Penalties

[dastardly8]

Disgraceful , if they were penalties the game is finished , the second one especially

[blackpoolhibs]

If they were for us i'd be gutted if we never got both.

[we are hibs]

Didn't think the first was a penalty at all. I thought the second was more of a penalty but still soft.


Away from the penalties he was at it all day. Multiple times he should've played an advantage and stopped it to give a free kick. Hundreds of soft fouls in favour of county and giving Hibs nothing. He's a cheat. The majority of top flight refs are.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[AdidasHibernian]

If they were for us i'd be gutted if we never got both.

Really? I think they were incredibly harsh BH.

[SHODAN]

They were both penalties by the book.

[Pagan Hibernia]

If they were for us i'd be gutted if we never got both.

We wouldn't have got either

[HarpOnHibee]

They were both penalties by the book.

Where in the book does it say that it's a handball foul, when the ball bounces up off the ground and strikes an arm that's actively trying to move away from the original trajectory of the ball? Or where does it say that it's a penalty when a shot has already been taken, then the shot taker proceeds to follow through on the goalkeeper?

[LaMotta]

If they were for us i'd be gutted if we never got both.


They were both penalties by the book.

:agree::agree:

Genuinely cant believe how people struggle to be so impartial sometimes.

The first one is as clear penalty as you will ever see with VAR in play. How are people even debating it?

The second one is at least debatable, but there is contact from Smith once he gives it on pitch then its never getting overturned.

[Glory Lurker]

First was a penalty but second was a nonsense.

[SickBoy32]

They were both penalties by the book.

By the book?

If you've got the book handy, I’d love to know which laws were broken.

Folk talking about match fixing rings true for me watching that today.

[SickBoy32]

:agree::agree:

Genuinely cant believe how people struggle to be so impartial sometimes.

The first one is as clear penalty as you will ever see with VAR in play. How are people even debating it?

The second one is at least debatable, but there is contact from Smith once he gives it on pitch then its never getting overturned.

Right I’ll bite - handball, Boxing Day tiny - VAR in play??

That today was bouncing out of play, Cadden brushing the ball with his arm impacted nothing - the RC players didn’t claim. A total and utter nonsense.

[AdidasHibernian]

:agree::agree:

Genuinely cant believe how people struggle to be so impartial sometimes.

The first one is as clear penalty as you will ever see with VAR in play. How are people even debating it?

The second one is at least debatable, but there is contact from Smith once he gives it on pitch then its never getting overturned.

First one is only a conversation because of new rules. The balls going out as County lad has missed the chance to get anything on it. I appreciate what your saying but if that's a penalty the game is gone. He has made no attempt to deliberately handle it. Hand balls should be intent to do it otherwise your giving pens week in week out.

[Davy Mac]

Appalling refereeing, the game has gone to the dogs. We didn't deserve that.

[A Hi-Bee]

Disgraceful , if they were penalties the game is finished , the second one especially

But, but, but, the hun sees the world differently to the rest of us humans.
GFA runs the game in Scotland never going to change.

[LaMotta]

Right I’ll bite - handball, Boxing Day tiny - VAR in play??

That today was bouncing out of play, Cadden brushing the ball with his arm impacted nothing - the RC players didn’t claim. A total and utter nonsense.

Not sure what you mean by boxing day at Tyine? What incident was that?

As for your second sentence, the fact the ball is bouncing out of play or that it impacted nothing or that the RC players didn't claim are of absolutely no relevance unfortunately. Why would any of those things stop it being a penalty? His arm was out by his side and it hits his arm. He's unlucky but its a penalty.

[GreenCastle]

Dundee Utd penalty home - 90 mins - dropped 2 points
St J away penalty away - 48 mins just before HT - dropped 2 points
Killie away penalty - 92 mins - dropped 2 points
Ross County x2 pens - 2nd pen 87th min. - dropped 2 points

8 extra points right there = 3rd

Not cool at all..

[A Hi-Bee]

They were both penalties by the book.

What book war an peace, we have been awarded 2 pens lately and it has to be evened up by the GFA.

[A Hi-Bee]

If they were for us i'd be gutted if we never got both.

:fishin:

[LaMotta]

First one is only a conversation because of new rules. The balls going out as County lad has missed the chance to get anything on it. I appreciate what your saying but if that's a penalty the game is gone. He has made no attempt to deliberately handle it. Hand balls should be intent to do it otherwise your giving pens week in week out.


Less than 1% off penalties are given for players deliberately handling the ball in the box. No player in their right mind deliberately handles a ball, unless very rare occasions they are trying to stop a goal like Suarez for Uruguay v Ghana in the World Cup. So don't think it matters a jot if a player means to handle it or not.

[SickBoy32]

Not sure what you mean by boxing day at Tyine? What incident was that?

As for your second sentence, the fact the ball is bouncing out of play or that it impacted nothing or that the RC players didn't claim are of absolutely no relevance unfortunately. Why would any of those things stop it being a penalty? His arm was out by his side and it hits his arm. He's unlucky but its a penalty.

A handball from one of the jobbers, ignored by the on field ref and VAR.

This was in a ruck of players and allowed an easier clearance.

The once beautiful game in tatters nowadays.

[Forza Fred]

I can see why the ref thought both were penalties, although another ref may not have awarded them.

Pretty sure too that if the situation was reversed and we didn’t get them, we’d be yelling blue murder.

[Callum_62]

Not sure what you mean by boxing day at Tyine? What incident was that?

As for your second sentence, the fact the ball is bouncing out of play or that it impacted nothing or that the RC players didn't claim are of absolutely no relevance unfortunately. Why would any of those things stop it being a penalty? His arm was out by his side and it hits his arm. He's unlucky but its a penalty.I'm not surprised - I was completely glossed over

And it's one of the reasons cadden being punished is folly

Rowels outstretched arm, ball brushes it with Boyle is the vicinity

Far bigger impact against the attacking team than today's ever was

Neither are penalties though imo

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[LaMotta]

A handball from one of the jobbers, ignored by the on field ref and VAR.

This was in a ruck of players and allowed an easier clearance.

The once beautiful game in tatters nowadays.

No memory of that at all. Don't remember it being talked about after either.

[LunasBoots]

They were both penalties by the book.

Second one doesnt get given in Engkish leagues

[Alfred E Newman]

The ball is heading harmlessly out of play as it brushes Cadden hand and the ball is already out of play by the time Smith slides into the County player. Both highly debatable though I can see how the hand ball was given even though it was harsh but the second one was a nonsense.

[GreenCastle]

I’m amazed ref didn’t check 2nd penalty.

The different camera angles showed he ran into his leg from behind the goal.

First was a handball but not deliberate and no County players even appealed but refs being crap will give it as they are clueless.

[inglisavhibs]

Not sure what you mean by boxing day at Tyine? What incident was that?

As for your second sentence, the fact the ball is bouncing out of play or that it impacted nothing or that the RC players didn't claim are of absolutely no relevance unfortunately. Why would any of those things stop it being a penalty? His arm was out by his side and it hits his arm. He's unlucky but its a penalty.

Just because his arm is out doesn't mean it was a penalty, he didn't see the ball till it was on him, there was no intent to handle it and there was no advantaged gained whatsoever. Very lucky to get a penalty for that.

[HarpOnHibee]

Less than 1% off penalties are given for players deliberately handling the ball in the box. No player in their right mind deliberately handles a ball, unless very rare occasions they are trying to stop a goal like Suarez for Uruguay v Ghana in the World Cup. So don't think it matters a jot if a player means to handle it or not.

It has to be hand to ball. This wasn't hand to ball, it was ball to hand. The hand is trying to move away from the ball, but the close range bounce alters it's course and makes the contact unavoidable. By the letter of the law, that's not a handball foul. It's neither deliberate, avoidable or preventing a goal scoring opportunity. It has to meet one of those conditions in order to be considered a foul.

[LaMotta]

Just because his arm is out doesn't mean it was a penalty, he didn't see the ball till it was on him, there was no intent to handle it and there was no advantaged gained whatsoever. Very lucky to get a penalty for that.

None of these things are relevant though.

[Paulie Walnuts]

I'm not surprised - I was completely glossed over

And it's one of the reasons cadden being punished is folly

Rowels outstretched arm, ball brushes it with Boyle is the vicinity

Far bigger impact against the attacking team than today's ever was

Neither are penalties though imo

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

The Rowles one was an absolute stonewall penalty imo.

[LaMotta]

It has to be hand to ball. This wasn't hand to ball, it was ball to hand. The hand is trying to move away from the ball, but the close range bounce alters it's course and makes the contact unavoidable. By the letter of the law, that's not a handball foul. It's neither deliberate, avoidable or preventing a goal scoring opportunity. It has to meet one of those conditions in order to be considered a foul.

That's not true at all. Where are you getting this from?! Nothing in the laws of the game about anything you've mentioned there.

[HarpOnHibee]

None of these things are relevant though.

Yes they are. Otherwise it would be a foul every single time a ball strikes a hand/arm in the box. There would be penalties in every fixture, week in week out.

[HarpOnHibee]

That's not true at all. Where are you getting this from?! Nothing in the laws of the game about anything you've mentioned there.

It is true. Going by your misunderstanding of the handball rule, it would be a penalty every single time the ball strikes a hand or arm, regardless of the circumstances and we know that isn't how the law is usually applied.

[wookie70]

First was a pen by the rules but as another poster has said those rules didn't apply to us against Hearts, no surprise there. The second their player was already well on his way down before any contact and to me the contact was as much on them as it was Smith. Not a pen for me. The referee was terrible the whole game missing loads of fouls and not booking County players. Basically a typical refereeing performance that we see all teh time where we have to battle officials and the opposition

[LaMotta]

Yes they are. Otherwise it would be a foul every single time a ball strikes a hand/arm in the box. There would be penalties in every fixture, week in week out.

They are not relevant! There is nothing in the laws of the game about those things mentioned.

[A Hi-Bee]

We have some real referees on this forum, great to see and to also be enlightened so often.

[AdidasHibernian]

Less than 1% off penalties are given for players deliberately handling the ball in the box. No player in their right mind deliberately handles a ball, unless very rare occasions they are trying to stop a goal like Suarez for Uruguay v Ghana in the World Cup. So don't think it matters a jot if a player means to handle it or not.

Fair enough. Probably wasn't worded right I was more meaning it as there is no way Nicky Cadden touching it accidentally was affecting anything for County as ball was heading out of play as chance was gone. It's harsh and for me should never be a penalty.

[ChuckNor]

First one was a penalty. Soft, but it is a penalty.

The second is very contentious. It looked like the County players initiated the contact, if there was any contact, with Smith. VAR should be intervening there imo.

[LaMotta]

It is true. Going by your misunderstanding of the handball rule, it would be a penalty every single time the ball strikes a hand or arm, regardless of the circumstances and we know that isn't how the law is usually applied.

Absolute nonsense. There are a number of circumstances whereby the player hits the hand of a defender in the box and it wouldn't be a foul. Cadden's handball today didn't meet any of those circumstances.

[Kato]

The ball is heading harmlessly out of play as it brushes Cadden hand and the ball is already out of play by the time Smith slides into the County player. Both highly debatable though I can see how the hand ball was given even though it was harsh but the second one was a nonsense.If the ball is out of play it's a goal kick to us.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[A Hi-Bee]

Absolute nonsense. There are a number of circumstances whereby the player hits the hand of a defender in the box and it wouldn't be a foul. Cadden's handball today didn't meet any of those circumstances.

