Referee Craig Thomson

[Moulin Yarns]

A superb display of Scottish refereeing last night

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/craig-thomson-draws-wrath-of-besiktas-fans-after-6-0-defeat-1-4310803

[Thecat23]

That's a shocker! How the **** is he still a ref? Scottish football is a laughing stock in Europe now they will think the same of the refs.

[MurrayfieldHibs]

Love this line!

Former Italian referee Graziano Cesari gave a blunt assessment, saying: “Craig Thomson is always a disastrous referee.”

[bingo70]

I needed a besiktas goal for £600 last night off a fiver bet.

There are very few people in the world I dislike more right now than Craig Thomson.

[StevieCowan]

It was clearly the 5th official behind the goal who made the decision and said it was a red card rather than Thomson.

Btw I've heard it also a lino who gave the pen at Hampden rather than him

[NAE NOOKIE]

It was clearly the 5th official behind the goal who made the decision and said it was a red card rather than Thomson.

Btw I've heard it also a lino who gave the pen at Hampden rather than him

They both want shooting then

[macca70]

Is it just me that thinks folk are being a bit harsh on Thompson here, as much as he is an absolute clown, I've watched this a few times now and can totally see why it was a pen and red.

The players come together fairly, as the ball is rolling across them into the path of the guy in white, the boy in the white is clearly stronger and as the boy in maroon is falling, he clearly trips the guy in white up just as they have gone into the box.

Some might argue it was an excellent decision, it's certainly not a clear cut howler that folk are making out.

[Broken Gnome]

Is it just me that thinks folk are being a bit harsh on Thompson here, as mush as he is an absolute clown, I've watch this a few times now and can totally see why it was a pen and red.

The players come together fairly, the boy in the white is clearly stronger and as the boy in maroon is falling, he clearly trips the guy in white up just as they have gone into the box.

Some might argue it was an excellent decision, it's certainly not a clear cut howler that folk are making out.

Kinda agree, would guess the defender knew what he was doing more than people seem to assume. Given the trend seems to be that red cards aren't always needed when giving penalties then he didn't really need to send him off... Giving himself unnecessary grief really, though looks like the 5th official told him to.

[PeeJay]

Looking at it several times on the screen, it's "easy" to reach a decision other than that made by Thompson, but he had to make it from his standpoint on the spur of the moment - I can see how he may well have thought that it is indeed a penalty ... referees make mistakes, not just this partcular one.

[macca70]

Kinda agree, would guess the defender knew what he was doing more than people seem to assume. Given the trend seems to be that red cards aren't always needed when giving penalties then he didn't really need to send him off... Giving himself unnecessary grief really, though looks like the 5th official told him to.

Under the new confusing rule, maybe not a red but imo a red and a pen was spot on, the defender is wrong side of the forward, then trips him up as he's falling as they get into the box.

[staunchhibby]

Same sceniario when Fontaine got a yellow on Friday when united got the penalty.

[WWFTWTG]

Shocking decision, and sums up the standard of refs in Scotland as we have seen all season - he should retire now.

[Thecat23]

Under the new confusing rule, maybe not a red but imo a red and a pen was spot on, the defender is wrong side of the forward, then trips him up as he's falling as they get into the box.

Defender is the one who's fouled. How anyone thinks that's a red and a pen I'll never know.

[macca70]

Defender is the one who's fouled. How anyone thinks that's a red and a pen I'll never know.

That's not a foul, the ball is rolling across them into the path of the forward, they come shoulder to shoulder, the forward is in best position, the defender falls down and trips the forward as he falls.

So are you saying the forward barges the defender over? IMO he uses his body exactly as you would expect a big strong forward to and the defender goes down far too easily.

Frustrates the hell out of me when you see a forward and defender come shoulder to shoulder, the defender falls to the ground and the red automatically gives the defender the foul.

[Thecat23]

That's not a foul, the ball is rolling across them into the path of the forward, they come shoulder to shoulder, the forward is in best position, the defender falls down and trips the forward as he falls.

So are you saying the forward barges the defender over? IMO he uses his body exactly as you would expect a big strong forward to and the defender goes down far too easily.

Frustrates the hell out of me when you see a forward and defender come shoulder to shoulder, the defender falls to the ground and the red automatically gives the defender the foul.

Yes I'm saying he's 100% fouled the defender. There is your normal shoulder barge then there is using excessive force liking body checking someone.

That is never a red in a million years.

