Madden

[CropleyWasGod]

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

At the time I genuinely thought by the laws it was a penalty. Seeing it over and over it just isn’t a penalty. While McGinn’s arm started slightly away from his body, the time he touches the ball his arm is tucked back in, and even at that, the touch is minimal, no wonder he was pishing himself laughing at it. Used to like madden, after the semi and yesterday I now hate him. Utter roaster. Then had the cheek to book Hanlon after 5 of their team had him surrounded at our penalty.

On your first viewing, you saw it the same as the first time the ref saw it. Without VAR, that's the only comparison you can make.

[hibbysam]

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

On your first viewing, you saw it the same as the first time the ref saw it. Without VAR, that's the only comparison you can make.

That doesn’t make it correct, and he likely had a far better view being pitch level.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

That doesn’t make it correct, and he likely had a far better view being pitch level.

... or maybe not.

My point is, and it's an old chestnut, that we can analyse these things to death and lose sight of the fact that the refs have one shot at things. Yes, they are trained to look for these things at speed, and to be in the best position to do so, but if it takes us lots of viewings to come to a decision, it does underline how difficult these things can be.

[hibbysam]

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

... or maybe not.

My point is, and it's an old chestnut, that we can analyse these things to death and lose sight of the fact that the refs have one shot at things. Yes, they are trained to look for these things at speed, and to be in the best position to do so, but if it takes us lots of viewings to come to a decision, it does underline how difficult these things can be.

And if he didn’t have a better view then he guessed. And we all know guessing is bad. He’s given a decision based on what he thought he saw, instead of giving it based on what he actually seen. It was far easier for him to see the one first half, no players blocking views, hand in the air, yet he decided not to give that one.

[wookie70]

Watched the highlights and Madden got more right than wrong imo. Ajer penalty - no pen as it deflected off him, Gogic push on Celtc player with free header- glad he missed it as it was pen, pen for Hibs - Correct, Pen for Celtc-Correct, Celts equaliser free kick V1, correctly retaken as Mackie fouled while ball out of play, Celtc equaliser - arguably a foul by Duffy but both players have each others shirts.

It was nice to hear the Sportscene commentator actually knowing the rules, which for commentators and pundits isn't a guaranteed

[Wheat Hound]

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

Watched the highlights and Madden got more right than wrong imo. Ajer penalty - no pen as it deflected off him, Gogic push on Celtc player with free header- glad he missed it as it was pen, pen for Hibs - Correct, Pen for Celtc-Correct, Celts equaliser free kick V1, correctly retaken as Mackie fouled while ball out of play, Celtc equaliser - arguably a foul by Duffy but both players have each others shirts.

It was nice to hear the Sportscene commentator actually knowing the rules, which for commentators and pundits isn't a guaranteed

Why was the Ajer one not a penalty? It hit off his hand/arm which was away from his body.

[wookie70]

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

Why was the Ajer one not a penalty? It hit off his hand/arm which was away from his body.

It hit off his knee first.

[hibbysam]

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

It hit off his knee first.

Which isn’t in the laws of the game. The deflection makes no difference when his hands are either high or making his body unnaturally bigger. If that was the case then the play of the ball directly before McGinn’s handball would also have stopped it being a penalty. McGinn’s hand is also in a natural position and not high when he touches the ball for their penalty.

Watching the Leicester game tonight, Liverpool free kick, Liverpool player fouls Leicester player before the kick is taken (as player is running up) free kick given to Leicester. Exact same scenario as ours.

[wookie70]

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

Which isn’t in the laws of the game. The deflection makes no difference when his hands are either high or making his body unnaturally bigger. If that was the case then the play of the ball directly before McGinn’s handball would also have stopped it being a penalty. McGinn’s hand is also in a natural position and not high when he touches the ball for their penalty.

Watching the Leicester game tonight, Liverpool free kick, Liverpool player fouls Leicester player before the kick is taken (as player is running up) free kick given to Leicester. Exact same scenario as ours.

We have disagreed on this recently so I won't go over old ground barring putting the rule I think is pertinent, my bold. I watched it again and I think there is some doubt that Ajer deliberately played the ball though but he was trying to block it so I would say he gets the benefit of the doubt. The second touch of his hand is fine as it is supporting him on the ground.

