Good or bad or corrupt refereeing?

[Hibbyradge]

Carlton Cole, who was booked in the first half, has just deliberately handled the ball, above his head, in the middle of the park.

The referee have a foul but didn't issue a second yellow card.

The pundits agreed that the ref was right because sending him off for such a trivial offence would have spoiled the game.

What do you think?

[Hibbyradge]

That should say 'gave' a foul. Damm phone.

[Removed]

If deliberate hand ball is normally a booking then why is it trivial in this instance. It's that inconsistency that gets us all

To deliberately handle the ball while on a yellow is just stupid unless it would have stopped a clear goal

[blackpoolhibs]

In England its incompetance, and he will be reprimanded for that. In Scotland its corruption.

[Dunbar Hibee]

Don't think it was intentional tbh. Correct decision.

[delbert]

The referee was 100% incorrect, it was a clear cautionable offence, the fact that its his second caution does'nt matter a jot, no wonder refs are labelled as inconsistent, had he not already been cautioned the card would have been out pronto, therefore its utterly inconsistent. Even if you tried to argue it was'nt deliberate, the arm is in an unnatural position, its a caution, first or second it just does'nt matter. It also shows why pundits are complete morons who know nothing at all about the rules, they judge a referees performance as good or bad on the number of cards he has, which is utter nonsense, its about control and correctness of decision.

English refs are under a lot of pressure though, they are full time, and are actively encouraged (ie pressured) to try to keep guys on the park where possible, but one thing it is not is corruption, thats just crap, threads with titles like this belong on Kerrydale Street, or Sickbag.

[Removed]

Don't see what is wrong with the thread or the title

[Hibs Class]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The referee was 100% incorrect, it was a clear cautionable offence, the fact that its his second caution does'nt matter a jot, no wonder refs are labelled as inconsistent, had he not already been cautioned the card would have been out pronto, therefore its utterly inconsistent. Even if you tried to argue it was'nt deliberate, the arm is in an unnatural position, its a caution, first or second it just does'nt matter. It also shows why pundits are complete morons who know nothing at all about the rules, they judge a referees performance as good or bad on the number of cards he has, which is utter nonsense, its about control and correctness of decision.

English refs are under a lot of pressure though, they are full time, and are actively encouraged (ie pressured) to try to keep guys on the park where possible, but one thing it is not is corruption, thats just crap, threads with titles like this belong on Kerrydale Street, or Sickbag.

The ref was not 100% incorrect and it was not a clear cautionable offence. The Laws state:

"There are circumstances when a caution for unsporting behaviour is required
when a player deliberately handles the ball, e.g. when a player:

• deliberately and blatantly handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining
possession
• attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball

A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from
the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable
and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored."

I've seen similar handballs leading to bookings and no bookings in the past and there may have been a degree of leniency today, but it most definitely was not a black and white case.

[johnrebus]

Was the ref a Proddy or a Tim?

[Geo_1875]

Can never understand why referees are praised by pundits for keeping players on the park. Their job is to apply the laws of the game in an evenhanded manner.

[grunt]

Didn't help West Ham, anyway. They're useless!!

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

but one thing it is not is corruption, thats just crap, threads with titles like this belong on Kerrydale Street, or Sickbag.

The thread title is a question. The "corrupt" part is pretty much rhetorical.

Of course the decision today wasn't corrupt. Right or wrong, it was a decision based on the refs genuine belief, interpretation and intention.

That's the point of the thread.

If it had happened in Scotland, particularly if it had involved Celtic or Rangers, there would be no end to the GFA, anti-Celtic, pro-Old Firm conspiracy theories.

But the fact is, it's just folk doing their best.

[KiddA]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Carlton Cole, who was booked in the first half, has just deliberately handled the ball, above his head, in the middle of the park.

The referee have a foul but didn't issue a second yellow card.

The pundits agreed that the ref was right because sending him off for such a trivial offence would have spoiled the game.

What do you think?

Never seen it but I do remember Willie Miller getting sent off at Raith when Duffy was in charge for a deliberate hand ball. I also remember while Miller was passing Duffy, Duffy had his hands up saying why and Miller told him to f### off.

[markom127]

the refs should not give different decisions because the foul is in or out the box or

the player is already booked ect. The ref should be consistant ie. a push outside the

box is a freekick then a push inside the box should be a pen

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Never seen it but I do remember Willie Miller getting sent off at Raith when Duffy was in charge for a deliberate hand ball. I also remember while Miller was passing Duffy, Duffy had his hands up saying why and Miller told him to f### off.

I recall that Miller instinctively put up his hand s to stop a ball going out for a throw in. He received a second yellow and was sent off.

It wasn't at Raith. The only match Hibs played at Raith under Duffy was the 2-2 end of season match that condemned Hibs to the play-offs against Airdrie.

I think that the sending off was against Dundee.

[CB_NO3]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I recall that Miller instinctively put up his hand s to stop a ball going out for a throw in. He received a second yellow and was sent off.

It wasn't at Raith. The only match Hibs played at Raith under Duffy was the 2-2 end of season match that condemned Hibs to the play-offs against Airdrie.

I think that the sending off was against Dundee.

It was Dunfermline away at East End Park. Am sure we got beat 3 0.

[francobaresi]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Was the ref a Proddy or a Tim?

lol

[Irish_Steve]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It was Dunfermline away at East End Park. Am sure we got beat 3 0.

Yep, defo againast the Pars - the ball was going for a throw, Willie was virtually standing on the touchline and he caught it before the ball went over the line so the ref booked him leading to him being sent off - and yes, he did tell Duffy to eff off too

[Joe Baker II]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It was Dunfermline away at East End Park. Am sure we got beat 3 0.

Was right in front of Willie Miller at this game (he was also in my class at schol!) - I think the score was 2-1 though (Pars were 2 up at one stage I think) and I am still never to see us win a non-friendly game at East End.

Was also the lowest Hibs support I think I have seen at East End - less than 700 I think out of crowd of around 7,000.