Whatever, happened to ball played man or can you not say that anymore, the so called rules are a joke.

[LaMotta]

Fair enough. Probably wasn't worded right I was more meaning it as there is no way Nicky Cadden touching it accidentally was affecting anything for County as ball was heading out of play as chance was gone. It's harsh and for me should never be a penalty.

I mean I totally agree with you on that, but just don't see how it matters in terms of it being a foul or not.

[MacGruber]

First one is not a penalty for me. The ball is going out and Ross County are not disadvantaged. It hasn't stopped a goal or chance, isn't deliberate and doesn't bring his arm to the ball, pulls away if anything. Understand folk saying they think it is - ball hits a hand. Never for me

[HarpOnHibee]

Absolute nonsense. There are a number of circumstances whereby the player hits the hand of a defender in the box and it wouldn't be a foul. Cadden's handball today didn't meet any of those circumstances.

Cadden's handball was both unavoidable and did nothing to influence the state of play. You can be as pedantic as you like over the precise wording of the laws. But common sense exists for a reason and common sense is generally applied by referees who are doing their job properly. That penalty would not be awarded the vast majority of the time. Not just in our league, but in any league.

[MacGruber]

Second one isn't a penalty either IMO but would be claiming for it and not surprised that one was given

[LaMotta]

First one is not a penalty for me. The ball is going out and Ross County are not disadvantaged. It hasn't stopped a goal or chance, isn't deliberate and doesn't bring his arm to the ball, pulls away if anything. Understand folk saying they think it is - ball hits a hand. Never for me

None of these things are relevant.

[greenlex]

I’m amazed ref didn’t check 2nd penalty.

The different camera angles showed he ran into his leg from behind the goal.

First was a handball but not deliberate and no County players even appealed but refs being crap will give it as they are clueless.
He would only be asked to view it if he got it wrong. The video footage can’t conclusively say that he did. If VAR can’t definitively say the onfield decision is wrong they won’t ask the ref to review it. It’s inconclusive to VAR so the onfeild decision is not interfered with. Both VAR and ref decisions are also subjective.
The quicker we either get rid of VAR or update it to a better system with better angles etc the better. Also the in time audio exchange might be handy.

[LaMotta]

Cadden's handball was both unavoidable and did nothing to influence the state of play. You can be as pedantic as you like over the precise wording of the laws. But common sense exists for a reason and common sense is generally applied by referees who are doing their job properly. That penalty would not be awarded the vast majority of the time. Not just in our league, but in any league.

Common sense dictates if a defender touches the ball with an outstretched arm in the box the way Cadden did today then its's penalty. You making up a number of different irrelevant reasons as to why you don't think it was a penalty doesn't change that.

[Leithenhibby]

If they were for us i'd be gutted if we never got both.

You’re on the wind-up 😁

[wookie70]

First one is not a penalty for me. The ball is going out and Ross County are not disadvantaged. It hasn't stopped a goal or chance, isn't deliberate and doesn't bring his arm to the ball, pulls away if anything. Understand folk saying they think it is - ball hits a hand. Never for me

Might have been the case decades ago but none of that has any real relevance now. Did it hit his hand, yes. Did it hit any part of his body before that, no. Was his hand outside his silhouette with his hands at his side, yes. Was his hand in a natural position. I would argue as he was pulling his hand away he had control of where it was so I can see no reason for it not being a pen. Do I think that should be a penalty, no, but that hasn't got anything to do with the laws of the game

[SaulGoodman]

Mind the pen we didn’t get against Aberdeen at Hampden?

[LaMotta]

Might have been the case decades ago but none of that has any real relevance now. Did it hit his hand, yes. Did it hit any part of his body before that, no. Was his hand outside his silhouette with his hands at his side, yes. Was his hand in a natural position. I would argue as he was pulling his hand away he had control of where it was so I can see no reason for it not being a pen. Do I think that should be a penalty, no, but that hasn't got anything to do with the laws of the game

Spot on:agree:

Too may people letting emotion get in the way of logic on the first pen.

[HarpOnHibee]

Common sense dictates if a defender touches the ball with an outstretched arm in the box the way Cadden did today then its's penalty. You making up a number of different irrelevant reasons as to why you don't think it was a penalty doesn't change that.

The way Cadden did? What way was that in your opinion? Because from what I seen, his arm was actively trying to move out of the way of the ball, before the close range bounce caused it to change trajectory before striking his arm from very close range.

We see this kind of thing week in week out and penalties are not awarded. Because it's basic common sense. Good referees don't apply the rules to the very literal wording in every single scenario, because they understand the ambiguity in situations where applying the exact wording of the law wouldn't make logical sense. Good referees treat the rule book as guidelines and assess how those rules should be applied on a situation by situation basis. They don't apply everything to the exact letter in every single scenario, because that's not how the rules are intended to be applied.

[Allant1981]

Common sense dictates if a defender touches the ball with an outstretched arm in the box the way Cadden did today then its's penalty. You making up a number of different irrelevant reasons as to why you don't think it was a penalty doesn't change that.

Outstretched is a bit of an exaggeration is it not

[jeffers]

Might have been the case decades ago but none of that has any real relevance now. Did it hit his hand, yes. Did it hit any part of his body before that, no. Was his hand outside his silhouette with his hands at his side, yes. Was his hand in a natural position. I would argue as he was pulling his hand away he had control of where it was so I can see no reason for it not being a pen. Do I think that should be a penalty, no, but that hasn't got anything to do with the laws of the game

Yup. Agree with every word.

I bet there are very few on here who wouldn’t have wanted a penalty awarded to us if a County player had done similar.

[MacGruber]

The way Cadden did? What way was that in your opinion? Because from what I seen, his arm was actively trying to move out of the way of the ball, before the close range bounce caused it to change trajectory before striking his arm from very close range.

We see this kind of thing week in week out and penalties are not awarded. Because it's basic common sense. Good referees don't apply the rules to the very literal wording in every single scenario, because they understand the ambiguity in situations where applying the exact wording of the law wouldn't make logical sense. Good referees treat the rule book as guidelines and assess how those rules should be applied on a situation by situation basis. They don't apply everything to the exact letter in every single scenario, because that's not how the rules are intended to be applied.

Agree with you. 1st ones never a penalty

[Alfred E Newman]

Yup. Agree with every word.

I bet there are very few on here who wouldn’t have wanted a penalty awarded to us if a County player had done similar.

That doesn’t make it a penalty though.

[jeffers]

That doesn’t make it a penalty though.

These days it is though. It’s ridiculous but that’s the way the game has gone.

[Kato]

Mind the pen we didn’t get against Aberdeen at Hampden?Clearly

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

Not sure what you mean by boxing day at Tyine? What incident was that?

As for your second sentence, the fact the ball is bouncing out of play or that it impacted nothing or that the RC players didn't claim are of absolutely no relevance unfortunately. Why would any of those things stop it being a penalty? His arm was out by his side and it hits his arm. He's unlucky but its a penalty.

How is that not a natural position? Collum was on recently going on about raising the bar for handball looked to me like Caddens arm position is in a natural one

[Donegal Hibby]

Both aren’t penalties IMO . The handball rule is beyond a joke if that is a penalty. Dickinson said to Gray after the match that he had to follow the letter of the law on the rules ..

pity somebody didn’t follow them when we played Aberdeen and their player clearly flicked the ball on with his hand . Handball rule is just down to whoever’s in charge’s interpretation on it … crazy stuff !.

[Phil MaGlass]

Shockin penalty decisions, ahm still fn pi33ed aboot it, if there ever was a case for match fixin todays game had it written all over it from bookings/non bookings tae penalties, fn joke/cheating refereeing in Scotland, surely tae F, it has tae stop one day

[gbhibby]

Mind the pen we didn’t get against Aberdeen at Hampden?

The reason given for not awarding that one was that the ball was out of play when contact occurred. Not seen an angle on today's one to determine if the ball was still in play when contact occurred. VAR should check that as a matter of course.

[Carheenlea]

Both aren’t penalties IMO . The handball rule is beyond a joke if that is a penalty. Dickinson said to Gray after the match that he had to follow the letter of the law on the rules ..

pity somebody didn’t follow them when we played Aberdeen and their player clearly flicked the ball on with his hand . Handball rule is just down to whoever’s in charge’s interpretation on it … crazy stuff !.

Gaslighting.

How rules are interpreted changes on a week to week, and club to club basis. Nobody really has a clue what the correct guidance is for rules interpretation now, which offers officials a bit more breathing space when attempting to justify decisions and helps to mask “errors”.

[Broken Gnome]

No one would have batted an eyelid had he given is a goal kick for the second incident.

That's a coming together that doesn't really effect anything, it's a fairly natural passage of play. If Jordan Smith's come out reckless, at excessive pace or with studs then fair enough - none of those things happened. It was tame and VAR would never have overturned it had the ref carried on with play.

[gbhibby]

Both aren’t penalties IMO . The handball rule is beyond a joke if that is a penalty. Dickinson said to Gray after the match that he had to follow the letter of the law on the rules ..

pity somebody didn’t follow them when we played Aberdeen and their player clearly flicked the ball on with his hand . Handball rule is just down to whoever’s in charge’s interpretation on it … crazy stuff !.
As a ref he should know that they do not follow the letter of the law regarding handball it the directives of the association the law has not changed but the interpretation of the law has. The first one is a penalty but soft but the second one is debatable.

[KeithTheHibby]

The first one is disgraceful. The ball is going out for a bye kick before it catches Caddens hand. Var is an embarrassment up here or perhaps should say the ****ing clowns that run it.

[Kato]

The reason given for not awarding that one was that the ball was out of play when contact occurred. Not seen an angle on today's one to determine if the ball was still in play when contact occurred. VAR should check that as a matter of course.The ball was in play when the Don's goalies elbow came down onto Vente's foot, forcing him off balance. Pen all day.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[gbhibby]

The ball was in play when the Don's goalies elbow came down onto Vente's foot, forcing him off balance. Pen all day.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I was just quoting what a ref said at the time about the incident. Did not agree with that analysis at the time.

[Kato]

I was just quoting what a ref said at the time about the incident. Did not agree with that analysis at the time.[emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[gbhibby]

[emoji106]

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Hopefully both of today's penalties will be discussed on ref watch.

[JimBHibees]

Hopefully both of today's penalties will be discussed on ref watch.

Good luck with that

[Stanton Spence]

The first one is disgraceful. The ball is going out for a bye kick before it catches Caddens hand. Var is an embarrassment up here or perhaps should say the ****ing clowns that run it.

I’ve seen var make so many crazy decisions in Italy England Spain Scotland and the champions league Europa league etc
I’m yet to see any improvement that it’s made to game in any country

[Tyler Durden]

I think Caddens arm is a reasonably natural position. Which the Sportscene panel agreed with. Appreciate LaMotta’s point that the “we’ve gained no advantage, there isn’t a County player at the back post” point isn’t relevant in the rules. But given the natural position point is very debatable, you would expect the ref to apply some common sense and favour the defender there.

