PDA

View Full Version : Dodgy refereeing decisions



sauzee6_2
01-04-2018, 06:34 PM
For all the poor decisions we have been on the wrong end of, let’s not gloss over the fact we got away with one when Partick’s goal was disallowed.

Having seen it again on sportscene, for me, we definitely got the rub of the green.

Eyrie
01-04-2018, 06:36 PM
Agreed.

I saw nothing wrong at the time and I was in line with the six yard box.

Lago
01-04-2018, 06:38 PM
:greengrin
Who's Patrick?

Libby Hibby
01-04-2018, 06:43 PM
It was soft but I don’t think we got away with one yesterday, the lad was offside and was standing directly in front of Bell, perhaps even impeding him making a clean save.

It’s not as if it was a ‘wrong decision’ to which we have been on the receiving end on quite a few occasions this season.

we are hibs
01-04-2018, 06:43 PM
he was offside and went towards the ball therefore interfering with play. it was the correct decision

Skol
01-04-2018, 06:43 PM
More evidence of the corruption.....or are Partick just lower down the pecking order ?

sauzee6_2
01-04-2018, 06:46 PM
he was offside and went towards the ball therefore interfering with play. it was the correct decision

Watch sportscene, it was wrong - Effe Ambrose heads the ball making any offside call null and void.

crash
01-04-2018, 06:50 PM
he was offside and went towards the ball therefore interfering with play. it was the correct decision

Sportscene proved the player was not offside.

O'Rourke3
01-04-2018, 06:50 PM
Watch sportscene, it was wrong - Effe Ambrose heads the ball making any offside call null and void.Just seen it. Neither ref nor lino could see that so they made what looked to them a fair decision. At the time I thought the boy that put it in was the one called out but its the player blocking Bell.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

Sir David Gray
01-04-2018, 06:50 PM
Easy to ridicule isn’t it!

I have dyslexia and try my best - I sincerely hope if you have kids you learn how to recognise learning difficulties and support them rather than mock.

Apologies.

I will remove my post, I would never intentionally do such a thing.

There has been a number of references to "Patrick" on the boards when people have been meaning to type "Partick". Anyone could mistakenly type the "r" and the "t" round the wrong way, especially if they have predictive text enabled as the device would assume you would want to type Patrick as opposed to Partick.

There was no way I could have recognised you have a learning difficulty from that post but I am sorry if any offence was caused.

AltheHibby
01-04-2018, 06:51 PM
That was definitely a dodgy one in our favour.

snooky
01-04-2018, 06:52 PM
For all the poor decisions we have been on the wrong end of, let’s not gloss over the fact we got away with one when Partick’s goal was disallowed.

Having seen it again on sportscene, for me, we definitely got the rub of the green.

You've got to feel for Partick if that's the case. When you're struggling the rub always seems to go against you. Mind you, Rangers got another nice little rub yesterday when they were 2-0 down. Who'd have believed it, eh?

CentreLine
01-04-2018, 06:53 PM
Watch sportscene, it was wrong - Effe Ambrose heads the ball making any offside call null and void.

Yes that’s what they showed. Who would have seen that coming? All of debating the fineries of the offside rule and up pops Efe to prove us all wrong. Great spot.

neil7908
01-04-2018, 06:55 PM
We've had some shockers against us but we need to acknowledge when they go in our favour and that was definitely one of them.

If that had gone in I think we'd have really struggled to break Partick down.

houstonhibbee
01-04-2018, 06:58 PM
Easy to ridicule isn’t it!

I have dyslexia and try my best - I sincerely hope if you have kids you learn how to recognise learning difficulties and support them rather than mock.
could have just as easily been autocorrect as well

sauzee6_2
01-04-2018, 07:04 PM
could have just as easily been autocorrect as well

It could have....

Libby Hibby
01-04-2018, 07:06 PM
Damn that auto-correct

hibbyfraelibby
01-04-2018, 07:12 PM
Sportscene proved the player was not offside.

