight red and the ref should have come out after the game and said that he would have sent the player off if he had got a clear view of it.To show the total barking mad side of the average jambo they even think mcpake should have been sent off for his challenge on robinson.
Even worse was the papers letting stevenson spout his nonsense that it was hard but fair.If that was a hibs player who did that tackle im sure the weedgie press would have gone ballistic.Cant beleive their appealing but but shows that they live on a different planet to everybody else.

Golden Bear
08-01-2013, 04:40 PM
Maybe he's been daft enough to fund the appeal himself?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20934796

PatHead
08-01-2013, 04:47 PM
Maybe he's been daft enough to fund the appeal himself?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20934796

From his wages or bonuses?

Golden Bear
08-01-2013, 04:56 PM
From his wages or bonuses?

Aye right enough. How could I be so :doh:

:greengrin