The second one is soft but it’s a pen IMO. County player plays the ball, Smith makes contact with him. I think Smith would need to make much more effort to avoid contact, to get away with that one. Very poor from Obita to let the cross in and Rocky to let the forward get there unchallenged IMO

[Paulie Walnuts]

Can’t say I’ve an issue with either penalty. First one Caddens hand is out way out from his body, there’s no unexpected change in the balls flight path or anything along those lines. Fairly cut and dry case of arm in an unnatural position, ball hits hand imo.

Second one, Smith catches him. Whether the ball was still in play or not would be the only thing that would make it correct or incorrect for me and the footage doesn’t really tell you either way on that front.

I’d want both if they were against us and I’d suggest most on here who are claiming they weren’t penalties would be the same, especially the first one.

[Nicho87]

If that’s either side of the old firm up in Ross county today with the same incidents your doing well if one is getting given

Both never penalties

It’s the colour of the strip which helps determine referees decisions not the actual evidence or incident itself

Scottish football - corrupt to the core

[HarpOnHibee]

First one Caddens hand is out way out from his body, there’s no unexpected change in the balls flight path or anything along those lines. Fairly cut and dry case of arm in an unnatural position, ball hits hand imo.

The ball bounces in between the legs of the County defender (may have even taken a slight nick), before coming back up and striking Cadden on the hand. There's nothing he could have done there. It's a ridiculous decision that ignores common sense, but allows the referee to hide behind the wording in the rule book that doesn't account for every handball situation.

[Jpdhfc]

The ball bounces in between the legs of the County defender (may have even taken a slight nick), before coming back up and striking Cadden on the hand. There's nothing he could have done there. It's a ridiculous decision that ignores common sense, but allows the referee to hide behind the wording in the rule book that doesn't account for every handball situation.
commmon sense and scottish refs your having a laugh

[MacGruber]

All the pundits on Sportscene unanimous and unsurprisingly so. 1st one never a penalty, not even given the sit on the fence 'soft' label, just dismissed. Never mattered in the end as saved. 2nd one ball is played, is out the park and player is not brought down by the keeper - he goes over his leg and on his way mid dive before contact. He wasn't impeded. No pen either but can understand ref giving it from his angle and more of a gripe with defending and keeper. I'd say no pen but for folk saying it was a soft one I wouldn't bother arguing as there is at least a case there

[Libby Hibby]

For me, it was just another refereeing performance from a man whose heart was broken on the 21st of May, 2016.

And this was his way of ‘getting us back’ the only way he can.

[tonyrougier123]

2nd penalty was a farce, boots the ball out of play and leaps like a salmon over smith. Diabolical in the age of var that stands.

[cameronw-hfc]

Second one I'd be raging if we didn't get it in todays game, first one is a joke imo. First there is literally nothing he can do, second one I think Smith is unlucky but there is contact and unfortunately these days a dive tends to mean no contact rather than not enough to go down.

It's one of those that shouldn't be a pen, but given how refs view contact in the box when the ball isn't won and the player goes down, unfortunately I can see why it was given.

The handball is insane though, he literally cannot do anything else with it and actually tries to pull his hand out of the way.

[Paulie Walnuts]

The ball bounces in between the legs of the County defender (may have even taken a slight nick), before coming back up and striking Cadden on the hand. There's nothing he could have done there. It's a ridiculous decision that ignores common sense, but allows the referee to hide behind the wording in the rule book that doesn't account for every handball situation.

Being unsighted for a split second because the ball has went between someone’s legs doesn’t negate your responsibility to not handle the ball.

It’s travelled 30-40 yards, if he can’t judge the flight of the ball and the fact it’s going to bounce in that space of time then that’s his problem, he’s not exactly had no time to react/position his body in a way where he’s not going to handle it. It’s travelled a fair distance without taking a touch off anyone else and hit Caddens hand which is outstretched from his body, it’s a clear pen and if either of them happen against us we’d all be screaming for them, especially the handball.

[B.H.F.C]

I think the hand ball one is pretty clear. Doesn’t matter if you try to pull your hand away or not, the ball has travelled 20 yards. Of course it’s unlucky but it’s a penalty all day IMO.

The second one I’m not having though. The boy just kicks the ball away and runs in to Smith.

[WhileTheChief..]

For me, it was just another refereeing performance from a man whose heart was broken on the 21st of May, 2016.

And this was his way of ‘getting us back’ the only way he can.

You think he woke up yesterday morning thinking 'ya beauty, 8 years I've waited, now's my chance" ?

That's one way of looking at it I guess.

[Paulie Walnuts]

You think he woke up yesterday morning thinking 'ya beauty, 8 years I've waited, now's my chance" ?

That's one way of looking at it I guess.

Always find the posts claiming it’s some sort of establishment punishment for winning the cup superb.

I mean there was numerous opportunities to prevent us winning the cup on the day, they could have quite easily found a ‘foul’ on Tavernier for our equaliser if they wanted to, but instead they decided to let us win it then run a decade long conspiracy, risking criminal prosecution to get back at us by giving penalties against us in games against Ross County.

As conspiracy theories go, it’s one of the best in football.

[Callum_62]

I think the hand ball one is pretty clear. Doesn’t matter if you try to pull your hand away or not, the ball has travelled 20 yards. Of course it’s unlucky but it’s a penalty all day IMO.

The second one I’m not having though. The boy just kicks the ball away and runs in to Smith.It's not even as amity comes flying out and does through the boy

I can see why the ref gives it (sort of) but it's very very soft

Ive been thinking about it since yesterday but I'm yet to think of many examples of someone getting a clear shot a goal, colliding with the defender and getting a penalty (except Joe Newell giving one away against Celtic)

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Eyrie]

The first one isn't a penalty because you can see that Cadden's arm is in a natural position. Not one Ross County player thought there was anything and VAR got involved for the sake of it.

Second one will always be given and I'd be annoyed if we didn't get a penalty for that.

[MacGruber]

The first one isn't a penalty because you can see that Cadden's arm is in a natural position. Not one Ross County player thought there was anything and VAR got involved for the sake of it.

Second one will always be given and I'd be annoyed if we didn't get a penalty for that.

True. But it's a dive. Keeper didn't bring him down he was mid dive going down before there is a touch with keepers leg

[WhileTheChief..]

Always find the posts claiming it’s some sort of establishment punishment for winning the cup superb.

I mean there was numerous opportunities to prevent us winning the cup on the day, they could have quite easily found a ‘foul’ on Tavernier for our equaliser if they wanted to, but instead they decided to let us win it then run a decade long conspiracy, risking criminal prosecution to get back at us by giving penalties against us in games against Ross County.

As conspiracy theories go, it’s one of the best in football.


This whole greetin' about refs just isn't for me. Every team gets crap decisions against them.

[LaMotta]

The way Cadden did? What way was that in your opinion? Because from what I seen, his arm was actively trying to move out of the way of the ball, before the close range bounce caused it to change trajectory before striking his arm from very close range.

We see this kind of thing week in week out and penalties are not awarded. Because it's basic common sense. Good referees don't apply the rules to the very literal wording in every single scenario, because they understand the ambiguity in situations where applying the exact wording of the law wouldn't make logical sense. Good referees treat the rule book as guidelines and assess how those rules should be applied on a situation by situation basis. They don't apply everything to the exact letter in every single scenario, because that's not how the rules are intended to be applied.


Outstretched is a bit of an exaggeration is it not


How is that not a natural position? Collum was on recently going on about raising the bar for handball looked to me like Caddens arm position is in a natural one

28474

Still images dont always tell the full story in incidents, but on this occasion the image shows exactly why it had to be a penalty unfortuneatly.

As others have pointed out if thats up the other end nobody would be saying it wasn't a penalty.

However after watching Sportscene there is actually another different argument against it being a penalty - because Josh Campbell is blatantly fouled in the passage of play leading to the cross. Should have been a foul and free kick to Hibs. Dickinson's main problem was getting a number of decisions like that wrong yesterday in a woeful performance.

[bod]

If they were for us i'd be gutted if we never got both.

I’d be shouting for both aswell .For the 2nd the player drops his foot to connect with Smith ,I’d be disappointed if ours didn’t do that too.

[Allant1981]

28474

Still images dont always tell the full story in incidents, but on this occasion the image shows exactly why it had to be a penalty unfortuneatly.

As others have pointed out if thats up the other end nobody would be saying it wasn't a penalty.

However after watching Sportscene there is actually another different argument against it being a penalty - because Josh Campbell is blatantly fouled in the passage of play leading to the cross. Should have been a foul and free kick to Hibs. Dickinson's main problem was getting a number of decisions like that wrong yesterday in a woeful performance.

As you say a still doesn't tell the full story and shouldn't be used to try prove a point imo, his arm was clearly down by his side and you could see him moving it out the way in real time. I accept that the rules say it's a penalty but it was very soft

[scm70nyd1973]

Yup. Agree with every word.

I bet there are very few on here who wouldn’t have wanted a penalty awarded to us if a County player had done similar.

Of course this is true but equally if we had got the award then many would say that it was not deserved.

Re the handball the common sense approach is to go back to seeking to gain an advantage.

Re the 2nd penalty the player had lost control of the ball and he was on his way down before there was any contact with Smith - if it was a foul it made no difference to any outcome - possibly a booking but that’s all - just my opinion

[Paulie Walnuts]

As you say a still doesn't tell the full story and shouldn't be used to try prove a point imo, his arm was clearly down by his side and you could see him moving it out the way in real time. I accept that the rules say it's a penalty but it was very soft

There can be debate as to whether it’s a natural position etc, but surely nobody can be debating that his hand was down by his side :confused: the picture clearly shows it wasn’t.

[Kato]

However after watching Sportscene there is actually another different argument against it being a penalty - because Josh Campbell is blatantly fouled in the passage of play leading to the cross. Should have been a foul and free kick to Hibs. Dickinson's main problem was getting a number of decisions like that wrong yesterday in a woeful performance.


He had a great view of that foul too. Blatant foul. If VAR are supposed to look at everything in the lead up Ross Co win the ball illegally.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[jeffers]

Of course this is true but equally if we had got the award then many would say that it was not deserved.

Re the handball the common sense approach is to go back to seeking to gain an advantage.

Re the 2nd penalty the player had lost control of the ball and he was on his way down before there was any contact with Smith - if it was a foul it made no difference to any outcome - possibly a booking but that’s all - just my opinion

Both were in the soft category, absolutely no arguments from me on that. However you only need to read this thread to see the varying opinions from neither were penalties, both were, one was and one wasn’t to understand, at least for me, why they were given.

The bigger frustration for me is that both were entirely avoidable with better defending on our part.

[matty_f]

Both were in the soft category, absolutely no arguments from me on that. However you only need to read this thread to see the varying opinions from neither were penalties, both were, one was and one wasn’t to understand, at least for me, why they were given.

The bigger frustration for me is that both were entirely available with better defending on our part.

That’s where I am with it, I disagree with both decisions but I totally get why they were given and can accept it given that they’re both subjective and the referee has to make a decision, so it came down to what he thought at the time.

If neither were given I don’t think anyone’s complaining about an injustice or a failure of VAR either, they’re both borderline decisions and we were on the wrong side of them.

[wookie70]

28474

Still images dont always tell the full story in incidents, but on this occasion the image shows exactly why it had to be a penalty unfortuneatly.

As others have pointed out if thats up the other end nobody would be saying it wasn't a penalty.