[Alan62]

Penalty and a red card for me.

The shoulder to shoulder charge (legal) probably sets up the next sequence but the defender trips the forward who clearly has a goal scoring opportunity. From Thompson's angle it also looked like the defender lifted his leg at the last part of the trip to make sure. From the other angle that bit is not so clear cut and it just looks like a clumsy mess.

Can't stand the guy and I don't like his refereeing style but I think he got this one right.

[JimBHibees]

Atrocious decision and one of the later goals was 2 yards offside also. Same officials that made sure Dortmund knocked Malaga out a few years back.

[Steve20]

It's never a penalty and never a red card. How anyone can think otherwise is beyond me. The defender gets fouled.

[snooky]

Amazing the difference of opinions on this board. I haven't seen the video but it looks like it was a hard call judging by the varous views in the posts above.
Btw, was it a yard outside the box? If so, definitely a pen.

[Salt N Sauzee]

It's a penalty and a red card. How anyone can think otherwise is beyond me. The attacker gets fouled.

Fixed that for you mate :wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

Amazing the difference of opinions on this board. I haven't seen the video but it looks like it was a hard call judging by the varous views in the posts above.
Btw, was it a yard outside the box? If so, definitely a pen.

First contact was outside the box, where the attacker barges into the defender who was sent off.

Mr Thomson obviously has a different version of the rulebook to everyone else.

http://sport.bt.com/video/highlights-dynamo-kyiv-6-0-besiktas-91364119234387

45 seconds into the video

[Moulin Yarns]

Law 12


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


charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip

if an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is
needed
reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

a direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
holds an opponent
impedes an opponent with contact
spits at an opponent

[HibernianJK]

Cannot believe some people are defending Thomson here. The forward clearly barges over the defender and is only brought down because of the way the defender falls. Truly horrific decision but one we have come to expect from this idiot.

[Callyballybe]

Yeah, I have to agree, terrible decision by Thomson. After the attacker has barged the defender to the ground, it doesn't look like there is even much contact from the defender on the attacker to make him go to ground afterwards.

Thomson is now embarrassing us on an international scale!

[oldbutdim]

Defender is the one who's fouled. How anyone thinks that's a red and a pen I'll never know.

Correct.

Baffling that some folk disagree.

[Smartie]

So, even after having seen the incident multiple times, we have many and varied opinions and can't agree on the subject.

Maybe this was a tough one to call and Thomson was damned to get it wrong whichever way he chose to see it?

I haven't seen it so wouldn't want to say, but I do have a bit of sympathy for referees, who only have a split second to see an incident and who may (correctly) be influenced by assistants who may have the decision wrong.

I wouldn't want to be a ref.

[CentreLine]

They both want shooting then

Steady! Nobody "wants shooting". Let's tober the language a little please.

[hibbysam]

Yeah, I have to agree, terrible decision by Thomson. After the attacker has barged the defender to the ground, it doesn't look like there is even much contact from the defender on the attacker to make him go to ground afterwards.

Thomson is now embarrassing us on an international scale!

Watched it again, the attacker barges him in the back, the jumps over him and falls over... I cannot see any contact from the defender on the attacker, and it is as stonewall a freekick as you will ever see to the defender. A shoulder barge isn't a shoulder barge if the defender gets his body in front and you barge him in the back.

Embarrassing yet again.

[Dub]

First contact was outside the box, where the attacker barges into the defender who was sent off.

Mr Thomson obviously has a different version of the rulebook to everyone else.

http://sport.bt.com/video/highlights-dynamo-kyiv-6-0-besiktas-91364119234387

45 seconds into the video

Thanks for the link. That was never a penalty in a million years. Thomson did what Thomson does though and f*kked it up.

[emerald green]

Controversy and ridiculous and baffling decisions just seem to follow Thomson around like a bad smell.

How any Hibs supporter can still defend this guy is beyond belief.

[davym7062]

at least it was in the box!!!!!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[snooky]

Having now watched the incident several times, I can't see how anybody could interpret that as a penalty.
Some are saying the defender knew what he was doing. Well, if he did, he is very, very good at it to bring his opponent down with the deftest of a touch while in a spinning fall.
They didn't get much luck with the deflections, offside calls, or other official decisions either.
Bottom line ... CT is a C.

[Seveno]

I haven't watched it but it is clearly an absolute howler by Thomson.

[Biggie]

Bizarre decision, even for the ****wit Thompson.