Not accoding to the laws of the game. People includimg fans, pundits, commentators, coaches and armchair refs need to get up to speed with the offside law as it stands now not 30 years ago.

hibbysam
01-04-2018, 07:14 PM
It wasn’t a ‘shocker’ by any means. No one in real time had Efe heading that ball. The striker was then ‘offside’ on two counts (if, as everyone believed, it was the striker who headed the ball) as he both impedes Bell’s sight, then dashes towards the ball as it is rolling over the line. The only incorrect decision in all of it was who headed the ball and like I say it is impossible to call that.

Billy Whizz
01-04-2018, 07:16 PM
Not accoding to the laws of the game. People includimg fans, pundits, commentators, coaches and armchair refs need to get up to speed with the offside law as it stands now not 30 years ago.

Well maybe UEFA/SFA should put a wee video together for the fans, explains all the changes
I’ve played football for 40 years, and even now I’m confused

Famous Fiver
01-04-2018, 07:24 PM
You must have been places and seen hings just like oor pal Billy Broon.

Ozyhibby
01-04-2018, 07:51 PM
The player is offside when it’s played forward and moves towards the ball. He’s offside.
The only argument is if Ambrose touched it and although it looks like he did it’s not clear if it came of the Partick player first and if it did then it’s offside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ancient hibee
01-04-2018, 07:53 PM
Not accoding to the laws of the game. People includimg fans, pundits, commentators, coaches and armchair refs need to get up to speed with the offside law as it stands now not 30 years ago.
The ball was played towards goal by a Hibs player so the Partick player was not offside.That was the law 30 years ago and is still the law now.However nobody could have seen it at the time.

hibbysam
01-04-2018, 08:11 PM
The player is offside when it’s played forward and moves towards the ball. He’s offside.
The only argument is if Ambrose touched it and although it looks like he did it’s not clear if it came of the Partick player first and if it did then it’s offside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regardless if it hit the Thistle player, Ambrose heading the ball makes it a new phase and all is onside again. Like I said, however, it’s impossible for the referee and linesman to see that.

davhibby
01-04-2018, 08:27 PM
We're due about 5 more game changing decisions in our favour by the end pf the season anyway if as people say things will 'even themselves out'. Nice to get the rub of the green for once

Eyrie
01-04-2018, 09:54 PM
It wasn’t a ‘shocker’ by any means. No one in real time had Efe heading that ball. The striker was then ‘offside’ on two counts (if, as everyone believed, it was the striker who headed the ball) as he both impedes Bell’s sight, then dashes towards the ball as it is rolling over the line. The only incorrect decision in all of it was who headed the ball and like I say it is impossible to call that.

How could their player be offside when the corner was taken? And he didn't make contact with the ball before it had crossed the line.

IGRIGI
01-04-2018, 09:58 PM
Having watched it I'd be peeved off if it was the other way round.

We'll need another 10 of those at least before things are evened up.

Austinho
01-04-2018, 11:16 PM
We're due about 5 more game changing decisions in our favour by the end pf the season anyway if as people say things will 'even themselves out'. Nice to get the rub of the green for onceYup, if we get a dodgy penalty against Kilmarnock, a phantom goal against Hearts and if a Celtic, Aberdeen or Hamilton player gets a soft red, then maybe we can consider ourselves lucky again.

Scott Allan Key
01-04-2018, 11:41 PM
Put into context, with VAR, that’d stop play and a goal would’ve been given. And if VAR was used in goal and penalty decisions, Rangers would’ve not had penalty yesterday, No reason why TV can’t pay for VAR in SPL.

But, that luck, spurred us up the pitch, and Efe possibly knew he had got out of jail, then played a killer pass, seconds later. I’m not totally bought on VAR for the drama of the latter situation, but maybe Rangers wouldn’t be in second place at present.

matty_f
02-04-2018, 02:33 AM
The player is offside when it’s played forward and moves towards the ball. He’s offside.
The only argument is if Ambrose touched it and although it looks like he did it’s not clear if it came of the Partick player first and if it did then it’s offside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:agree:

If he'd played a pass to an offside player and it came off Ambrose then the offside is from the pass, not Ambrose's touch.