However after watching Sportscene there is actually another different argument against it being a penalty - because Josh Campbell is blatantly fouled in the passage of play leading to the cross. Should have been a foul and free kick to Hibs. Dickinson's main problem was getting a number of decisions like that wrong yesterday in a woeful performance.

I found it hard to believe that the foul on Campbell wasn't given. They went through the back of our players on a number of occasions and went unpunished. Just an awful referee who looked to have an agenda

[Wheat Hound]

Contrasts SDGs classy response to the penalties against that of Clement....

[Kato]

I found it hard to believe that the foul on Campbell wasn't given. They went through the back of our players on a number of occasions and went unpunished. Just an awful referee who looked to have an agendaTackle from behind is a basic. The one on Josh wasn't even a tackle for the ball, just a forearm in the back and a clatter on the ankles, no where near the ball.

Basic law ignored.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Paulie Walnuts]

This whole greetin' about refs just isn't for me. Every team gets crap decisions against them.

:agree:

[greenlex]

This whole greetin' about refs just isn't for me. Every team gets crap decisions against them.

Aye you would rather just chip in on the debate to say you’re not debating it.

[Callum_62]

Anyone seen an angle of the first penalty from the Cross

I thought at the time Jordan white was slightly offside but never seen the same replay angle again to conform

It's a foul on campbell anyway - knee in the back but I think white is just offside too

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[MacGruber]

28474

Still images dont always tell the full story in incidents, but on this occasion the image shows exactly why it had to be a penalty unfortuneatly.

As others have pointed out if thats up the other end nobody would be saying it wasn't a penalty.

However after watching Sportscene there is actually another different argument against it being a penalty - because Josh Campbell is blatantly fouled in the passage of play leading to the cross. Should have been a foul and free kick to Hibs. Dickinson's main problem was getting a number of decisions like that wrong yesterday in a woeful performance.

The still image doesn't tell me that at all. It hit his arm yes. A penalty no. IMO of course

[Callum_62]

The handball rangers didn't just get is arguably worse with a far bigger impact on the attacking team than yesterdays var intervention

Againz neither should be penalties



Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[HarpOnHibee]

The handball rangers didn't just get is arguably worse with a far bigger impact on the attacking team than yesterdays var intervention

Againz neither should be penalties



Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

:agree:

Common sense applied in this game, but not in ours.

[HarpOnHibee]

28474

Still images don't always tell the full story in incidents

You're right. They don't. So lets take a look at what happened leading up to it.

https://i.ibb.co/56FTwmz/VAR.gif

The ball appears to go through the legs of the Ross County defender as it bounces up and hits Cadden's hand. It looks like the defender may have even got a flick on it. The trajectory of the ball is drastically altered at very close range. There's absolutely nothing Cadden can do there to avoid the ball hitting his hand. He knows nothing about it until it's too late.

A similar handball occurred today in the Dundee Utd vs Rangers game. The ball bounces up off the turf and strikes the Dundee Utd defenders arm which is a good way from his body. But after a VAR review, it was determined not to be a penalty.

So why was this one?

[LaMotta]

You're right. They don't. So lets take a look at what happened leading up to it.

https://i.ibb.co/56FTwmz/VAR.gif

The ball appears to go through the legs of the Ross County defender as it bounces up and hits Cadden's hand. It looks like the defender may have even got a flick on it. The trajectory of the ball is drastically altered at very close range. There's absolutely nothing Cadden can do there to avoid the ball hitting his hand. He knows nothing about it until it's too late.

A similar handball occurred today in the Dundee Utd vs Rangers game. The ball bounces up off the turf and strikes the Dundee Utd defenders arm which is a good way from his body. But after a VAR review, it was determined not to be a penalty.

So why was this one?

The ball going through the legs of the defender is again irrelevant, and the defender doesn't get a flick on it. The trajectory of the ball isnt altered at all either. Of course Cadden is unlucky, but you don't have to know anything about the ball hitting your hand for it to be a handball foul.

You keep talking about common sense but you have made up so many fabrications on this thread to justify your stance it's all a bit bizarre.

The Rangers one to me looks like a penalty, although the argument against it might be that the ball has travelled a short distance from leaving the player's boot - unlike in our one where it was a cross from 20 or so yards away. Rangers fans are raging about the decision - I would like to hear why it wasn't given.

The real injustice for our penalty was the foul on Campbell that wasn't given - that is exactly what VAR is there for, and its inexcusable a foul wasn't given.

[HarpOnHibee]

The ball going through the legs of the defender is again irrelevant, and the defender doesn't get a flick on it. The trajectory of the ball isnt altered at all either. Of course Cadden is unlucky, but you don't have to know anything about the ball hitting your hand for it to be a handball foul.

You keep talking about common sense but you have made up so many fabrications on this thread to justify your stance it's all a bit bizarre.

The Rangers one to me looks like a penalty, although the argument against it might be that the ball has travelled a short distance from leaving the player's boot - unlike in our one where it was a cross from 20 or so yards away. Rangers fans are raging about the decision - I would like to hear why it wasn't given.

The real injustice for our penalty was the foul on Campbell that wasn't given - that is exactly what VAR is there for, and its inexcusable a foul wasn't given.

The ball does travel a short distance after taking the bounce off the turf and going through the defenders legs, which clearly alters the trajectory of the ball at very close range. Your points don't measure up to what we can clearly see.

[LaMotta]

The ball does travel a short distance after taking the bounce off the turf and going through the defenders legs, which clearly alters the trajectory of the ball at very close range. Your points don't measure up to what we can clearly see.

You are still making things up - I'm going to duck out this conversation now, because it's all a bit pointless.

[HarpOnHibee]

You are still making things up - I'm going to duck out this conversation now, because it's all a bit pointless.

Fair enough. I'll continue to trust what I actually see with my own eyes. :aok:

[Speedy]

You are still making things up - I'm going to duck out this conversation now, because it's all a bit pointless.

Hitting the turf changes the trajectory of the ball. Think that's his point.

The ball was heading down, then hit the turf, then starting heading upwards.

[LaMotta]

Hitting the turf changes the trajectory of the ball. Think that's his point.

The ball was heading down, then hit the turf, then starting heading upwards.

But how how is the ball hitting the turf changing the trajectory? Its not. The player crosses it then it bounces and that is it following its natural trajectory. The distance the ball has travelled is about from where it leaves the opposition player's foot, the bounce is totally irrelevant!

[HarpOnHibee]

But how how is the ball hitting the turf changing the trajectory? Its not. The player crosses it then it bounces and that is it following its natural trajectory. The distance the ball has travelled is about from where it leaves the opposition player's foot, the bounce is totally irrelevant!

It wasn't irrelevant today when VAR didn't award a penalty to Rangers. The officials obviously took the close range bounce of the ball into consideration. It didn't matter that the arm was out, as the bounce occurred at close range. So it wasn't irrelevant in this game.

[LaMotta]

It wasn't irrelevant today when VAR didn't award a penalty to Rangers. The officials obviously took the close range bounce of the ball into consideration. It didn't matter that the arm was out, as the bounce occurred at close range. So it wasn't irrelevant in this game.

It wasnt about the bounce, the major difference was the Rangers player kicked the ball from only a few yards away!

[HarpOnHibee]

It wasnt about the bounce, the major difference was the Rangers player kicked the ball from only a few yards away!

If the range of where the ball is kicked is relevant to a handball situation, then why wouldn't the range of a bounce apply also? The impact it has on a players ability to react quickly enough to get their arm/hand out of the way of the ball is still the same.

[greenlex]

If the range of where the ball is kicked is relevant to a handball situation, then why wouldn't the range of a bounce apply also? The impact it has on a players ability to react quickly enough to get their arm/hand out of the way of the ball is still the same.
Cos currently that’s the laws of the game?

[Keith_M]

If Hibs had performed a bit better and scored at least one more goal, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Hearts blew it a few weeks back in Dingwall... Hibs blew it yesterday. It happens.

[HarpOnHibee]

Cos currently that’s the laws of the game?

It's the laws of the game when it's applied. It's common sense when it isn't. It appears to vary on game by game basis.

[ChicoM1875]

:agree::agree:

Genuinely cant believe how people struggle to be so impartial sometimes.

The first one is as clear penalty as you will ever see with VAR in play. How are people even debating it?

The second one is at least debatable, but there is contact from Smith once he gives it on pitch then its never getting overturned.

Try harder to believe it. It's not difficult.

[B.H.F.C]

The ball going through the legs of the defender is again irrelevant, and the defender doesn't get a flick on it. The trajectory of the ball isnt altered at all either. Of course Cadden is unlucky, but you don't have to know anything about the ball hitting your hand for it to be a handball foul.

You keep talking about common sense but you have made up so many fabrications on this thread to justify your stance it's all a bit bizarre.

The Rangers one to me looks like a penalty, although the argument against it might be that the ball has travelled a short distance from leaving the player's boot - unlike in our one where it was a cross from 20 or so yards away. Rangers fans are raging about the decision - I would like to hear why it wasn't given.

The real injustice for our penalty was the foul on Campbell that wasn't given - that is exactly what VAR is there for, and its inexcusable a foul wasn't given.

I really can’t see any argument against the handball.

It’s obviously very unfortunate but it ticks every box for giving a handball these days IMO.

If it was at the other end and we didn’t get it there would be a thread the same length about it.

[LaMotta]

Cos currently that’s the laws of the game?


I really can’t see any argument against the handball.

It’s obviously very unfortunate but it ticks every box for giving a handball these days IMO.

If it was at the other end and we didn’t get it there would be a thread the same length about it.

:agree::agree:

[DaveF]

I really can’t see any argument against the handball.

It’s obviously very unfortunate but it ticks every box for giving a handball these days IMO.

If it was at the other end and we didn’t get it there would be a thread the same length about it.

Yep, that's where I am. In years gone by it's never a penalty but today it is and I'd be wanting that if we were attacking.

It's pish, but that's modern day football sadly.

[expresso]

My view is that you could sort of make an argument for both penalties although definitely very soft however my issue is that our opposition always seems to get these awarded whereas we don’t.
We definitely get a raw deal from referees even more so since advent of VAR.
Hopefully new faces or Bowie will push us on to the second goal in games meaning dodgy refereeing is less damaging.

[Paulie Walnuts]

People surely aren’t now arguing that the ball bouncing off the pitch negates the handball :faf:

Next we’ll have folk telling us it’s not a handball because the ball had a bit of swerve or backspin on it, or that a foul isn’t a foul because the ball bobbled beforehand.

[Kato]

People surely aren’t now arguing that the ball bouncing off the pitch negates the handball :faf:

Next we’ll have folk telling us it’s not a handball because the ball had a bit of swerve or backspin on it, or that a foul isn’t a foul because the ball bobbled beforehand.Agreed. It's the players job to control the ball. Some referees will give that as handball and some not. The only aspect that could negate that pen is the foul on Campbell, from which county win possession.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Gordy M]

https://x.com/ryanmeston07/status/1720910087022121354?s=48

Anyone want to tell me the difference between this one and yesterday?

[greenlex]

https://x.com/ryanmeston07/status/1720910087022121354?s=48

Anyone want to tell me the difference between this one and yesterday?

The ball is out of play when the foul is committed?
On second look the keeper has actually stopped and the attacker is the one making contact. Not sure that was the case yesterday.