The Celtc penalty hits McGinn straight on the arm not from a deflection off his own body

touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
Again we disagree with the ball in play too and have both said our part. The ref is wrong imo if he gives a free kick before play has started in that game. I'll watch it tonight but Mackie was definitely fouled before Griffith first swung in V1 of their equalising free kick.

Any refs able to clarify as Sam and I are clearly both trying to read teh rules and not just guessing

[B.H.F.C]

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

Which isn’t in the laws of the game. The deflection makes no difference when his hands are either high or making his body unnaturally bigger. If that was the case then the play of the ball directly before McGinn’s handball would also have stopped it being a penalty. McGinn’s hand is also in a natural position and not high when he touches the ball for their penalty.

Watching the Leicester game tonight, Liverpool free kick, Liverpool player fouls Leicester player before the kick is taken (as player is running up) free kick given to Leicester. Exact same scenario as ours.

That scenario with the Liverpool game just shows that the laws aren’t always applied consistently. If the ball hasn’t been kicked it’s not in play and the ref can’t give a foul. I don’t think we can moan about that one as I don’t think it had been kicked. Having initially thought the penalty was a penalty, I do think we have a case to moan about that one though.

[hibbysam]

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

That scenario with the Liverpool game just shows that the laws aren’t always applied consistently. If the ball hasn’t been kicked it’s not in play and the ref can’t give a foul. I don’t think we can moan about that one as I don’t think it had been kicked. Having initially thought the penalty was a penalty, I do think we have a case to moan about that one though.

That’s my problem though, it’s the exact same scenario x2 yet ours gets retaken and the one in England is a foul.

[wookie70]

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

That’s my problem though, it’s the exact same scenario x2 yet ours gets retaken and the one in England is a foul.

There are lots of examples of the same ref in the same game not being consistent so nothing new there. The ref got it wrong by the sounds of it in the Liverpool game

[hibbysam]

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

We have disagreed on this recently so I won't go over old ground barring putting the rule I think is pertinent, my bold. I watched it again and I think there is some doubt that Ajer deliberately played the ball though but he was trying to block it so I would say he gets the benefit of the doubt. The second touch of his hand is fine as it is supporting him on the ground.

The Celtc penalty hits McGinn straight on the arm not from a deflection off his own body

touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
Again we disagree with the ball in play too and have both said our part. The ref is wrong imo if he gives a free kick before play has started in that game. I'll watch it tonight but Mackie was definitely fouled before Griffith first swung in V1 of their equalising free kick.

Any refs able to clarify as Sam and I are clearly both trying to read teh rules and not just guessing

The line ‘ Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:’ stands though. It was one of the above offences, so the part about it hitting his own body doesn’t matter. His arm was outstretched and up above his shoulder.

It also hit McGinn’s hand when it was by his side, and it never made his body unnaturally bigger, it’s natural to have your arm by your side.

[wookie70]

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

The line ‘ Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:’ stands though. It was one of the above offences, so the part about it hitting his own body doesn’t matter. His arm was outstretched and up above his shoulder.

It also hit McGinn’s hand when it was by his side, and it never made his body unnaturally bigger, it’s natural to have your arm by your side.

It is the same bullet point and an explanation and exception. Why put the part in parenthesis if it doesn't apply. It has already been excepted before the line you refer to.

There is a difference if the deflection is from an opposing player which in my view is the part you are referring to. I wish they would change the language from player to either attacker and defender depending who they referring to in this law.

[hibbysam]

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

It is the same bullet point and an explanation and exception. Why put the part in parenthesis if it doesn't apply. It has already been excepted before the line you refer to.

There is a difference if the deflection is from an opposing player which in my view is the part you are referring to. I wish they would change the language from player to either attacker and defender depending who they referring to in this law.

No, it quite clearly references that if one of the above offences has been committed (ie hand above shoulder, body unnaturally bigger etc) then the following doesn’t apply. Both of those situations applied to the Ajer one so the touch off his own body is irrelevant.

In the McGinn one it is the other part of the rule, which references hitting himself, so if his hand was high, or his arm was out at the point of contact then it’s a penalty, the problem is it wasn’t. When contacting the ball, his hand was low and tucked back into his body. It’s not a penalty.

