How Very Hibs

[matty_f]

🎧 NEW EPISODE🎧

Ep 230 How Very Hibs is available now!

We look back at Hibs' defeat to Aberdeen in the Viaplay Cup Semi and go through your talking points.

Ref decisions, VAR, subs, the manager, fans and more. It's all here!

📺 https://youtu.be/F5Gd-8uk0vc?si=2RKcdOKyTsX23U1J

🎧 https://pod.fo/e/1ff076

[DaveF]

I'm 10mins on and already disagreeing with things 😄

If John has watched the Vente penalty Incident and thinks Roos gets his hand to the ball before Vente gets there, then one of us needs a new set of eyes because I don't see that at all.

[basehibby]

I'm 10mins on and already disagreeing with things 😄

If John has watched the Vente penalty Incident and thinks Roos gets his hand to the ball before Vente gets there, then one of us needs a new set of eyes because I don't see that at all.

It is actually pretty close - which makes it all the more perplexing that they seemed to barely look at the incident when they'd only just spent 4 mins trying to find a line to make Boyle offside!

[DaveF]

It is actually pretty close - which makes it all the more perplexing that they seemed to barely look at the incident when they'd only just spent 4 mins trying to find a line to make Boyle offside!

https://twitter.com/ryanmeston07/status/1720910087022121354?t=15L7PQsdFdZ8piJZL5rYVw&s=19

What's close about that?

[matty_f]

I'm 10mins on and already disagreeing with things 😄

If John has watched the Vente penalty Incident and thinks Roos gets his hand to the ball before Vente gets there, then one of us needs a new set of eyes because I don't see that at all.

I didn't think he got a hand to it either.

[MWHIBBIES]

https://twitter.com/ryanmeston07/status/1720910087022121354?t=15L7PQsdFdZ8piJZL5rYVw&s=19

What's close about that?

Only a moron would think that isn't a penalty. Even if he had got his hand to it, which he didn't, it's still a foul. He hasn't knocked it away or anything.

We were utterly robbed.

[DaveF]

I didn't think he got a hand to it either.

And to be honest, it's stuff like that which kinda lets the podcast down a bit. Now, perhaps he was looking at different angles and by all means have a view it's not a penalty if you think Vente fell into the keeper, but to say the keeper touched it away is just plain rubbish.

That said, it's just 3 guys blabbing about fitba - and I'm still pissed off about the result 🙂

[Bristolhibby]

Only a moron would think that isn't a penalty. Even if he had got his hand to it, which he didn't, it's still a foul. He hasn't knocked it away or anything.

We were utterly robbed.

If he gets a hand to it (he didn’t) then how is it a foul?

Keepers can wipe players out as long as they get the ball first.

It’s what good goalies should do.

J

[matty_f]

And to be honest, it's stuff like that which kinda lets the podcast down a bit. Now, perhaps he was looking at different angles and by all means have a view it's not a penalty if you think Vente fell into the keeper, but to say the keeper touched it away is just plain rubbish.

That said, it's just 3 guys blabbing about fitba - and I'm still pissed off about the result 🙂


It's just one person's view, I don't necessarily think it lets the podcast down if someone says what they think even if they're wrong. I didn't think it was a penalty based on the view from behind Vente which, in my view, showed the keeper pull his arms out the way before Vente went over and so I didn't think there was much, if any, contact until Vente's knee clips the keeper's head.

I think if you look at other angles it looks more like a penalty but I thought that view was conclusive enough to justify the ref's decision at least (and remove the "clear and obvious error" element of the VAR review which I think applied to penalty box incidents).

I've since changed my mind after recording in the basis of the penalty awarded yesterday being similar enough to make our claim legitimate.

And it absolutely is three guys talking rubbish about football - and none of us have ever claimed to be remotely close to being experts! :greengrin

[DaveF]

It's just one person's view, I don't necessarily think it lets the podcast down if someone says what they think even if they're wrong. I didn't think it was a penalty based on the view from behind Vente which, in my view, showed the keeper pull his arms out the way before Vente went over and so I didn't think there was much, if any, contact until Vente's knee clips the keeper's head.

I think if you look at other angles it looks more like a penalty but I thought that view was conclusive enough to justify the ref's decision at least (and remove the "clear and obvious error" element of the VAR review which I think applied to penalty box incidents).

I've since changed my mind after recording in the basis of the penalty awarded yesterday being similar enough to make our claim legitimate.

And it absolutely is three guys talking rubbish about football - and none of us have ever claimed to be remotely close to being experts! :greengrin

Fair enough. Does not change the fact that John needs a new set of eyes if he thinks Roos touched the ball - it's as clear as day that he does not and it's that 'view' I mainly take issue with.