[Kato]

The ball is out of play when the foul is committed?
On second look the keeper has actually stopped and the attacker is the one making contact. Not sure that was the case yesterday.

The contact is the goalies elbow on top of Ventes foot.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[greenlex]

The contact is the goalies elbow on top of Ventes foot.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Suppose. It’s all subjective tho.

[MacGruber]

I really can’t see any argument against the handball.

It’s obviously very unfortunate but it ticks every box for giving a handball these days IMO.

If it was at the other end and we didn’t get it there would be a thread the same length about it.

No pen for me and doesn't tick every box and wouldn't expect it our way either. Hand is in a natural position. Doesn't move it toward the ball and as for making the silhouette bigger - in relation to what? The ball isn't going toward our goal or their player. Every time a ball hits a hand it's not a penalty. Was saved anyway so doesn't really matter. I accept other people see it different, fair enough it's all about opinions - just don't agree.

[Kato]

Suppose. It’s all subjective tho.Subjective, but within the guidelines of the laws provided. Vente gets to the ball first but is impeded by the goalie who doesn't get anything on the ball at all. Foul.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[greenlex]

Subjective, but within the guidelines of the laws provided. Vente gets to the ball first but is impeded by the goalie who doesn't get anything on the ball at all. Foul.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Only if the ball is in play.

[Kato]

Only if the ball is in play.Well that is subjective because we can't see from that angle.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[greenlex]

Well that is subjective because we can't see from that angle.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

True. But maybe from another angle?
I actually think that’s why theirs was given yesterday. VAR couldn’t intervene as there was no definitive proof of error of either the ball still being in play or indeed if it was the contact that brought him down and that he wasn’t already on his way to being on his arse before any contact at all.

[Lago]

Just watched the highlights and can't see any argument against either, definitely handball for the 1st and raised led trip for the 2nd.

[LaMotta]

Try harder to believe it. It's not difficult.

You should try harder to be impartial. It's not difficult:na na:

[B.H.F.C]

No pen for me and doesn't tick every box and wouldn't expect it our way either. Hand is in a natural position. Doesn't move it toward the ball and as for making the silhouette bigger - in relation to what? The ball isn't going toward our goal or their player. Every time a ball hits a hand it's not a penalty. Was saved anyway so doesn't really matter. I accept other people see it different, fair enough it's all about opinions - just don't agree.

His hand was well out from his body. Someone posted the picture earlier in the thread. I get folk can see it different but his hand was out. You can’t no see that surely. Where it’s going or who it’s going to is of no relevance.

[JohnM1875]

I'd be fuming if we didn't get the second one to be honest.

[MacGruber]

His hand was well out from his body. Someone posted the picture earlier in the thread. I get folk can see it different but his hand was out. You can’t no see that surely. Where it’s going or who it’s going to is of no relevance.

Of course his hand is out from his body - as it naturally would be running back and trying to turn. It's in a natural position for what he is trying to do and isn't out infront of him, it's to the side and comes of it as he is trying to move it backwards. The flight of the ball never changed but it not only bounces just before but unexpectedly through the players legs which is impossible to read. Like when crosses go straight in when the flight doesn't change because they anticipate a touch, there's no way anyone thinks the Ross Co player is missing that and it squirms through his legs. No intention, natural movement and whilst hand out from body to the side the ball is travelling away from goal at the time. There's no bigger silhouette hand out from the body blocking the path to goal.
I understand it is about opinions. You think it is a pen, fair play. I think it's not. When people suggest there is 'no argument' is just wrong. The thread proves that. Worth noting that the more qualified opinions of Bartley (I think on comms), Naismith, Thomson and Stewart all saying no penalty. I get Naismith, Stewart et all aren't everyone's cup of tea however they have done a lot in the game. For the avoidance of doubt that also doesn't mean that they pundits or I am right - it does mean that the notion there is 'no argument/can't believe it can be argued' is wrong. It can and has. Was saved anyway. We should be discussing the one that counted. Which in my opinion was also not a penalty, was a dive however I get why that one was given and would probably want it for us. I'm green tinted that way

[LaMotta]

Of course his hand is out from his body - as it naturally would be running back and trying to turn. It's in a natural position for what he is trying to do and isn't out infront of him, it's to the side and comes of it as he is trying to move it backwards. The flight of the ball never changed but it not only bounces just before but unexpectedly through the players legs which is impossible to read. Like when crosses go straight in when the flight doesn't change because they anticipate a touch, there's no way anyone thinks the Ross Co player is missing that and it squirms through his legs. No intention, natural movement and whilst hand out from body to the side the ball is travelling away from goal at the time. There's no bigger silhouette hand out from the body blocking the path to goal.
I understand it is about opinions. You think it is a pen, fair play. I think it's not. When people suggest there is 'no argument' is just wrong. The thread proves that. Worth noting that the more qualified opinions of Bartley (I think on comms), Naismith, Thomson and Stewart all saying no penalty. I get Naismith, Stewart et all aren't everyone's cup of tea however they have done a lot in the game. For the avoidance of doubt that also doesn't mean that they pundits or I am right - it does mean that the notion there is 'no argument/can't believe it can be argued' is wrong. It can and has. Was saved anyway. We should be discussing the one that counted. Which in my opinion was also not a penalty, was a dive however I get why that one was given and would probably want it for us. I'm green tinted that way

The "unnaturally bigger" phrase in the laws is a bit of a problem to be honest, cause I'm not sure anyone knows what it actually means. I think most arm movements are natural in terms of what players are trying to do so would agree with you that Cadden's arm isnt in a particularly unnatural position. But if your arm is out that wide and touches the ball that has been played from distance then that is going to be a penalty 99% of the time.

On the pundits point I think they often talk a lot of nonsense about handball incidents. I like Mikey Stewart as a pundit, but he in particular has always based his handball penalty analysis on what he thinks the laws of the game should be, rather than what they actually are.

[SickBoy32]

The Rangers one to me looks like a penalty, although the argument against it might be that the ball has travelled a short distance from leaving the player's boot - unlike in our one where it was a cross from 20 or so yards away. Rangers fans are raging about the decision - I would like to hear why it wasn't

Was reading a fair number of posts from yourself yesterday, about how X, Y an Z were all irrelevant.

Does the rule book stipulate how far a ball needs to travel? Thought not.

It’s clear from this thread, and the weekends matches - that fans and refs alike, now have no idea what constitutes a handball penalty.

It’s a total sham, and not helped by apologists defending incredibly poor decisions from refs.

[ehf]

Just watched the highlights and can't see any argument against either, definitely handball for the 1st and raised led trip for the 2nd.

I’ve just watched the highlights and would say the second was never a penalty - the Ross County boy should have been booked for diving.

[Kato]

Was reading a fair number of posts from yourself yesterday, about how X, Y an Z were all irrelevant.

Does the rule book stipulate how far a ball needs to travel? Thought not.

It’s clear from this thread, and the weekends matches - that fans and refs alike, now have no idea what constitutes a handball penalty.

It’s a total sham, and not helped by apologists defending incredibly poor decisions from refs.I would say it's a handball penalty discounted for the foul from county gained possession.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[LaMotta]

Was reading a fair number of posts from yourself yesterday, about how X, Y an Z were all irrelevant.

Does the rule book stipulate how far a ball needs to travel? Thought not.

It’s clear from this thread, and the weekends matches - that fans and refs alike, now have no idea what constitutes a handball penalty.

It’s a total sham, and not helped by apologists defending incredibly poor decisions from refs.


That's because people clearly made numerous irrelevant points such as the fact that the ball was going out of play or that there wasn't a Ross County Player nearby, or a Ross County player didnt appeal for it, or Cadden didn't know anything about it or the ball bounced. None of them have any correlation on whether a handball is a foul or not.

The laws of the game don't directly stipulate how far the ball has to travel however I believe that there has been clarification provided by SFA separately on the point that if the ball has travelled only a short distance then they wont award a handball. I would agree with you that there is not enough clarity or detail provided in the laws. Individual associations are able to interpret things as they like. EPL and Champions league interpretations for example aren't always the same.

As to your last sentence about apologists - that's utter nonsense. We have been absolutely shafted by poor VAR decisions over the last two years and I even pulled together a pretty extensive list on a thread at one point of them all. I felt as a club we were far too weak at publicly calling out poor decisions on VAR, which we were told was a deliberate strategy by the club not to publicly call out decisions. We lose credibility however as a fanbase when we cry about decisions like that first penalty yesterday based on what was a blatant outstretched arm and a clear handball. Far less helpful to have us looking like paranoid Celtic or Rangers fans who are masters at thinking that every decision against them is a conspiracy. The stronger argument against the penalty is that Campbell was fouled in the build up. The fact no pundits picked up on that is poor analysis from them.

[LaMotta]

I would say it's a handball penalty discounted for the foul from county gained possession.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

:agree:

[HarpOnHibee]

That's because people clearly made numerous irrelevant points such as the fact that the ball was going out of play or that there wasn't a Ross County Player nearby, or a Ross County player didnt appeal for it, or Cadden didn't know anything about it or the ball bounced. None of them have any correlation on whether a handball is a foul or not.

The laws of the game don't directly stipulate how far the ball has to travel however I believe that there has been clarification provided by SFA separately on the point that if the ball has travelled only a short distance then they wont award a handball. I would agree with you that there is not enough clarity or detail provided in the laws. Individual associations are able to interpret things as they like. EPL and Champions league interpretations for example aren't always the same.

As to your last sentence about apologists - that's utter nonsense. We have been absolutely shafted by poor VAR decisions over the last two years and I even pulled together a pretty extensive list on a thread at one point of them all. I felt as a club we were far too weak at publicly calling out poor decisions on VAR, which we were told was a deliberate strategy by the club not top publicly call out decisions. We lose credibility however as a fanbase when we cry about decisions like that first penalty yesterday based on what was a blatant outstretched arm and a clear handball. Far less helpful to have us looking like paranoid Celtic or Rangers fans who are masters at thinking that every decision against them is a conspiracy. The stronger argument against the penalty is that Campbell was fouled in the build up. The fact no pundits picked up on that is poor analysis from them.

But the law doesn't state that an outstretched arm automatically constitutes as a handball foul. It states that an arm must be in an "unnatural position". Whether the arm is in an unnatural position or not can vary greatly depending on the circumstances. It could easily be argued that Cadden's arm and hand were not in an unnatural position considering his overall body movement and balance in the moment. Just because his arm was away from his body, doesn't mean that it was unnatural for it to be so.

The rule book is intentionally vague to give officials enough wiggle room to implement their own interpretations of the rules on a game by game basis.

[MacGruber]

The "unnaturally bigger" phrase in the laws is a bit of a problem to be honest, cause I'm not sure anyone knows what it actually means. I think most arm movements are natural in terms of what players are trying to do so would agree with you that Cadden's arm isnt in a particularly unnatural position. But if your arm is out that wide and touches the ball that has been played from distance then that is going to be a penalty 99% of the time.

On the pundits point I think they often talk a lot of nonsense about handball incidents. I like Mikey Stewart as a pundit, but he in particular has always based his handball penalty analysis on what he thinks the laws of the game should be, rather than what they actually are.