Same goes for the header (though I've not watched it back to see if a Partick player does head out on to Efe).

hibbysam
02-04-2018, 03:58 AM
:agree:

If he'd played a pass to an offside player and it came off Ambrose then the offside is from the pass, not Ambrose's touch.

Same goes for the header (though I've not watched it back to see if a Partick player does head out on to Efe).

That’s not true, ambrose’s touch would then play everyone back onside again (supposing his touch was the last one).

hibbysam
02-04-2018, 04:00 AM
How could their player be offside when the corner was taken? And he didn't make contact with the ball before it had crossed the line.

He can’t be offside from a corner? No one has said he was.. I said he was if it was his own player that headed the ball. You also don’t have to touch the ball, he made a genuine attempt to play the ball by dashing towards it, and also impeded Bell’s line of vision.

Dashing Bob S
02-04-2018, 05:57 AM
Going to swim against the tide - the ref got this one right. I know it, you know it, and deep down the fans of Patrick Thistle know it. Officials have to make those decisions in split seconds and some of the abuse the refreee recieved was shameful.

(Rewritten as if it were the Record discussing a decision awarded to Rangers).

Onion
02-04-2018, 06:29 AM
Might have been a fortunate outcome but doesn't start to make up for some of the desperate decisions given against us this season which have cost us points.

The big take out from the incident is that these decisions change games - as the Huns and their refereeing buddies have come to know over the decades.

matty_f
02-04-2018, 10:02 AM
That’s not true, ambrose’s touch would then play everyone back onside again (supposing his touch was the last one).
No, the offside player is already offside before Ambrose's touch.

We had it against us a while back, I forget the game but essentially we played it forward and the ball came off the defender as he challenged for the ball, it went through to the player who was offside and the free kick was given.

Context is important, as there will be times where the opposite is true, for instance if Ambrose had intercepted the pass, then played it back to the goalie, where the attacker is, then that would potentially be given as onside (assuming the ref considers that a different phase of play).

Callum_62
02-04-2018, 10:03 AM
No, the offside player is already offside before Ambrose's touch.

We had it against us a while back, I forget the game but essentially we played it forward and the ball came off the defender as he challenged for the ball, it went through to the player who was offside and the free kick was given.

Context is important, as there will be times where the opposite is true, for instance if Ambrose had intercepted the pass, then played it back to the goalie, where the attacker is, then that would potentially be given as onside (assuming the ref considers that a different phase of play).

How can he be offside from a corner?

Eyrie
02-04-2018, 10:04 AM
He can’t be offside from a corner? No one has said he was.. I said he was if it was his own player that headed the ball. You also don’t have to touch the ball, he made a genuine attempt to play the ball by dashing towards it, and also impeded Bell’s line of vision.

He wasn't in Bell's line of vision. The header was from outside the near post and he's about three yards out level with Bell when the ball comes in diagonally.

I'm no good with technical wizardry but you can do a freeze frame at 2:32 on the BBC highlights to check.

As far as I'm concerned, we've finally got a bad decision in our favour.

hibbysam
02-04-2018, 10:06 AM
No, the offside player is already offside before Ambrose's touch.

We had it against us a while back, I forget the game but essentially we played it forward and the ball came off the defender as he challenged for the ball, it went through to the player who was offside and the free kick was given.

Context is important, as there will be times where the opposite is true, for instance if Ambrose had intercepted the pass, then played it back to the goalie, where the attacker is, then that would potentially be given as onside (assuming the ref considers that a different phase of play).

Unless your saying Ambrose did not intentionally play the back then it would be a new phase of play. Ambrose tried to head the ball and if he did so the player is back onside.

hibbysam
02-04-2018, 10:08 AM
He wasn't in Bell's line of vision. The header was from outside the near post and he's about three yards out level with Bell when the ball comes in diagonally.