[matty_f]

Fair enough. Does not change the fact that John needs a new set of eyes if he thinks Roos touched the ball - it's as clear as day that he does not and it's that 'view' I mainly take issue with.

That's fair :greengrin

[lyonhibs]

Only a moron would think that isn't a penalty. Even if he had got his hand to it, which he didn't, it's still a foul. He hasn't knocked it away or anything.

We were utterly robbed.

That is a fabulous effort from Vente. Gets his toe tapped by the keeper's forearm and takes to the skies

[Shrekko]

And it absolutely is three guys talking rubbish about football - and none of us have ever claimed to be remotely close to being experts! :greengrin

That's actually what makes your podcast a lot more enjoyable than most others. No pretentious pseudo football experts trying to sound super clever- just guys talking about your recollections and relatable feelings about things, with genuine unforced wit.

[basehibby]

https://twitter.com/ryanmeston07/status/1720910087022121354?t=15L7PQsdFdZ8piJZL5rYVw&s=19

What's close about that?

Had not seen that angle previously and you're right - 100% stonewaller.

VAR guy is either corrupt or incompetent - either way it's unacceptable.

[Stubbsy90+2]

It's just one person's view, I don't necessarily think it lets the podcast down if someone says what they think even if they're wrong. I didn't think it was a penalty based on the view from behind Vente which, in my view, showed the keeper pull his arms out the way before Vente went over and so I didn't think there was much, if any, contact until Vente's knee clips the keeper's head.

I think if you look at other angles it looks more like a penalty but I thought that view was conclusive enough to justify the ref's decision at least (and remove the "clear and obvious error" element of the VAR review which I think applied to penalty box incidents).

I've since changed my mind after recording in the basis of the penalty awarded yesterday being similar enough to make our claim legitimate.

And it absolutely is three guys talking rubbish about football - and none of us have ever claimed to be remotely close to being experts! :greengrin

Agree with all of this. The only thing I would say is that Rangers getting their penalty doesn’t make me think ours was any more of a penalty, it just shows that the ref made the wrong decision in their game. Whether that’s deliberate or not…

[WeeRussell]

Had not seen that angle previously and you're right - 100% stonewaller.

VAR guy is either corrupt or incompetent - either way it's unacceptable.

Strangely I was more convinced it was a blatant penalty BEFORE I seen that. The contact and Vente’s ‘fall’ aren’t quite what I thought I seen at the game.

Still a penalty though. And still mental how quickly it was dismissed.

[MWHIBBIES]

If he gets a hand to it (he didn’t) then how is it a foul?

Keepers can wipe players out as long as they get the ball first.

It’s what good goalies should do.

J

If he gets a finger on it then Vente gets it and gets taken out, that's a foul. Vente is clearly the last player to touch it and then gets taken out.

[jeffers]

Not a penalty for me. He’s went for the ball and that action has ended by the time Vente touches it and his momentum takes him into Roos rather than Roos colliding with him. Still think it was worthy of a decent check by VAR especially looking at the other angle and had that been a Rangers player we all know a penalty would have been given.

[Carheenlea]

One of those where you’d be annoyed if given against you, but by what is regularly interpreted as an infringement worthy of a penalty (most recent example, yesterday at Hampden) it has to 100% be a penalty.

Making rules up as you go week to week, or refereeing others to different standards, it’s no wonder the word “corruption” is banded about. It’s an extreme rhetoric, but as time goes on it’s hard to really dispute the notion.

Some clubs need to do more than others to win big games. Sometimes luck is on your side, which Aberdeen certainly enjoyed, but largely, on far too many occasions some are required to overcome more hurdles than others. We certainly have to.

[Kato]

Not a penalty for me. He’s went for the ball and that action has ended by the time Vente touches it and his momentum takes him into Roos rather than Roos colliding with him. Still think it was worthy of a decent check by VAR especially looking at the other angle and had that been a Rangers player we all know a penalty would have been given.Roos elbow comes down on Vente's foot. Vente's momentum and trying to extract his foot from under the goalies elbow whilst trying to avoid clattering the keeper explains his movements. It's a pen. As someone else said if it was a defenders foot coming down on Vente's the discussion would be far clearer.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Chorley Hibee]

Don't think we're still not being made to pay for 2016 either.

All these *** *******s are still screwing us over week in, week out.

[JimBHibees]

Don't think we're still not being made to pay for 2016 either.

All these *** *******s are still screwing us over week in, week out.