[FitbaFolkKen]

That's right up there with some of his worst. I can't see how it could ever be a penalty, I was even looking for the falling defender to kick out or drag him down with him but it looks like a genuine fall after being knocked over by the forward.

[Alan62]

Take Thomson (and what we all think of him) out of the equation and watch the sequence of events.

IF you believe that the forward's challenge is shoulder to shoulder (which I do) then you have to agree that the defender trips the forward inside the box. Whether he meant to or not is irrelevant. If he tripped the forward inside the box, preventing a goal-scoring opportunity, then it has to be a penalty AND a red card.

IF you believe the forward fouls the defender, then it's a foul to the defender and the rest of the sequence is irrelevant.

So the margin call is whether or not it's shoulder to shoulder or shoulder to back. Where does the shoulder end and the back start? And you have to make all of these decisions without a replay and within seconds of it all happening.

I don't think it's a howler at all.

[Waxy]

The time for video replays must be looming.

[Booked4Being-Ugly]

Take Thomson (and what we all think of him) out of the equation and watch the sequence of events.

IF you believe that the forward's challenge is shoulder to shoulder (which I do) then you have to agree that the defender trips the forward inside the box. Whether he meant to or not is irrelevant. If he tripped the forward inside the box, preventing a goal-scoring opportunity, then it has to be a penalty AND a red card.

IF you believe the forward fouls the defender, then it's a foul to the defender and the rest of the sequence is irrelevant.

So the margin call is whether or not it's shoulder to shoulder or shoulder to back. Where does the shoulder end and the back start? And you have to make all of these decisions without a replay and within seconds of it all happening.

I don't think it's a howler at all.I do, the forward barged him off the ball and sent him sprawling. That action alone tells you it wasn't a 50/50 shoulder tackle.

[southsider]

The time for video replays must be looming.

Or just dump idiots like CT. All of Europe laughing at the standard of our refs.

[Gordy M]

The time for video replays must be looming.

Imo you cant have video replays for matters of 'opinion'....as can be seen by folks views on this thread. Only matters of 'fact' eg offside/over the line etc shouldit be used, and even then its not always clear.

[WWFTWTG]

Take Thomson (and what we all think of him) out of the equation and watch the sequence of events.

IF you believe that the forward's challenge is shoulder to shoulder (which I do) then you have to agree that the defender trips the forward inside the box. Whether he meant to or not is irrelevant. If he tripped the forward inside the box, preventing a goal-scoring opportunity, then it has to be a penalty AND a red card.

IF you believe the forward fouls the defender, then it's a foul to the defender and the rest of the sequence is irrelevant.

So the margin call is whether or not it's shoulder to shoulder or shoulder to back. Where does the shoulder end and the back start? And you have to make all of these decisions without a replay and within seconds of it all happening.

I don't think it's a howler at all.

17750

[Alan62]

I do, the forward barged him off the ball and sent him sprawling. That action alone tells you it wasn't a 50/50 shoulder tackle.

Hmmm. So you agree that the two players come together at the shoulder? It's not a 50/50 challenge otherwise they would have cancelled each other out and stayed upright. However, the whole point of the shoulder charge is that you're allowed to come shoulder to shoulder with your opponent as long as the ball is in playing distance - which it was in this case - but it doesn't say anything about it being a tackle of equal force.

That's just like any fair tackle. If one of our guys goes into a challenge fair but full on, we're all roaring approval from the stands - probably especially if their guy goes 10ft in the air and lands awkwardly.

The forward in this case applies more force but, if it's shoulder to shoulder and the ball's in playing distance, it's still a fair challenge. The defender goes over and trips the player in the box preventing a goal scoring opportunity.

That's how Craig Thomson's seen it and I'm inclined to agree.

There you go. Another opportunity for someone to post a 'cannae believe you're sayin' this, pal' picture found on the internet. ;)

[hibbysam]

Hmmm. So you agree that the two players come together at the shoulder? It's not a 50/50 challenge otherwise they would have cancelled each other out and stayed upright. However, the whole point of the shoulder charge is that you're allowed to come shoulder to shoulder with your opponent as long as the ball is in playing distance - which it was in this case - but it doesn't say anything about it being a tackle of equal force.

That's just like any fair tackle. If one of our guys goes into a challenge fair but full on, we're all roaring approval from the stands - probably especially if their guy goes 10ft in the air and lands awkwardly.

The forward in this case applies more force but, if it's shoulder to shoulder and the ball's in playing distance, it's still a fair challenge. The defender goes over and trips the player in the box preventing a goal scoring opportunity.