I'm no good with technical wizardry but you can do a freeze frame at 2:32 on the BBC highlights to check.

As far as I'm concerned, we've finally got a bad decision in our favour.

He wasn’t in the line of the ball, he was in bells vision, as standing 3 yards out in the centre of goal is going to affect the goalkeepers choice, he then mad a run towards the ball as it rolled over the line.

It wasn’t the correct decision as Ambrose played it, but that was very difficult one to call as no one even discussed that until the sportscene guys showed it.

Peevemor
02-04-2018, 10:11 AM
How can he be offside from a corner?He wasn't offside from the corner, he was in an offside position when the ball was headed goalward. Maybe this explains why fewer teams leave defenders on the posts these days.

matty_f
02-04-2018, 10:12 AM
How can he be offside from a corner?

He's not, we're discussing the difference it would make if a Partick player has touched it onto Efe's head.

Eyrie
02-04-2018, 10:13 AM
He wasn’t in the line of the ball, he was in bells vision, as standing 3 yards out in the centre of goal is going to affect the goalkeepers choice, he then mad a run towards the ball as it rolled over the line.

It wasn’t the correct decision as Ambrose played it, but that was very difficult one to call as no one even discussed that until the sportscene guys showed it.

I don't see how he could have affected Bell's judgement given that Bell could only parry the ball which then went over the line. Surely having a player in his vision would encourage Bell to catch the ball?

And your second point is irrelevant as the ball had crossed the line before any of the Partick players, including Storey, could get to it.

Looks like we'll just have to disagree on the decision.

Callum_62
02-04-2018, 10:14 AM
He wasn't offside from the corner, he was in an offside position when the ball was headed goalward. Maybe this explains why fewer teams leave defenders on the posts these days.

He was- definitely....could have been called either way though

Infact should have stood as it was Efe who got the touch onto it- altho seeing that at full speed would have been tricky


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hibbysam
02-04-2018, 10:18 AM
I don't see how he could have affected Bell's judgement given that Bell could only parry the ball which then went over the line. Surely having a player in his vision would encourage Bell to catch the ball?

And your second point is irrelevant as the ball had crossed the line before any of the Partick players, including Storey, could get to it.

Looks like we'll just have to disagree on the decision.

Not really, a tricky header with someone standing 2/3 yards away awaiting a tap in your more likely to try and parry it out sideways instead of trying to take a very difficult catch and give the boy an easy goal.

Storey ran towards the ball well before it crossed the line, so much so he’s only a foot or so away when it goes in, as soon as he makes that attempt he is offside.

matty_f
02-04-2018, 10:21 AM
Unless your saying Ambrose did not intentionally play the back then it would be a new phase of play. Ambrose tried to head the ball and if he did so the player is back onside.

He's gone to head the ball but if the Partick player heads it first then it changes the direction in which Efe is going to head it - he definite didn't intend to score.

I couldn't tell from the freeze frame on Sportscene conclusively who headed it and if there was one or two touches before the ball went in.

I'm just saying that, imho, if the Partick player gets a touch first then at that point the player is off, because he's standing in front of the keeper.

It's a tight and very subjective decision anyway because you could easily make a case that the player wasn't interfering, although he's gone from in front of the keeper to running towards the ball, both of which can be classed as interfering.

Peevemor
02-04-2018, 10:24 AM
I think we all agree that we'd be unhappy had it been us getting the goal disallowed, but it obviously a straightforward refereeing ****-up like the ones we've been victim of on too many occasions.

Hibs1969
02-04-2018, 10:27 AM
No doubt we got the rub of the green with this one, but it’s definitely not a shocker or even a bad decision, it’s a borderline decision. We’ve got a two page thread running on it with folks taking differing views on a split second incident which has finally gone our way.

hibbysam
02-04-2018, 10:27 AM
I think we all agree that we'd be unhappy had it been us getting the goal disallowed, but it obviously a straightforward refereeing ****-up like the ones we've been victim of on too many occasions.