Not that Beaton ever liked us but McGinns comments at league Cup final probably didn't help however if Hibs genuinely are complaining about refs they imo need to make it public as secret squirrel approach isn't working.

[LongJohnBanger]

For what it's worth, the only angle I'd seen and was aware of on Sunday morning when we recorded was from behind the keeper.

I can't honestly remember my description in full - I think I said something about the initial save, Roos scrambling to reach the rebound and getting a hand on it; my point being that I thought that meant it was a save from the keeper and no penalty.

I've since seen the angle from over Vente's right shoulder (posted above) where it does look like Vente's got a toe on it before Roos as evidenced by the direction of the ball going out of play - if Roos gets a touch first I'd expect the ball to move right to left in the direction of his touch rather than the direction of Vente's contact. 20/20 hindsight, ken?

I think this thread and the podcast generally demonstrates the difference in opinion we all have and the opportunity to consider other points of view. I never considered MWHIBBIES point for example regarding the initial contact and subsequent contact as an argument for the penalty. I think jeffers point about a VAR review is also merited given how narrow the proximity of hand and foot are. Probably worthy of as long a review as Boyle's offside call.

I don't think I've ever seriously said "I'm right" on Longbangers, I have definitely said "I'm just a dick on a podcast" though. Moron is harsh but.

Additionally, DaveF, I do also try to apply constructive criticism. I think in regards to the previous episode you mentioned the humming and hawing over the timing of goals and substitutions so I made sure to get that right during this recording.

Besides the floaters in my mincers that comes with age apparently, my recent checkup with Optical Express said I don't need specs. Will show them this thread and ask them to retest me.

[jeffers]

Roos elbow comes down on Vente's foot. Vente's momentum and trying to extract his foot from under the goalies elbow whilst trying to avoid clattering the keeper explains his movements. It's a pen. As someone else said if it was a defenders foot coming down on Vente's the discussion would be far clearer.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Not for me. The contact wasn’t enough for Vente to go down, he went down cos Roos was on the ground in front of him, which he is allowed to do. Every piece of contact in the box doesn’t equal a penalty. Had that been given against us I’d have been raging.

[Donegal Hibby]

Not for me. The contact wasn’t enough for Vente to go down, he went down cos Roos was on the ground in front of him, which he is allowed to do. Every piece of contact in the box doesn’t equal a penalty. Had that been given against us I’d have been raging.

You mean not enough contact like the one Duk got against us or the Colak one against Rocky ? , was there any more contact in the one sevco got against hertz yesterday?

[DaveF]

For what it's worth, the only angle I'd seen and was aware of on Sunday morning when we recorded was from behind the keeper.

I can't honestly remember my description in full - I think I said something about the initial save, Roos scrambling to reach the rebound and getting a hand on it; my point being that I thought that meant it was a save from the keeper and no penalty.

I've since seen the angle from over Vente's right shoulder (posted above) where it does look like Vente's got a toe on it before Roos as evidenced by the direction of the ball going out of play - if Roos gets a touch first I'd expect the ball to move right to left in the direction of his touch rather than the direction of Vente's contact. 20/20 hindsight, ken?

I think this thread and the podcast generally demonstrates the difference in opinion we all have and the opportunity to consider other points of view. I never considered MWHIBBIES point for example regarding the initial contact and subsequent contact as an argument for the penalty. I think jeffers point about a VAR review is also merited given how narrow the proximity of hand and foot are. Probably worthy of as long a review as Boyle's offside call.

I don't think I've ever seriously said "I'm right" on Longbangers, I have definitely said "I'm just a dick on a podcast" though. Moron is harsh but.

Additionally, DaveF, I do also try to apply constructive criticism. I think in regards to the previous episode you mentioned the humming and hawing over the timing of goals and substitutions so I made sure to get that right during this recording.

Besides the floaters in my mincers that comes with age apparently, my recent checkup with Optical Express said I don't need specs. Will show them this thread and ask them to retest me.

👍

All good discussion and Matty knows how much of a greetin' faced twat I am so there is no malice intended in my comments - just frustration at another rollover in Glasgow.

I'd definitely show the penalty clip to your optician though. If you still think Roos got there first, then he should be selling you a pair of Hubble telescope strength glasses..

[jeffers]

You mean not enough contact like the one Duk got against us or the Colak one against Rocky ? , was there any more contact in the one sevco got against hertz yesterday?

They weren’t penalties either.

[DaveF]

Not for me. The contact wasn’t enough for Vente to go down, he went down cos Roos was on the ground in front of him, which he is allowed to do. Every piece of contact in the box doesn’t equal a penalty. Had that been given against us I’d have been raging.