Sorry mate, I hear what you are saying but I respectfully disagree. That's cool though, we are allowed to differ in opinion. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours, not really looking to either. Nothing said changes the result - onwards to Aberdeen match and hopefully some signings. Gutted to lose the 2 points on Saturday but we go again

[LaMotta]

But the law doesn't state that an outstretched arm automatically constitutes as a handball foul. It states that an arm must be in an "unnatural position". Whether the arm is in an unnatural position or not can vary greatly depending on the circumstances. It could easily be argued that Cadden's arm and hand were not in an unnatural position considering his overall body movement and balance in the moment. Just because his arm was away from his body, doesn't mean that it was unnatural for it to be so.

The rule book is intentionally vague to give officials enough wiggle room to implement their own interpretations of the rules on a game by game basis.

It doesn't actually state that either. It states that there should be a handball foul when a player "touches the ball with their hand/arm when it is in a position that makes their body unnaturally bigger...."

Having your arm outstretched as Cadden does fit that description IMO. As I said earlier I actually agree with you about the vagueness of the written laws overall. I think we might both agree that it would be helpful if Willle Colllum could come out and actually clarify clearly the handball laws as they are to be implemented in Scotland.

[LaMotta]

Sorry mate, I hear what you are saying but I respectfully disagree. That's cool though, we are allowed to differ in opinion. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours, not really looking to either. Nothing said changes the result - onwards to Aberdeen match and hopefully some signings. Gutted to lose the 2 points on Saturday but we go again

:aok:

[matty_f]

It doesn't actually state that either. It states that there should be a handball foul when a player "touches the ball with their hand/arm when it is in a position that makes their body unnaturally bigger...."

Having your arm outstretched as Cadden does fit that description IMO. As I said earlier I actually agree with you about the vagueness of the written laws overall. I think we might both agree that it would be helpful if Willle Colllum could come out and actually clarify clearly the handball laws as they are to be implemented in Scotland.

The law has to be vague enough to cover the majority of situations and then the referee has to interpret the situation, we can’t have things like “if the ball has traveled more than 10 yards then it should be a penalty” because it doesn’t consider the speed of the cross, and you’d have to have VAR drawing more ****ing lines to measure and then the team who’s defender was 10.5 yards will be moaning that is not far enough etc

There are far too many variables in football for the laws to be specific, so at best they’re a guide for referees to interpret. There’s always going to be subjectivity and differences of opinion on decisions as a result.

[LaMotta]

The law has to be vague enough to cover the majority of situations and then the referee has to interpret the situation, we can’t have things like “if the ball has traveled more than 10 yards then it should be a penalty” because it doesn’t consider the speed of the cross, and you’d have to have VAR drawing more ****ing lines to measure and then the team who’s defender was 10.5 yards will be moaning that is not far enough etc

There are far too many variables in football for the laws to be specific, so at best they’re a guide for referees to interpret. There’s always going to be subjectivity and differences of opinion on decisions as a result.

Fair point on reflection:agree:

I still think there is some potential for educating fans and pundits on handball. If anything, this thread shows that there is not a clear understanding of what a handball foul is.

[matty_f]

Fair point on reflection:agree:

I still think there is some potential for educating fans and pundits on handball. If anything, this thread shows that there is not a clear understanding of what a handball foul is.

The VAR Review on YouTube is useful, if occasionally infuriating when you spot the inconsistencies, for understanding the reasons things are given or not given.

They play the ref’s audio with the incident so you can hear the decision making process and while you’ll still hear stuff you don’t agree with, they do talk through what they’ve seen.

[TrinityHFC]

Fair point on reflection:agree:

I still think there is some potential for educating fans and pundits on handball. If anything, this thread shows that there is not a clear understanding of what a handball foul is.

Educating referees and VAR officials too. You see different applications of the laws every game.

And there was nothing unnatural about how Cadden had his arms for the way he was moving.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

The law has to be vague enough to cover the majority of situations and then the referee has to interpret the situation, we can’t have things like “if the ball has traveled more than 10 yards then it should be a penalty” because it doesn’t consider the speed of the cross, and you’d have to have VAR drawing more ****ing lines to measure and then the team who’s defender was 10.5 yards will be moaning that is not far enough etc

There are far too many variables in football for the laws to be specific, so at best they’re a guide for referees to interpret. There’s always going to be subjectivity and differences of opinion on decisions as a result.

I wonder, if over time and with advanced technology if AI it would be possible to make those calls… AI already can score points in boxing - Al sit in a more confined space….

I mean just imagine the looks on the faces one the Glasgow2 cronies if rules could be consistently applied?!

[Speedy]

Fair point on reflection:agree:

I still think there is some potential for educating fans and pundits on handball. If anything, this thread shows that there is not a clear understanding of what a handball foul is.

Fans education on the subject isn't made any easier by them changing the rules every other season. Or as someone pointed out, interpretations being different across different governing bodies (I imagine there are many who at least watch UCL, Scottish domestic, English domestic, and internationals).

And another pedant's point here, but does how one make one's body 'unnaturally bigger'.

[ChilliEater]

And another pedant's point here, but does how one make one's body 'unnaturally bigger'.

Steroids 💪 😆

[Kato]

Fans education on the subject isn't made any easier by them changing the rules every other season. Or as someone pointed out, interpretations being different across different governing bodies (I imagine there are many who at least watch UCL, Scottish domestic, English domestic, and internationals).

And another pedant's point here, but does how one make one's body 'unnaturally bigger'.Pies

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[LaMotta]

Weekly Sky Sports piece with Dermot Gallagher which covers the 3 handball pen incidents from Scotland this weekend.
https://x.com/ScotlandSky/status/1883846406508548301?t=7TxwHn2pZj_dg8mDTmTmKQ&s=19

[Kato]

Weekly Sky Sports piece with Dermot Gallagher which covers the 3 handball pen incidents from Scotland this weekend.
https://x.com/ScotlandSky/status/1883846406508548301?t=7TxwHn2pZj_dg8mDTmTmKQ&s=19...yet they don't look 2 seconds before the cross to see how Ross Co gain possession.

Sloppy show.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[MKHIBEE]

Weekly Sky Sports piece with Dermot Gallagher which covers the 3 handball pen incidents from Scotland this weekend.
https://x.com/ScotlandSky/status/1883846406508548301?t=7TxwHn2pZj_dg8mDTmTmKQ&s=19
I haven’t watched the clip but I’m going to guys that Gallagher calls the 2 in the Hibs game as “soft but I can’t see why he gave them”

[danhibees1875]

I honestly don't know the handball rule so there's a chance it should have been given but I'd like to have seen a common sense "no penalty" considering the the ball was travelling out for a goal kick and the handball actually necessitated a save. I understand why a rule might try to veer away from being subjective like that though and not be about where the ball was going.

If the rule about the handball occurring immediately after the ball is played by another player/part of the body still holds true then I would say there is an argument that no touch of the ball when one would be expected is effectively the same as a touch of the ball...

Second one, probably a penalty.

[LaMotta]

I haven’t watched the clip but I’m going to guys that Gallagher calls the 2 in the Hibs game as “soft but I can’t see why he gave them”

He doesn't cover the Jordan Smith penalty incident, just handball ones from different games. He says the Ross County one and the St Johnstone are both correct decisions though.

I notice on a separate clip though he tries to claim the Hearts first goal was correct to allow (when Kabangu was offside in the build up) - you even have Hearts fans disagreeing with him on that. He is all over the place Gallagher on a weekly basis. Sue Smith and Stephen Warnock are also both total slavers.

[TrinityHFC]

I haven’t watched the clip but I’m going to guys that Gallagher calls the 2 in the Hibs game as “soft but I can’t see why he gave them”

They dismissed the Hibs game one as the clip they showed was the one where it looked like he moved his arm to knock the ball away. It followed another one I think St Johnstone where the player did move his arm to the ball rather than comparing to the Rangers one.

[WhileTheChief..]

People surely aren’t now arguing that the ball bouncing off the pitch negates the handball :faf:

Next we’ll have folk telling us it’s not a handball because the ball had a bit of swerve or backspin on it, or that a foul isn’t a foul because the ball bobbled beforehand.

Been brilliant reading through this thread!!

Not sure what the point of it is though. Just seems like a lot of bumping guys for the sake of it.

[gbhibby]

Just paused the 2nd penalty at the point of contact and the ball is just out of play, would have to see the camera on the 18 yard line at that end to confirm. Highlights did not show a replay from that camera. Wonder if VAR looked at that.

[wookie70]

Just paused the 2nd penalty at the point of contact and the ball is just out of play, would have to see the camera on the 18 yard line at that end to confirm. Highlights did not show a replay from that camera. Wonder if VAR looked at that.

I did the same and the ball is clearly still in play. It actually bounces in play after contact is made. I wish we got a side on angle to see how much of the contact was initiated by the County player. The more I watch it the more I think it is a pen.

28475

[HarpOnHibee]

I did the same and the ball is clearly still in play. It actually bounces in play after contact is made. I wish we got a side on angle to see how much of the contact was initiated by the County player. The more I watch it the more I think it is a pen.

28475

Ball definitely not fully over the line before the contact. However, the shot was already taken before the contact was made and the contact had no impact on the ball going out of play. I could understand the penalty being given if the contact had an effect on the shot or prevented the ball from remaining in play. But neither of those were the case. The contact followed a shot that was hit wide of the goal and was always heading out at that point, regardless of the contact.

[wookie70]

Ball definitely not fully over the line before the contact. However, the shot was already taken before the contact was made and the contact had no impact on the ball going out of play. I could understand the penalty being given if the contact had an effect on the shot or prevented the ball from remaining in play. But neither of those were the case. The contact followed a shot that was hit wide of the goal and was always heading out at that point, regardless of the contact.

As long as the ball is in play where it is is irrelevant. Very similar to when a penalty is given for a pull on an attacker at a corner when the attacker is miles away from the ball. Another situation when pre VAR I doubt they ever give a pen as the Keeper never changed the outcome of the shot. I'm still not convinced it was just a coming together with the striker making as much contact one way while he was already on the way down. I think SDG has talked about the pen the best. Bowie made a poor choice dribbling, Obita was poor not even trying to stop the cross and Rocky never tracked the man. Smith should never really have been involved if the outfield players did their jobs and for me one of our biggest weaknesses is Obita letting crosses in.

[gbhibby]

As long as the ball is in play where it is is irrelevant. Very similar to when a penalty is given for a pull on an attacker at a corner when the attacker is miles away from the ball. Another situation when pre VAR I doubt they ever give a pen as the Keeper never changed the outcome of the shot. I'm still not convinced it was just a coming together with the striker making as much contact one way while he was already on the way down. I think SDG has talked about the pen the best. Bowie made a poor choice dribbling, Obita was poor not even trying to stop the cross and Rocky never tracked the man. Smith should never really have been involved if the outfield players did their jobs and for me one of our biggest weaknesses is Obita letting crosses in.This was my photo Chris Cadden tells the ref the ball was out of play by the looks of things in the highlights, if VAR is looking at this from this angle you cannot tell. But there was another angle from a camera on the line of the 18 yards box. Surely VAR should have looked at this as if there is a goal scored after the ball has crossed the bye line its looked at and chalked off as the ball is dead. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250127/cf5aa4711b3de4c568c490d1accf7643.jpg

Sent from my SM-A127F using Tapatalk

[Donegal Hibby]

The penalties… first one is there anything to be gained by the Hibs player handling it ? Is it intentional ? And is his arms in an unnatural position? . IMO the answers are NO . It’s accidental , ball to hand rather than hand to ball . This thing about arms being in an unnatural position is crazy when players are running / jumping in they now have to be penguins… handball rule is really bad in its creating more problems than enough and needs looked at urgently.