That's how Craig Thomson's seen it and I'm inclined to agree.

There you go. Another opportunity for someone to post a 'cannae believe you're sayin' this, pal' picture found on the internet. ;)

It's quite clear that it's his back, but even ignoring that part... in the box there is zero contact between the pair, the close up shows the attacker jumping over the defender and then hitting the deck, and also even if there was contact it doesn't make it a foul, it's a coming together after the tow collide with not even the hint of a tackle involved. Under no circumstances, anywhere in the world is that a foul.

[GreenLake]

The forward trips over the fallen corpse he's just clobbered. Never a penalty.

[poolman]

Steady! Nobody "wants shooting". Let's tober the language a little please.


Bloody hell calm down

We all know it's not meant literary

Dearie me

[HappyHanlon]

Steady! Nobody "wants shooting". Let's tober the language a little please.

Shooting, gutting, dumped in a car crusher......take yer pick!

[oldbutdim]

I'd use the pick.

[HibeeDaz6270]

Take Thomson (and what we all think of him) out of the equation and watch the sequence of events.

IF you believe that the forward's challenge is shoulder to shoulder (which I do) then you have to agree that the defender trips the forward inside the box. Whether he meant to or not is irrelevant. If he tripped the forward inside the box, preventing a goal-scoring opportunity, then it has to be a penalty AND a red card.

IF you believe the forward fouls the defender, then it's a foul to the defender and the rest of the sequence is irrelevant.

So the margin call is whether or not it's shoulder to shoulder or shoulder to back. Where does the shoulder end and the back start? And you have to make all of these decisions without a replay and within seconds of it all happening.

I don't think it's a howler at all.
If a penalty is awarded i thought it was now only a yellow card unless the Referee deemed the Foul as deliberate?

The fact he has given a penalty and a Red card makes it even more of a howler

[monktonharp]

It was clearly the 5th official behind the goal who made the decision and said it was a red card rather than Thomson.

Btw I've heard it also a lino who gave the pen at Hampden rather than himyou worry me. how's aboot the 7th minute of the game, when a painter fi TRANENT GOT AWAY WITH ABSOLUTE MURDER?

[mjhibby]

Is it just me that thinks folk are being a bit harsh on Thompson here, as much as he is an absolute clown, I've watched this a few times now and can totally see why it was a pen and red.

The players come together fairly, as the ball is rolling across them into the path of the guy in white, the boy in the white is clearly stronger and as the boy in maroon is falling, he clearly trips the guy in white up just as they have gone into the box.

Some might argue it was an excellent decision, it's certainly not a clear cut howler that folk are making out.

In fairness to Thompson since that day he had been uttetly fair to us. I just wonder if that's him trying to recompose for his horrendous errors.

[Smartie]

In fairness to Thompson since that day he had been uttetly fair to us. I just wonder if that's him trying to recompose for his horrendous errors.

The fact that he is as capable of putting in a really good refereeing performance as he is of putting in an absolute shocker is what sometimes makes me think he's corrupt.

[Kato]

So, even after having seen the incident multiple times, we have many and varied opinions and can't agree on the subject.

Maybe this was a tough one to call and Thomson was damned to get it wrong whichever way he chose to see it?

I haven't seen it so wouldn't want to say, but I do have a bit of sympathy for referees, who only have a split second to see an incident and who may (correctly) be influenced by assistants who may have the decision wrong.

I wouldn't want to be a ref.

That's all well and good but why does he then feel the need to send him off given the rule change this season?

[CentreLine]

That's all well and good but why does he then feel the need to send him off given the rule change this season?

It looked to me like the sending off came after the player had too much to say following the incident.

[Kato]

It looked to me like the sending off came after the player had too much to say following the incident.

Hard to make that conclusion from the highlights for me.

www.sport.bt.com/video/highlights-dynamo-kyiv-6-0-besiktas-91364119234387

Looks like he being sent off for being sent flying then being able to foul in mid tumble. :rolleyes:

Is there footage of him showing enough dissent to warrant a red? Not enough in the above.

[CentreLine]

Hard to make that conclusion from the highlights for me.

www.sport.bt.com/video/highlights-dynamo-kyiv-6-0-besiktas-91364119234387

Looks like he being sent off for being sent flying then being able to foul in mid tumble. :rolleyes:

Is there footage of him showing enough dissent to warrant a red? Not enough in the above.