You have already raged at decisions like these when they have been given against us (see comments re Duk and Colak)

Your purist view of not enough contact is fine if that's applied to every team by every referee but that simply isn't the case. It's a penalty every day of week for sevco - but funnily enough, not for us.

[jeffers]

You have already raged at decisions like these when they have been given against us (see comments re Duk and Colak)

Your purist view of not enough contact is fine if that's applied to every team by every referee but that simply isn't the case. It's a penalty every day of week for sevco - but funnily enough, not for us.

I don’t disagree with a word you say. We all know that certain teams are refereed to a different standard than others.

[Tyler Durden]

Only a moron would think that isn't a penalty. Even if he had got his hand to it, which he didn't, it's still a foul. He hasn't knocked it away or anything.

We were utterly robbed.

I actually can't believe anyone thinks that is a penalty, having seen that angle. Vente has 2 feet planted on the ground and then jumps in the air.

[Tyler Durden]

If he gets a finger on it then Vente gets it and gets taken out, that's a foul. Vente is clearly the last player to touch it and then gets taken out.

He doesn't get taken out FFS. He gets touched. Contact is permitted and there is a threshold before it becomes a foul.

He plants both feet on the ground and then dives (which I'd absolutely want him to do). It's not a penalty.

[Donegal Hibby]

They weren’t penalties either.

I agree though they were given and more times than not they are . The same referee awarded a similar one ( contact wise ) against us to Sevco before too . As fans all we are looking for his some consistency on decisions and imo if the same penalty incident that we had happens against Celtic or Sevco they will get a penalty 9/10 or even 10/10 Which was evident yesterday in the hertz game. I think we should have got a penalty taking this into account J .

[MWHIBBIES]

He doesn't get taken out FFS. He gets touched. Contact is permitted and there is a threshold before it becomes a foul.

He plants both feet on the ground and then dives (which I'd absolutely want him to do). It's not a penalty.

:faf: okay

[OstKurve Hibs]

They weren’t penalties either.
They're not penalties but they still got them, we get nothing !

[wookie70]

He doesn't get taken out FFS. He gets touched. Contact is permitted and there is a threshold before it becomes a foul.

He plants both feet on the ground and then dives (which I'd absolutely want him to do). It's not a penalty.

I don't think Vente can do anything else but go over the Keeper and the Keeper is the cause of that. It is an absolute stonewaller for me and if the same images were shown but Marshall was the Keeper I would think the same. Watch this clip (https://twitter.com/liamutlr/status/1720872019133075695?s=48) and use your mouse to scroll through rather than real time. Then look at the point we know Roos has his elbow on the Vente's left foot. Roos pins Ventes foot and then most of the momentum is the Keepers and Vente goes over when the Keeper goes through him. Vente's right foot is still coming through in its natural path and he could not have stopped dead imo. The Keeper hitting him stops him and that movement only has one way to go - up. The head and shoulder hitting his left leg makes that movement even clearer. There are two contacts both of which stop Vente's progress. When you look at some of the handball penalties it is even more ridiculous that a clear foul in the box isn't awarded.

[matty_f]

They're not penalties but they still got them, we get nothing !

This is my issue with it.

If you assume that (don't laugh) the referees approach the decisions with a view to getting them right, regardless of the team involved, then you can say that they've looked at the Duk penalty, considered it and said the right outcome is a penalty.

I thought that was wrong at the time, and so defended the decision not to give us a penalty - on the assumption (don't laugh) that they'd have reviewed the Duk penalty after the event and thought it probably wasn't right.

The award of Rangers' penalty though shows that the assumption I made for our penalty not being given was wrong. Clearly, they think a penalty in that situation is the correct decision.

The three incidents were not identical but there are enough similarities in each to make them comparable, and the fact that in Duk's case, VAR intervened for the review means that it should have for ours.

[lyonhibs]

Not for me. The contact wasn’t enough for Vente to go down, he went down cos Roos was on the ground in front of him, which he is allowed to do. Every piece of contact in the box doesn’t equal a penalty. Had that been given against us I’d have been raging.

Same for me. It's not like Roos was coming full pelt from a standing start yards away either, he was scrabbling having been on his arse 2 seconds previously.

Inconsistent/biased refereeing of similar incidents for other teams does not de facto make that incident a penalty.

[Tyler Durden]

This is my issue with it.

If you assume that (don't laugh) the referees approach the decisions with a view to getting them right, regardless of the team involved, then you can say that they've looked at the Duk penalty, considered it and said the right outcome is a penalty.