[HoboHarry]

The penalties… first one is there anything to be gained by the Hibs player handling it ? Is it intentional ? And is his arms in an unnatural position? . IMO the answers are NO . It’s accidental , ball to hand rather than hand to ball . This thing about arms being in an unnatural position is crazy when players are running / jumping in they now have to be penguins… handball rule is really bad in its creating more problems than enough and needs looked at urgently.

I've said a hundred times, these committees that invent these nonsense laws and guidelines have an eye on next year so they have to come back and fix the sheite they made up this year. Job security.

[JeMeSouviens]

This was my photo Chris Cadden tells the ref the ball was out of play by the looks of things in the highlights, if VAR is looking at this from this angle you cannot tell. But there was another angle from a camera on the line of the 18 yards box. Surely VAR should have looked at this as if there is a goal scored after the ball has crossed the bye line its looked at and chalked off as the ball is dead. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250127/cf5aa4711b3de4c568c490d1accf7643.jpg

Sent from my SM-A127F using Tapatalk

https://i.ibb.co/JqYg25r/Screenshot-2025-01-28-at-10-21-44.png

It's nowhere near out of play and a pretty clear pen. Yes, the County guy is playing for it but that's not against the rules.

Main culprit for me is Triantis, who had an otherwise good game, trying to dribble the ball up to half way. Hopefully he learns from it.

[JeMeSouviens]

The penalties… first one is there anything to be gained by the Hibs player handling it ? Is it intentional ? And is his arms in an unnatural position? . IMO the answers are NO . It’s accidental , ball to hand rather than hand to ball . This thing about arms being in an unnatural position is crazy when players are running / jumping in they now have to be penguins… handball rule is really bad in its creating more problems than enough and needs looked at urgently.

Answers are no, no and yes. Sadly the first 2 answers are irrelevant. The motivation behind "unnatural position" is to stop defenders jumping into blocks with their arms up. I think the motivation is decent because it's aimed at allowing more goals to be scored but the uninintended consequence is farcical situations like Saturday. It's a daft pen but nonetheless a pen. If Hibs have a case for VAR in this one then it's for the clear foul on Josh Campbell in the build up. Neither VAR or our thoroughly exhaustive BBC analysts seem to have looked at that. :rolleyes:

[LaMotta]

Answers are no, no and yes. Sadly the first 2 answers are irrelevant. The motivation behind "unnatural position" is to stop defenders jumping into blocks with their arms up. I think the motivation is decent because it's aimed at allowing more goals to be scored but the uninintended consequence is farcical situations like Saturday. It's a daft pen but nonetheless a pen. If Hibs have a case for VAR in this one then it's for the clear foul on Josh Campbell in the build up. Neither VAR or our thoroughly exhaustive BBC analysts seem to have looked at that. :rolleyes:

Absolutely correct. There have been some pretty wild reasons being provided by people to look for an injustice on the handball front. As you say the Josh Campbell foul is the only logical reason against a penalty.

[Donegal Hibby]

Answers are no, no and yes. Sadly the first 2 answers are irrelevant. The motivation behind "unnatural position" is to stop defenders jumping into blocks with their arms up. I think the motivation is decent because it's aimed at allowing more goals to be scored but the uninintended consequence is farcical situations like Saturday. It's a daft pen but nonetheless a pen. If Hibs have a case for VAR in this one then it's for the clear foul on Josh Campbell in the build up. Neither VAR or our thoroughly exhaustive BBC analysts seem to have looked at that. :rolleyes:

The first two should be irrelevant IMO as it’s just applying some common sense as there’s nothing to be gained by handling the ball in fact the balls not even goal bound until it hits the Hibs player hand which near leads to a own goal.

I disagree about this “ unnatural position “ as I think our player is trying to turn and using his arms in a natural way . It’s far more a “unnatural position “ seeing defenders either arms down their sides or behind their backs when defending, sports like athletics it’s natural to use your arms and football is no different in there’s running and jumping in it too …

Which brings us to this handball rule which really is farcical and making a mockery of the game . It’s much worse than the previous rule as there’s times now when players are trying to blast the ball of an opponent to get a penalty.

It’s a crazy rule that certainly hasn’t improved the game in fact I’m of the opinion that it’s made it worse .

[TrinityHFC]

Answers are no, no and yes. Sadly the first 2 answers are irrelevant. The motivation behind "unnatural position" is to stop defenders jumping into blocks with their arms up. I think the motivation is decent because it's aimed at allowing more goals to be scored but the uninintended consequence is farcical situations like Saturday. It's a daft pen but nonetheless a pen. If Hibs have a case for VAR in this one then it's for the clear foul on Josh Campbell in the build up. Neither VAR or our thoroughly exhaustive BBC analysts seem to have looked at that. :rolleyes:

Cadden was nowhere close to jumping into a block with his arm up though - it hit him while he was doing a natural movement.

The wording of the laws was posted earlier - it really doesn’t fall into the definitions at all - yet we still have some folk applying their own perspectives on what the laws mean and telling us all we just need educated.

[JeMeSouviens]

Cadden was nowhere close to jumping into a block with his arm up though - it hit him while he was doing a natural movement.

The wording of the laws was posted earlier - it really doesn’t fall into the definitions at all - yet we still have some folk applying their own perspectives on what the laws mean and telling us all we just need educated.

I didn't say he was. I think he's doing an unnatural movement, ironically, to try and get his arm out the way. It's farcical and shows how crap the new law actually is, but nonetheless it's handball by the law. Anyway, since Campbell was clearly kneed in the backside while trying to control the ball on his chest, it ought to be moot.

[B.H.F.C]

The first two should be irrelevant IMO as it’s just applying some common sense as there’s nothing to be gained by handling the ball in fact the balls not even goal bound until it hits the Hibs player hand which near leads to a own goal.

I disagree about this “ unnatural position “ as I think our player is trying to turn and using his arms in a natural way . It’s far more a “unnatural position “ seeing defenders either arms down their sides or behind their backs when defending, sports like athletics it’s natural to use your arms and football is no different in there’s running and jumping in it too …

Which brings us to this handball rule which really is farcical and making a mockery of the game . It’s much worse than the previous rule as there’s times now when players are trying to blast the ball of an opponent to get a penalty.

It’s a crazy rule that certainly hasn’t improved the game in fact I’m of the opinion that it’s made it worse .

Whenever there is a handball for a penalty these days there seems to be a lot of talk about how farcical the rule is. I really just don’t see it with this one. If the ball strikes someone’s hand in when their hand is in that type of position I think there would have been shouts for a penalty 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago or whatever.

Honestly think if it was the other way round and we didn’t get it there would be outrage about it!

[Paulie Walnuts]

Honestly think if it was the other way round and we didn’t get it there would be outrage about it!

There absolutely would.

[LaMotta]

Cadden was nowhere close to jumping into a block with his arm up though - it hit him while he was doing a natural movement.

The wording of the laws was posted earlier - it really doesn’t fall into the definitions at all - yet we still have some folk applying their own perspectives on what the laws mean and telling us all we just need educated.

But that's exactly what you are doing here in terms of what constitutes making yourself unnaturally bigger. You have decided Cadden hasn't made himself unnaturally bigger based on your interpretation/perspective of what the wording means. Referees interpretation of Cadden's movement (and what they have been taught) are that his outstretched arm is making him unnaturally bigger - and therefore it should be a handball foul.

I hope this incident is covered in the end of month VAR review on youtube that Matty F has mentioned so we can hear directly from Collum on it.

[Donegal Hibby]

Whenever there is a handball for a penalty these days there seems to be a lot of talk about how farcical the rule is. I really just don’t see it with this one. If the ball strikes someone’s hand in when their hand is in that type of position I think there would have been shouts for a penalty 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago or whatever.

Honestly think if it was the other way round and we didn’t get it there would be outrage about it!

The rule is farcical because we are now witnessing defenders having to defend like penguins or with their hands behind their backs in case the ball is blasted at their arms / hands in an unnatural position . I don’t think I ever seen a athlete doing the long jump, high jump or one running a 100 metres with his / her arms rigidly down their sides or behind their backs in a natural position…

I think there was more common sense applied before this rule in decisions were made on is it hand to ball or ball to hand which should have been used in this incident (2:20 ) in ….

https://www.skysports.com/football/video/33727/13086293/jorge-grants-penalty-give-hearts-the-lead-against-celtic

The Cadden handball is accidental where there’s nothing to be gained by him handling it as it’s probably going out for a goal kick . It’s ball to hand and not a deliberate hand to ball which I think even the other way round shouldn’t be given either…

Just about Cadden giving it away , he was also in a face mask because he was caught unintentionally by an opponent’s elbow while he was jumping which is a natural position. If it had happened outside the box we’d have probably got a free kick though because it was in the box we didn’t get anything which might suggest different rules are applied in and out of the box too .

[B.H.F.C]

The rule is farcical because we are now witnessing defenders having to defend like penguins or with their hands behind their backs in case the ball is blasted at their arms / hands in an unnatural position . I don’t think I ever seen a athlete doing the long jump, high jump or one running a 100 metres with his / her arms rigidly down their sides or behind their backs in a natural position…

I think there was more common sense applied before this rule in decisions were made on is it hand to ball or ball to hand which should have been used in this incident (2:20 ) in ….

https://www.skysports.com/football/video/33727/13086293/jorge-grants-penalty-give-hearts-the-lead-against-celtic

The Cadden handball is accidental where there’s nothing to be gained by him handling it as it’s probably going out for a goal kick . It’s ball to hand and not a deliberate hand to ball which I think even the other way round shouldn’t be given either…

Just about Cadden giving it away , he was also in a face mask because he was caught unintentionally by an opponent’s elbow while he was jumping which is a natural position. If it had happened outside the box we’d have probably got a free kick though because it was in the box we didn’t get anything which might suggest different rules are applied in and out of the box too .

Deliberate or not doesn’t matter. I’d suggest a tiny percentage of penalties given for handball haven’t been deliberate. Just as the vast majority of fouls aren’t deliberate, doesn’t make them any less of a foul.

I thought we should have had a penalty when Cadden got elbowed in the face as well by the way. Subjective though and sometimes you’ll get it sometimes you won’t.

[Donegal Hibby]

Deliberate or not doesn’t matter. I’d suggest a tiny percentage of penalties given for handball haven’t been deliberate. Just as the vast majority of fouls aren’t deliberate, doesn’t make them any less of a foul.

I thought we should have had a penalty when Cadden got elbowed in the face as well by the way. Subjective though and sometimes you’ll get it sometimes you won’t.

That’s where our opinions are so different I suppose in its my opinion that a accidental handball shouldn’t be given like Cadden’s or the one against Celtic and I don’t believe running , jumping or defending your box having your arms down your sides or behind your back is a natural position at all and I do think Cadden’s are in a natural position as is the Celtic players too and both in no way are deliberately trying to handle the ball . Handball rule has became more complicated and silly due to someone over thinking on how to make it better which they clearly haven’t.