That’s where I am. It’s an incorrect decision but it’s nowhere near a horrendous error or suchlike.

Greenbeard
02-04-2018, 10:29 AM
Amazed the extent to which a decision in our favour is being debated on here. Alan Archibald post-match said he wasn't going to waste his time dwelling on the decision (or words to that effect). Good on him.

Greenbeard
02-04-2018, 10:33 AM
Apologies.

I will remove my post, I would never intentionally do such a thing.

There has been a number of references to "Patrick" on the boards when people have been meaning to type "Partick". Anyone could mistakenly type the "r" and the "t" round the wrong way, especially if they have predictive text enabled as the device would assume you would want to type Patrick as opposed to Partick.

There was no way I could have recognised you have a learning difficulty from that post but I am sorry if any offence was caused.
Chapeau for your apology. Nae need for grammar/spelling polis on here. If there was sumdid huvva full time job!

Speedy
02-04-2018, 10:57 AM
Incorrect decision given it came off Ambrose.

If it came off the Partick player I'd say it was offside (albeit a debatable one)

Sir David Gray
02-04-2018, 11:02 AM
Personally I couldn't care less if we got away with one or not.

It's about time.

NAE NOOKIE
02-04-2018, 11:14 AM
Chapeau for your apology. Nae need for grammar/spelling polis on here. If there was sumdid huvva full time job!

Bang on. It takes all sorts to make up a club's support from those with a university education to those with no education to speak of at all, this is not the place to take cheap shots at people ... it would be a real shame if folk were discouraged from posting for fear of being ridiculed for a spelling mistake or bad grammar.

I've worked with folk with a university education and known quite a few cleaners and bin men ... some of the folk with degrees were as thick as Whale **** and knew far less about the real world than the cleaners and bin men. FWIW I know SDG didn't mean any offence .. 'Patrick' is all too common on here :greengrin

NAE NOOKIE
02-04-2018, 11:28 AM
I can see the discussion at the SPFL refs meeting now.

Refs boss .......... WTF are we gonna do about Lennon? he's got loads of TV evidence to prove all these crap decisions.

Craig Thompson ...... Why don't we chuck him a bone with a dodgy decision of his own.

Refs boss ...... Aye OK but it canny be against the Gers or Edinburgh's establishment club.

All the refs ..... nods of agreement.

Craig Thompson ..... They've got Partick Thistle tomorrow that would be the ideal time, you up for it Andrew?

Andrew Dallas ..... Well OK ... but it sticks in ma craw tae gie they spoon burning hobos anything.

Refs boss .... I know what you mean Andrew ( all the refs laugh ) that's decided then .... next order of business, when do we award the Gers their penalty on Saturday?

Danderhall Hibs
02-04-2018, 11:35 AM
Amazed the extent to which a decision in our favour is being debated on here. Alan Archibald post-match said he wasn't going to waste his time dwelling on the decision (or words to that effect). Good on him.

I think his was more a dig at the officials - he wouldn’t waste his time knocking on their door.

Hibernian Verse
02-04-2018, 11:40 AM
I think his was more a dig at the officials - he wouldn’t waste his time knocking on their door.

And that is something a lot of managers in this league will sympathise with.

where'stheslope
02-04-2018, 11:47 AM
Given all the facts and watching it again and again, when was the last time, if ever, you seen an offside given from a corner????
The last bad decision like this that I can remember, was Aberdeen game when the Aberdeen player on the line was sent off for hand ball and we scored from the resulting penalty to win the game! It was later noticed that the goalkeeper was in advance of the Hibs player but the linesman had not flagged, Aberdeen then appealed the red card and the referee then let the linesman look at it again, he admitted that it was offside but he had missed it so he cannot change the decision!!!
And to think we are the only team who go on about bad decisions, the rest get the same, but it hurts more when its us!!!!!

hibbyfraelibby
02-04-2018, 11:47 AM
:agree:

If he'd played a pass to an offside player and it came off Ambrose then the offside is from the pass, not Ambrose's touch.