I thought that was wrong at the time, and so defended the decision not to give us a penalty - on the assumption (don't laugh) that they'd have reviewed the Duk penalty after the event and thought it probably wasn't right.

The award of Rangers' penalty though shows that the assumption I made for our penalty not being given was wrong. Clearly, they think a penalty in that situation is the correct decision.

The three incidents were not identical but there are enough similarities in each to make them comparable, and the fact that in Duk's case, VAR intervened for the review means that it should have for ours.

Not really. In the Duk incident, the VAR presumably thinks he has seen something which contradicts the ref's account. The ref reviews it and incredibly somehow decides it's a penalty.

In the Vente example the referee and linesman have a good view. Presumably the VAR views the replay and sees nothing different from the ref. I was screaming at the game that surely he should review it but I can see now, why they wouldn't bother.

The Danilo one is totally different IMO. Clark comes out and hits him.

[Tyler Durden]

I don't think Vente can do anything else but go over the Keeper and the Keeper is the cause of that. It is an absolute stonewaller for me and if the same images were shown but Marshall was the Keeper I would think the same. Watch this clip (https://twitter.com/liamutlr/status/1720872019133075695?s=48) and use your mouse to scroll through rather than real time. Then look at the point we know Roos has his elbow on the Vente's left foot. Roos pins Ventes foot and then most of the momentum is the Keepers and Vente goes over when the Keeper goes through him. Vente's right foot is still coming through in its natural path and he could not have stopped dead imo. The Keeper hitting him stops him and that movement only has one way to go - up. The head and shoulder hitting his left leg makes that movement even clearer. There are two contacts both of which stop Vente's progress. When you look at some of the handball penalties it is even more ridiculous that a clear foul in the box isn't awarded.

I just totally disagree. Roos is at a standstill. He doesn't go through Vente at all. Just a coming together basically.

[matty_f]

Not really. In the Duk incident, the VAR presumably thinks he has seen something which contradicts the ref's account. The ref reviews it and incredibly somehow decides it's a penalty.

In the Vente example the referee and linesman have a good view. Presumably the VAR views the replay and sees nothing different from the ref. I was screaming at the game that surely he should review it but I can see now, why they wouldn't bother.

The Danilo one is totally different IMO. Clark comes out and hits him.

The Duk one, wasn't clear and and obvious as an error but VAR intervened, by that standard and the Rangers one which isn't totally different (there are comparable factors) then VAR should have reviewed, in my opinion.

[Kato]

I just totally disagree. Roos is at a standstill. He doesn't go through Vente at all. Just a coming together basically.If you watch that and see Roos at a standstill then your looking at the wrong video.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[matty_f]

I just totally disagree. Roos is at a standstill. He doesn't go through Vente at all. Just a coming together basically.

Roos isn't at a standstill though, he jumps towards the ball and Vente beats him to it. I agree he doesn't go through Vente though, it's more into his path.

[jeffers]

If you watch that and see Roos at a standstill then your looking at the wrong video.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

He’s barely moving. Now I absolutely get all the arguments about inconsistency and different outcomes for similar incidents based on who the team being officiated is. Putting all of that aside Roos didn’t bring Vente down. Yes there was some contact but not enough imo, Vente had nowhere to go and collided with Roos, but that doesn’t make it a penalty for me.

[greenlex]

He’s barely moving. Now I absolutely get all the arguments about inconsistency and different outcomes for similar incidents based on who the team being officiated is. Putting all of that aside Roos didn’t bring Vente down. Yes there was some contact but not enough imo, Vente had nowhere to go and collided with Roos, but that doesn’t make it a penalty for me.
I get what you’re saying but it’s almost like the old argument about who initiates contact. You see penalties and fouls given every week where players fall over outstretched legs. The attacker quite obviously the one making the contact. Not saying it’s right but it happens. Dangle a leg and I’m going to fall over it for a pen.

[babahibs]

Stonewall penalty 100%.
Keepers arm comes down on the top of Ventes foot, foul.

[wookie70]

I just totally disagree. Roos is at a standstill. He doesn't go through Vente at all. Just a coming together basically.

Yep we definitely won't reach a middle ground here. I think they were both moving and would agree that it was a coming together after Vente poked the ball past teh Keeper. So a penalty

[Onion]

Vente gets to ball first. Vente's entitled to continue his run to try get the ball, but keeper comes across his path. Only way for Vente to get to ball is to hurdle the keeper which he's not required to do. Contact is made by keeper on Vente. Result = penalty all day long. You'll see that given 9/10 in other games. If ref thought Vente dived or simulated, then he should have been booked.

Just more pish from Beaton, VAR the SFA and Hampdump.