Stonewaller???

[basehibby]

I was sat in the Famous Five last night and had a clear view of the penalty incident on Holt. For me it was as stoney a stonewall penalty as I'd ever seen - also preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity meaning the Brondby defender should have been sent of. And yet the guy behind me was of the opinion that it was a dive!

Opinions???

[Speedy]

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

I was sat in the Famous Five last night and had a clear view of the penalty incident on Holt. For me it was as stoney a stonewall penalty as I'd ever seen - also preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity meaning the Brondby defender should have been sent of. And yet the guy behind me was of the opinion that it was a dive!

Opinions???

I was near the top of FF so can't say for definite whether it was a pen or dive but it certainly wasn't a legal challenge / honest stumble so should've been a booking if not a pen.

[CapitalGreen]

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

I was sat in the Famous Five last night and had a clear view of the penalty incident on Holt. For me it was as stoney a stonewall penalty as I'd ever seen - also preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity meaning the Brondby defender should have been sent of. And yet the guy behind me was of the opinion that it was a dive!

Opinions???

Haven't seen the replay but I believe it is no longer a sending off of the defender made a valid attempt at playing the ball.

[OsloHibs]

It was a dive for me too. Holt went down far too easy.

[Pretty Boy]

It was either a dive or a penalty.

Somehow the ref seemed to decide it was neither, one of a few strange decisions.

[Oscar T Grouch]

From my seat in Sect38 looked like a stonewaller, but you don't get replays when you sit in the stands. Would like to see a replay of the incident and the offside goal too. Officials last night were terrible

[Smartie]

It was a dive and a penalty.

There was enough contact to put Holt off but he made a meal of it.

I reckon he could have brushed it off and put the ball away - he'd shown a lovely touch to get into the position in the first place.

The referee was probably put off by the theatrics and didn't see enough of the contact to give the penalty.

I actually though there was another one in the second half when Cummings was just inside but leaving the box on the right hand side. The defender gave him a very heavy nudge and I'd have liked to have seen him go down and give the ref something else to think about. Instead he kept on his feet and the incident passed without any real comment.

[1987kev]

Sitting in the east straight away I said dive

[JeMeSouviens]

Depends what you mean by a dive. There looked to be contact which Holt was expecting and duly crashed to the turf.

It's a dilemma in the modern game. You don't get penalties if you don't go down and you don't know how much the contact is going to put you off so the less risky option is to go down for the pen. It's not going to change unless/until refs are brave enough to start giving pens to players who try to stay on their feet. Ideally they should play advantage and if the striker stays up but doesn't score, bring it back to a pen.

[Franck Stanton]

From my seat in FF upper behind goal looked a stonewaller to me. Holt was clean through on keeper in control of the ball, had no reason to dive, if challenge hadn't come in would have scorted. Then to cap it all, no penalty award , defender not even spoken to never mind carded. It was either a penalty or a dive, IF ref considered it a dive-why no booking ? The ref and his linesmen were terrible all game. REALLY TERRIBLE. At one point there were so many hand-balls by the Brondby team I thought they had sent the Brondby Basketball Team . We wiz robbed.

[Smartie]

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

Depends what you mean by a dive. There looked to be contact which Holt was expecting and duly crashed to the turf.

It's a dilemma in the modern game. You don't get penalties if you don't go down and you don't know how much the contact is going to put you off so the less risky option is to go down for the pen. It's not going to change unless/until refs are brave enough to start giving pens to players who try to stay on their feet. Ideally they should play advantage and if the striker stays up but doesn't score, bring it back to a pen.

I think the new rule has changed this a bit.

Before, if you went down for the penalty you might get the man sent off so the defending team is punished twice.

Now if you go down you only get the penalty, which you might miss.

If it's anything like a decent chance (as it was last night) I think I'd be staying on my feet, although if it's not much of a chance in the first place you'd probably be as well going down.

It will be interesting to see how the players adapt and whether or not they will re-train their instincts.

[SeanWilson]

i've not seen it again yet but looked like he dived and if not would have scored if not to me...

[basehibby]

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

It was a dive for me too. Holt went down far too easy.

I don't think how Holt wet down is the issue - the defender dives in for a tackle - completely misses the ball and Holt is left with a dirty great leg between him and a clear goal scoring opportunity - whether he goes down with a pirouete or struggles on manfully having been unfairly impeded is immaterial - it's a clear foul and a penalty

[snooky]

It was a-la Peter Heatly for me.

From Wiki...
Sir Peter Heatly, CBE, DL (9 June 1924 – 17 September 2015) was a Scottish diver and Chairman of the Commonwealth Games Federation.

Born in Leith, Heatly was educated at Leith Academy and studied engineering at the University of Edinburgh. He began his diving career with Portobello Amateur Swimming Club and was self-taught. Heatly dominated diving in Scotland for 21 years, becoming the East of Scotland Champion (1937–39) and Scottish Champion (from 1946 - 1958). Having represented his country around the world, the highlight of Heatly's diving career was winning British Empire and Commonwealth Games gold medals for Scotland for 3 metre springboard diving (1954) and 10 metre highboard diving (1950 and 1958). He also won a silver medal in 1950 for 3 metre springboard diving, and a bronze medal in 1954 for 10 metre highboard diving.

[pacoluna]

Just outlined the incompetence of the refs performance. It was either a pen or a booking for a dive.

[basehibby]

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

It was a-la Peter Heatly for me.

From Wiki...
Sir Peter Heatly, CBE, DL (9 June 1924 – 17 September 2015) was a Scottish diver and Chairman of the Commonwealth Games Federation.