Same goes for the header (though I've not watched it back to see if a Partick player does head out on to Efe).

At last someone who knows what the law is.

hibbyfraelibby
02-04-2018, 11:48 AM
That’s not true, ambrose’s touch would then play everyone back onside again (supposing his touch was the last one).

No it doesn't. The old touch plays everyone onside myth repeated so often people believe it. It does not and never did.

hibbysam
02-04-2018, 12:40 PM
No it doesn't. The old touch plays everyone onside myth repeated so often people believe it. It does not and never did.

No? You might want to advise IFAB of this then.

‘A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.’

Unless your saying Efe didn’t mean to head the ball of course.

Monts
02-04-2018, 12:49 PM
I've just watched it for the first time since the game, and I can't believe that was given as offside. Obviously I'm glad it was, but if that was given against us I'd be raging.

hibbysam
02-04-2018, 12:55 PM
I've just watched it for the first time since the game, and I can't believe that was given as offside. Obviously I'm glad it was, but if that was given against us I'd be raging.

Not sure why, watching it again and Storey clearly obstructs Bell by standing in front of him, Bell then needs to push him away and he only ends up a yard away from Bell as the ball is headed. He then runs and steps in front of Hanlon attempting to get back.

Only dodgy part was Efe heading the ball and no way could the referee see that, attacking side will never get the benefit there.

My_Wife_Camille
02-04-2018, 02:37 PM
Not sure why, watching it again and Storey clearly obstructs Bell by standing in front of him, Bell then needs to push him away and he only ends up a yard away from Bell as the ball is headed. He then runs and steps in front of Hanlon attempting to get back.

Only dodgy part was Efe heading the ball and no way could the referee see that, attacking side will never get the benefit there.
Exactly. Some of the comments on here are mental. If Efe has been the one that’s headed it then it’s the wrong call, otherwise it’s spot on. Players don’t need to physically touch the ball or be in somebody’s eyeliner to be offside, how often do we see a ball played through and an attacking player being called offside before he is anywhere near the ball?

Storey was in an offside position and went to play the ball so it’s tough ****ty bittys

hibbyfraelibby
02-04-2018, 02:44 PM
No? You might want to advise IFAB of this then.

‘A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.’

Unless your saying Efe didn’t mean to head the ball of course.

Where does it say the save has to be by the keeper and it was in the same phase of play and the player was already offside and interfering with play. The second he moves toward the ball he is offside. His offence occurs before Efe touches the ball but only gets called when his actions confirm the infringement.

Remember Murray being caught offside in his own half this season? Offence occured in opposition but Mirray then tracked back to collect the ball in his own half
That movement back confirmed offside and the free kick 10 yards inside his own half is taken from where the infringement occured ie take the ball.Ref got pelters that day because folk are interpretting the law as it was in their grandads day.

If the Partick player had just stod still and allowed the other two who were onside to cover the ball over the line he would have been deemed out of the play and no infringement.

Monts
02-04-2018, 03:26 PM
Not sure why

Because a hibs player heads it towards goal, and the hibs keeper parries it into the net.

hibbysam
02-04-2018, 03:48 PM
Because a hibs player heads it towards goal, and the hibs keeper parries it into the net.

The ref would have to be superman to see Efe heading the ball. Hardly a horrendous mistake to be raging about.

hibbysam
02-04-2018, 03:50 PM
Where does it say the save has to be by the keeper and it was in the same phase of play and the player was already offside and interfering with play. The second he moves toward the ball he is offside. His offence occurs before Efe touches the ball but only gets called when his actions confirm the infringement.

Remember Murray being caught offside in his own half this season? Offence occured in opposition but Mirray then tracked back to collect the ball in his own half
That movement back confirmed offside and the free kick 10 yards inside his own half is taken from where the infringement occured ie take the ball.Ref got pelters that day because folk are interpretting the law as it was in their grandads day.