[matty_f]

That’s where our opinions are so different I suppose in its my opinion that a accidental handball shouldn’t be given like Cadden’s or the one against Celtic and I don’t believe running , jumping or defending your box having your arms down your sides or behind your back is a natural position at all and I do think Cadden’s are in a natural position as is the Celtic players too and both in no way are deliberately trying to handle the ball . Handball rule has became more complicated and silly due to someone over thinking on how to make it better which they clearly haven’t.

I’ve seen a few folk mention that he didn’t have anything to gain from it, that’s irrelevant unfortunately. As is the fact nobody claimed for it etc.

I think it’s harsh on Cadden, he didn’t mean it but those ones are given routinely in Scotland and it’s telling that there’s very little neutral opinion to say it was an outrageously bad decision.

[Callum_62]

I’ve seen a few folk mention that he didn’t have anything to gain from it, that’s irrelevant unfortunately. As is the fact nobody claimed for it etc.

I think it’s harsh on Cadden, he didn’t mean it but those ones are given routinely in Scotland and it’s telling that there’s very little neutral opinion to say it was an outrageously bad decision.The whole sport scene panel said it's never a penalty

That includes Steven Naismith

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[matty_f]

The whole sport scene panel said it's never a penalty

That includes Steven Naismith

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
That’s not the same as saying it was an outrageously bad decision. I think you can see from the split even on this thread that some folk think it is and some don’t, in such case it’s not a shocker.

I say this as someone who’s already said I thought it was harsh, btw.

[Pete70]

The whole sport scene panel said it's never a penalty

That includes Steven Naismith

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

Just to counter that. The whole Sky ref watch panel said it was.

[TrinityHFC]

Just to counter that. The whole Sky ref watch panel said it was.

Yeah it wasn’t the most in depth look. They pretty much said he moved his arm to knock the ball away which of course he didn’t.

[Donegal Hibby]

I’ve seen a few folk mention that he didn’t have anything to gain from it, that’s irrelevant unfortunately. As is the fact nobody claimed for it etc.

I think it’s harsh on Cadden, he didn’t mean it but those ones are given routinely in Scotland and it’s telling that there’s very little neutral opinion to say it was an outrageously bad decision.

Your right in he didn’t have anything to gain from it being irrelevant and you could say even though it’s totally accidental that is irrelevant too though that’s where the current handball rule falls down for me as these things should be irrelevant when it comes to what is deliberate or accidental in giving out penalties for handball..

I don’t buy into the “ his arms are in an unnatural position “ either as Cadden is running and swinging both arms which I think everyone does when running. I’ve actually seen in a few games where a player has blasted a ball at the defender in trying to win a penalty and for me I’d like to see some common sense applied to the rule though how you’d get the likes of Kevin Clancy and his chums to apply that might need a miracle right enough 😂

[Paulie Walnuts]

Time to just make any contact with the hand a foul and be done with it.

[Donegal Hibby]

Time to just make any contact with the hand a foul and be done with it.

As the rules stand on it at this stage we aren’t far off that now unfortunately! .

[MacGruber]

As the rules stand on it at this stage we aren’t far off that now unfortunately! .

Completely agree with you on this. Just watched the Hibs Observer view on it aswell which is in line with my own thoughts. I'm fully accepting many think it is a definite pen, I'm just in the other camp. What I think most would agree on is there is too much vagueness in the rules.

[JimBHibees]

January var review an interesting watch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q8B-iFpyBtM

[LaMotta]

But that's exactly what you are doing here in terms of what constitutes making yourself unnaturally bigger. You have decided Cadden hasn't made himself unnaturally bigger based on your interpretation/perspective of what the wording means. Referees interpretation of Cadden's movement (and what they have been taught) are that his outstretched arm is making him unnaturally bigger - and therefore it should be a handball foul.

I hope this incident is covered in the end of month VAR review on youtube that Matty F has mentioned so we can hear directly from Collum on it.

February VAR review out now and it covers the Nicky Cadden handball at 10 mins 40 secs in.
https://youtu.be/ozANmrSfq-M?si=v0qje64QEoVV_DUn

Collum explains clearly that the handball decision was absolutely correct and that a penalty should always be awarded in that situation.

Hopefully that will put to bed the idea we were hard done by on the handball decision.

Interestingly the Var officials do look at the challenge on Campbell in the build up and rule out a foul. I thought it was a clear foul at the time but it looks less like one from the side angle in VAR (which i dont think was shown on tv at the time).

No analysis of the later penalty with the Smith challenge.

[matty_f]

February VAR review out now and it covers the Nicky Cadden handball at 10 mins 40 secs in.

Collum explains clearly that the handball decision was absolutely correct and that a penalty should always be awarded in that situation.

Hopefully that will put to bed the idea we were hard done by on the handball decision.

Interestingly the Var officials do look at the challenge on Campbell in the build up and rule out a foul. I thought it was a clear foul at the time but it looks less like one from the side angle in VAR (which i dont think was shown on tv at the time).

No analysis of the later penalty with the Smith challenge.

I like the VAR Review show, I think when you watch it and hear what went on in an incident like this one then if definitely helps inform you for the next one.

I argued at the time that I thought the reason VAR called the ref to the monitor was because he hadn’t seen the handball rather than because he thought it wasn’t a penalty, which is clearly the case when you hear the audio.

I still don’t like the decision, I think it’s wrong to ignore the bounce and the fact that Cadden can’t tell until the last moment that the attacker won’t get any contact on it but that’s neither here nor there, the explanation is clear as to why it was a penalty, and it’s clear that VAR did what it should as well in that it highlighted a potential offence to the referee, who hadn’t seen the incident at all in real time.

It’s interesting that the KMI panel totally contradicts the referee’s views though - they were 4/1 against it being a penalty, and this perhaps reflects the fact that it’s not referees on the panel.

[B.H.F.C]

February VAR review out now and it covers the Nicky Cadden handball at 10 mins 40 secs in.
https://youtu.be/ozANmrSfq-M?si=v0qje64QEoVV_DUn

Collum explains clearly that the handball decision was absolutely correct and that a penalty should always be awarded in that situation.

Hopefully that will put to bed the idea we were hard done by on the handball decision.

Interestingly the Var officials do look at the challenge on Campbell in the build up and rule out a foul. I thought it was a clear foul at the time but it looks less like one from the side angle in VAR (which i dont think was shown on tv at the time).

No analysis of the later penalty with the Smith challenge.

The handball is a handball.

But I’d be questioning the VAR on what he said. The assistant VAR points out the potential foul in the build up and his exact words are “it would have went Hibs way though”. That should have been the whole point of checking it! He then calls the ref to the monitor and says he was checking the APP whilst he was making his way over. But you do that before you call them over surely. That was never properly checked.

[LaMotta]

I like the VAR Review show, I think when you watch it and hear what went on in an incident like this one then if definitely helps inform you for the next one.

I argued at the time that I thought the reason VAR called the ref to the monitor was because he hadn’t seen the handball rather than because he thought it wasn’t a penalty, which is clearly the case when you hear the audio.

I still don’t like the decision, I think it’s wrong to ignore the bounce and the fact that Cadden can’t tell until the last moment that the attacker won’t get any contact on it but that’s neither here nor there, the explanation is clear as to why it was a penalty, and it’s clear that VAR did what it should as well in that it highlighted a potential offence to the referee, who hadn’t seen the incident at all in real time.

It’s interesting that the KMI panel totally contradicts the referee’s views though - they were 4/1 against it being a penalty, and this perhaps reflects the fact that it’s not referees on the panel.

What do you mean by the bit in bold Matty? What is KMI panel?

Cheers for bringing the VAR review to our attention by the way, I wasn't aware of it and its an interesting watch. The audio on the Diamonde Red Card for the Huns at Tannadice is pretty interesting. Nick Walsh being clearly advised that it shouldn't be a red card, but he's clearly not liking being questioned and convincing himself there was a slap to the face to continue with the red.



The handball is a handball.

But I’d be questioning the VAR on what he said. The assistant VAR points out the potential foul in the build up and his exact words are “it would have went Hibs way though”. That should have been the whole point of checking it! He then calls the ref to the monitor and says he was checking the APP whilst he was making his way over. But you do that before you call them over surely. That was never properly checked.

Agree with all this.

[Kato]

February VAR review out now and it covers the Nicky Cadden handball at 10 mins 40 secs in.
https://youtu.be/ozANmrSfq-M?si=v0qje64QEoVV_DUn

Collum explains clearly that the handball decision was absolutely correct and that a penalty should always be awarded in that situation.

Hopefully that will put to bed the idea we were hard done by on the handball decision.

Interestingly the Var officials do look at the challenge on Campbell in the build up and rule out a foul. I thought it was a clear foul at the time but it looks less like one from the side angle in VAR (which i dont think was shown on tv at the time).

No analysis of the later penalty with the Smith challenge.The challenge on Campbell still looks like a foul from the angle we were first shown.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Callum_62]

February VAR review out now and it covers the Nicky Cadden handball at 10 mins 40 secs in.
https://youtu.be/ozANmrSfq-M?si=v0qje64QEoVV_DUn

Collum explains clearly that the handball decision was absolutely correct and that a penalty should always be awarded in that situation.

Hopefully that will put to bed the idea we were hard done by on the handball decision.

Interestingly the Var officials do look at the challenge on Campbell in the build up and rule out a foul. I thought it was a clear foul at the time but it looks less like one from the side angle in VAR (which i dont think was shown on tv at the time).

No analysis of the later penalty with the Smith challenge.I'm very surprised they didn't check for offside on Jordan White

Looked incredible tight and he impacts the game

Looks like an oversight to me

The cursory check on the Campbell foul is a bit odd too - he's kneed in the back

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[LaMotta]

The challenge on Campbell still looks like a foul from the angle we were first shown.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk


I'm very surprised they didn't check for offside on Jordan White

Looked incredible tight and he impacts the game

Looks like an oversight to me

The cursory check on the Campbell foul is a bit odd too - he's kneed in the back

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

Agree re original angle on Campbell looked like a clear foul. Cant make my mind up n the angle used by VAR in the clip above.

Good spot re the Jordan White possible offside. Cant rule out he was offside from the footage, and as you say they didnt seem to even check. When ball is kicked looks like he could be infront of Rocky. Not sure if Hibs player at back post playing him on possibly.

[Phil MaGlass]

It wouldn't have mattered had it went to VAR same biased incompetent refs doing the VAR, we wouldn't have got anything. So keep the VAR and the highlights as it shows how biased and incompetent, they west coast f,ers are in Scotland.

[A Hi-Bee]

Time to just make any contact with the hand a foul and be done with it.

Whatever happened to ball played man (or can we no say that now) along wi some common sense would go a long way in todays game.

[wookie70]

If you ignore the foul on Campbell then I have no issue with the comments on teh Cadden handball by the Var officials or Collum. However teh comment on it being a foul on Hibs are hilarious and almost match what I see with refs at our games. That's a foul on Hibs so lets ignore it. The foul, and it was a foul on Campbell appears to have been ignored because they must have thought it was Hibs ending up with the penalty No idea what else they could have meant.

The Hearts goal should be an instant removal from refereeing. On first viewing it is obvious he is offside and then he blatantly gets in the way/fouls the Killie defender. That is about as easy as offside decisions of that type get and at least the called it out albeit using the point the clip was viewed from as an excuse. Hate to say it but I agree with most things Collum says and he is a pretty good communicator. Those in the VAR box are horrendous, overexcited balloons