The only coverage I saw was the BTSport coverage on the night and he seemed to have plenty to say. I'm no lip reader, especially not in foreign languages, but he did seem to be rather upset. Perhaps understandably but once the decision is made why's the point?

[snooky]

The only coverage I saw was the BTSport coverage on the night and he seemed to have plenty to say. I'm no lip reader, especially not in foreign languages, but he did seem to be rather upset. Perhaps understandably but once the decision is made why's the point?

Well I am, and he's definitely saying "FFS ref, that wisny as bad as the Painter's tackle on Sparky".

[CentreLine]

Well I am, and he's definitely saying "FFS ref, that wisny as bad as the Painter's tackle on Sparky".

That's what I thought but didn't believe enough in my gut feeling. I can see now why Thomson wanted to shut him up quickly. 😂

[High-On-Hibs]

Those defending him and saying it was a good decision are at it. :faf:

[Carheenlea]

Watched it a few times now and still don't see what those who are agreeing with him are seeing.
I actually feel sorry for the guy and it's evidence of his incompetence rather than bias of which we have accused him of in the past. He's surely finished.

[silverhibee]

Another shocking decision by him tonight.

Fails to send Gordon off and instead yellow cards the Partick player for diving.

[hibbysam]

Another shocking decision by him tonight.

Fails to send Gordon off and instead yellow cards the Partick player for diving.

Watched it, mans a tube. What annoys me more is how Gordon gets away with it time and time again. That's the third time this season he has clobbered someone and got away with it and while last nights wasn't the most malicious, he quite clearly flicks his leg out to trip him up.

The question I always ask is this, had Gordon came out, clipped the ball past the attacker, who done what Gordon done, and then went down, would he have booked the keeper for diving? Not a chance, it would be a foul 100 times out of 100. It's just too easy to say the attacker dived.

[High-On-Hibs]

Watched it, mans a tube. What annoys me more is how Gordon gets away with it time and time again. That's the third time this season he has clobbered someone and got away with it and while last nights wasn't the most malicious, he quite clearly flicks his leg out to trip him up.

The question I always ask is this, had Gordon came out, clipped the ball past the attacker, who done what Gordon done, and then went down, would he have booked the keeper for diving? Not a chance, it would be a foul 100 times out of 100. It's just too easy to say the attacker dived.

He got away with it for the pink tinks as well. Will never forget his pathetic theatricals that got Shiels sent off. :fuming:

[660]

He got away with it for the pink tinks as well. Will never forget his pathetic theatricals that got Shiels sent off. :fuming:

That still annoys me. Hibs would have went on to win that game if it wasn't for his bizarre tantrum after we scored the pen.

[Broken Gnome]

That still annoys me. Hibs would have went on to win that game if it wasn't for his bizarre tantrum after we scored the pen.

It was hardly bizarre. Made perfect sense and pretty much won Hearts the game.

[Phil MaGlass]

Totally have my Hibs goggles on here, Thomson deserves every ****ing thing that comes his way, he is a piss poor ref and a ****ing embarrassment to Scottish Football, there was also another of Champions league games he completely ersed up I think the most glaring one was Borussia Dortmund and the two goals he should never have given. The man is a grade A arse and should never be allowed to ref another game ever, ever ever.

[superfurryhibby]

Hmmm. So you agree that the two players come together at the shoulder? It's not a 50/50 challenge otherwise they would have cancelled each other out and stayed upright. However, the whole point of the shoulder charge is that you're allowed to come shoulder to shoulder with your opponent as long as the ball is in playing distance - which it was in this case - but it doesn't say anything about it being a tackle of equal force.

That's just like any fair tackle. If one of our guys goes into a challenge fair but full on, we're all roaring approval from the stands - probably especially if their guy goes 10ft in the air and lands awkwardly.

The forward in this case applies more force but, if it's shoulder to shoulder and the ball's in playing distance, it's still a fair challenge. The defender goes over and trips the player in the box preventing a goal scoring opportunity.

That's how Craig Thomson's seen it and I'm inclined to agree.

There you go. Another opportunity for someone to post a 'cannae believe you're sayin' this, pal' picture found on the internet. ;)

This is exactly how I see it. The defender is not in control of a ball that is going away from him, there is a shoulder charge and the strongest guy wins. The defending was pesh. He should have had the ball away and instead he got out muscled and brought the guy down.

I'm no lover of Craig Thomson, but he got a tough decision right int this case.