If the Partick player had just stod still and allowed the other two who were onside to cover the ball over the line he would have been deemed out of the play and no infringement.

Anyone can ‘save’ the ball, Efe wasn’t saving/blocking though, he was challenging for a header. You said the ‘touch’ thing was a myth which is bollocks. Anytime a player intentionally plays the ball when not saving a shot then becomes a new phase and all are back in play.

I have no idea why your arguing with me about Simon Murray...

Speedy
02-04-2018, 04:15 PM
Where does it say the save has to be by the keeper and it was in the same phase of play and the player was already offside and interfering with play. The second he moves toward the ball he is offside. His offence occurs before Efe touches the ball but only gets called when his actions confirm the infringement.

Remember Murray being caught offside in his own half this season? Offence occured in opposition but Mirray then tracked back to collect the ball in his own half
That movement back confirmed offside and the free kick 10 yards inside his own half is taken from where the infringement occured ie take the ball.Ref got pelters that day because folk are interpretting the law as it was in their grandads day.

If the Partick player had just stod still and allowed the other two who were onside to cover the ball over the line he would have been deemed out of the play and no infringement.

The Partick player took the corner, then the next time a Partick player touched the ball he was putting it in the net.

We definitely got lucky on this occasion.

where'stheslope
02-04-2018, 05:43 PM
Not sure why, watching it again and Storey clearly obstructs Bell by standing in front of him, Bell then needs to push him away and he only ends up a yard away from Bell as the ball is headed. He then runs and steps in front of Hanlon attempting to get back.

Only dodgy part was Efe heading the ball and no way could the referee see that, attacking side will never get the benefit there.
So in pushing Storey, it should have been a penalty????
Sorry, but my worry on our defending why 2 Partick players are anywhere near our line at a corner with no defender to make a challenge!!!
If it was a team playing against us doing the same we would be laughing at them!!!!

eastcoasthibby
02-04-2018, 05:53 PM
Would the ref have called the offside if it had been a few other teams from that big city in the west ??

Eyrie
02-04-2018, 06:28 PM
The Partick player took the corner, then the next time a Partick player touched the ball he was putting it in the net.

We definitely got lucky on this occasion.

The entire ball was already over the line before the Partick players got there.

But we did get lucky.

Ralphy C
02-04-2018, 06:58 PM
we got a bit lucky true, but we only know that because sportscene have analysed it to death. You can forgive the officials for missing that even had it been against us, but you can't compare it to a ball a foot over the goal line, or a hand ball in clear view.IMO.

HibeesLA
02-04-2018, 07:37 PM
I've just watched it for the first time since the game, and I can't believe that was given as offside. Obviously I'm glad it was, but if that was given against us I'd be raging.

Agree with that. The highlights aren't that clear on who actually touches it, so I can only think the following is what the AR saw/was thinking:

1. You can't be offside at a corner, so he must have thought that one of the Partick players headed it towards goal.
2. If the above is true, then Efe's touch will have been deemed an attempted 'save' (as defined in the LotG) and therefore the Partick player (#39) is now in an offside position based on position at the time the Partick player heads the ball.
3. The Partick player (#39) makes a move towards the ball, either potentially interfering with Hanlon's ability to defend or he thinks #39 touched the ball. Both would be Offside.


All comes down to whether the Partick player heads the ball or not. I'm not convinced he did, so I'd be unhappy if the teams were reversed and Hibs were disallowed a goal from it.

My_Wife_Camille
03-04-2018, 09:14 AM
Would the ref have called the offside if it had been a few other teams from that big city in the west ??
The very same official that called the decision on Saturday also disallowed a Scott Sinclair for offside at Easter Road this season.

The other team from that big city in the west also had a goal disallowed against us at Ibrox this season

snooky
03-04-2018, 09:22 AM
Would it be nice if (especially in occasions like these) the ref could explain his decision. It might even shed some light on whether he was right or wrong. For all we know, the call could have been for an infringement off the ball that we have missed.