Born in Leith, Heatly was educated at Leith Academy and studied engineering at the University of Edinburgh. He began his diving career with Portobello Amateur Swimming Club and was self-taught. Heatly dominated diving in Scotland for 21 years, becoming the East of Scotland Champion (1937–39) and Scottish Champion (from 1946 - 1958). Having represented his country around the world, the highlight of Heatly's diving career was winning British Empire and Commonwealth Games gold medals for Scotland for 3 metre springboard diving (1954) and 10 metre highboard diving (1950 and 1958). He also won a silver medal in 1950 for 3 metre springboard diving, and a bronze medal in 1954 for 10 metre highboard diving.

I think you're missing the point - if a player is fouled in the box and then goes on to dance the fan-dango with Carmen Miranda before going down, it's still a penalty. the defender clearly missed the ball (by about a yard) and made contact with Holt thus impeding him - therefore it's a penalty.

Fans can easily misinterpret but Refs are supposed to know this.

[Vault Boy]

Holt has always been known for going down easily, but not for diving. It seems like there was contact - it's a penalty.

[Lancs Harp]

Not seen a replay but my initial reaction (from the East section 40) was a dive.

[Future17]

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

I think the new rule has changed this a bit.

Before, if you went down for the penalty you might get the man sent off so the defending team is punished twice.

Now if you go down you only get the penalty, which you might miss.

If it's anything like a decent chance (as it was last night) I think I'd be staying on my feet, although if it's not much of a chance in the first place you'd probably be as well going down.

It will be interesting to see how the players adapt and whether or not they will re-train their instincts.

That's only true if it's a genuine attempt to play the ball (or accidental contact). I think even that was debatable in last night's incident as, with the benefit of a replay, I think the defender knew exactly what he was doing.

[Seveno]

I had a perfect view from the West and he clearly went for it and took a dive.

[easty]

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

I think you're missing the point - if a player is fouled in the box and then goes on to dance the fan-dango with Carmen Miranda before going down, it's still a penalty. the defender clearly missed the ball (by about a yard) and made contact with Holt thus impeding him - therefore it's a penalty.

Fans can easily misinterpret but Refs are supposed to know this.

I'm not a ref, but I'm pretty sure It's not automatically a foul just because there's contact. It's a foul if he's impeded, and he wasn't impeded. He felt a bit of contact and threw himself down. His dive was ****. At the time, and today watching it on the highlights, it in no way looks to me like he was knocked to the ground, or tripped. He could have stayed up, smashed it in the net, collected the ball and ran back to the centre circle with it, to speed the game along and try to get us another.

[dangermouse]

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

I think the new rule has changed this a bit.

Before, if you went down for the penalty you might get the man sent off so the defending team is punished twice.

Now if you go down you only get the penalty, which you might miss.

If it's anything like a decent chance (as it was last night) I think I'd be staying on my feet, although if it's not much of a chance in the first place you'd probably be as well going down.

It will be interesting to see how the players adapt and whether or not they will re-train their instincts.

I think the rule has changed that if you deny a clear goal scoring opportunity in the box it's a penalty and a yellow card. If it's outside the box it's a free kick and a red card.

[FromTheCapital]

Definite contact but Holt made the most of it.

Regardless, I think there was enough contact for it to be a penalty but if not then the referee has to book him.

One mistake in a catalogue of errors from the awful officials last night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Topographic Hibby]

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

Not seen a replay but my initial reaction (from the East section 40) was a dive.

Agreed. Same view and it looked like a dive and a booking, TBH.

[Unseen work]

Imo looked like a dive.

The most pleasing part of it though was seeing Harris get his head down and run at defenders then take them both out with a nice turn. He then had the composure to find holt

[Keyser Sauzee]

I was sitting upper west and almost in line with it and I thought it was a dive when I seen it, haven't seen replay since tho.

Officials were dreadful last night, whats the situation for the return leg is it the same officials for both ties or not?

[Future17]

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

I think the rule has changed that if you deny a clear goal scoring opportunity in the box it's a penalty and a yellow card. If it's outside the box it's a free kick and a red card.

You only get away with a yellow if it's a genuine attempt to play the ball.

[Dashing Bob S]

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

It was a dive and a penalty.

There was enough contact to put Holt off but he made a meal of it.

I reckon he could have brushed it off and put the ball away - he'd shown a lovely touch to get into the position in the first place.

The referee was probably put off by the theatrics and didn't see enough of the contact to give the penalty.

I actually though there was another one in the second half when Cummings was just inside but leaving the box on the right hand side. The defender gave him a very heavy nudge and I'd have liked to have seen him go down and give the ref something else to think about. Instead he kept on his feet and the incident passed without any real comment.

Nutshell. Had he dispensed with the theatrics, I'd might have been given. That said, the referee wasn't very good, so who knows?

[thebigman1875]

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

I was sat in the Famous Five last night and had a clear view of the penalty incident on Holt. For me it was as stoney a stonewall penalty as I'd ever seen - also preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity meaning the Brondby defender should have been sent of. And yet the guy behind me was of the opinion that it was a dive!

Opinions???

I was in the East right in line with the 18 yd box, first glance stonewaller, having seen again he went down too easy, could have kept going, so no I wd say.

[wookie70]

Not sure at the game and still not sure after watching it on the highlights. It does look like Holt puts the ball too far past the defender and then his foot is caught. I would say there was a fair chance it was a pen. Saying that their goal could well have been offside. Hard to tell from the freeze frame and the angle of the players bodies. The only sure thing is Cummings was onside. Three decisions all went Bronby's way, nothing new for Hibs unfortunately.