[inglisavhibs]

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

There are lots of examples of the same ref in the same game not being consistent so nothing new there. The ref got it wrong by the sounds of it in the Liverpool game

The rules are the real problem and making decision making too difficult. It’s making some games farcical and the McGinn one is a good example of the problem. Never a penalty in a million years and neither is one where it hits the Celtic players hand. Although Celtic deserved a point it almost certainly was a decision that cost us a win but we wont be the only team to suffer from people mucking about with the rules of the game.

[wookie70]

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

The line ‘ Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:’ stands though. It was one of the above offences, so the part about it hitting his own body doesn’t matter. His arm was outstretched and up above his shoulder.

It also hit McGinn’s hand when it was by his side, and it never made his body unnaturally bigger, it’s natural to have your arm by your side.

I have read that rule countless times recently but am still missing bits I think. The Ajer one isn't a pen if the ref thinks his hands is above his shoulder as you said above. Very debateable as he is sliding so pretty much body horizontal to the ground. If his hand/arm is making his body bigger and it is not above shoulder level then it would be a pen regardless of the deflection off his leg. There are two distinct parts about above shoulder and making his body bigger. The one above the shoulder is the exception I am quoting. Hopefully we can agree that the new rules have done far more to confuse than simplify and McGinn's offence should never be a penalty when the lawmakers sit down to write the laws of the game.

[hibbysam]

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

I have read that rule countless times recently but am still missing bits I think. The Ajer one isn't a pen if the ref thinks his hands is above his shoulder as you said above. Very debateable as he is sliding so pretty much body horizontal to the ground. If his hand/arm is making his body bigger and it is not above shoulder level then it would be a pen regardless of the deflection off his leg. There are two distinct parts about above shoulder and making his body bigger. The one above the shoulder is the exception I am quoting. Hopefully we can agree that the new rules have done far more to confuse than simplify and McGinn's offence should never be a penalty when the lawmakers sit down to write the laws of the game.

100% the laws are a pile of crap. Even more so when different countries can interpret the laws and tweak them to suit themselves, ie England changing the interpretation so less penalties are given. The rule makers have dug themselves a huge hole for absolutely no reason. We all know when someone has deliberately handled the ball to gain an advantage. It’s really about time the players took back control of the game, and not boys in suits who haven’t a clue, or referees who weren’t good enough to play as it’s completely ruined it.

Take McGinn’s (even if someone told me by law it was a penalty), it’s not deliberate, it’s barely even a touch, it’s not altered the ball, how someone could even argue that should be a foul is utter scandalous 😂

[wookie70]

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

100% the laws are a pile of crap. Even more so when different countries can interpret the laws and tweak them to suit themselves, ie England changing the interpretation so less penalties are given. The rule makers have dug themselves a huge hole for absolutely no reason. We all know when someone has deliberately handled the ball to gain an advantage. It’s really about time the players took back control of the game, and not boys in suits who haven’t a clue, or referees who weren’t good enough to play as it’s completely ruined it.

Take McGinn’s (even if someone told me by law it was a penalty), it’s not deliberate, it’s barely even a touch, it’s not altered the ball, how someone could even argue that should be a foul is utter scandalous 😂

Delighted to be able to completely agree with that. I also thank you as I have a better knowledge of the handball rule because of our little discussions. Some of it simply doesn't make sense apart from being unjust. Not wanting to get political but it reminds me of the covid rules in lockdown. I can see what they are trying to do but they are creating more confusion by making it so complicated and taking it down to a granular level.

[hibbysam]

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

Delighted to be able to completely agree with that. I also thank you as I have a better knowledge of the handball rule because of our little discussions. Some of it simply doesn't make sense apart from being unjust. Not wanting to get political but it reminds me of the covid rules in lockdown. I can see what they are trying to do but they are creating more confusion by making it so complicated and taking it down to a granular level.

The problem is, the incident is clear, we can all see what has happened. But ten people will give different opinions on it, and nobody can say for certain what the scenario should be. It’s not a difficult sport. The rules should be fairly basic and clear, the fact they aren’t shows how wrong they are. Referees shouldn’t have to explain the rules, they should just need to apply them, but too often you’ll hear referees try and tell people what the rule is and why it is like that, when there shouldn’t be any need!

[wookie70]

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

The problem is, the incident is clear, we can all see what has happened. But ten people will give different opinions on it, and nobody can say for certain what the scenario should be. It’s not a difficult sport. The rules should be fairly basic and clear, the fact they aren’t shows how wrong they are. Referees shouldn’t have to explain the rules, they should just need to apply them, but too often you’ll hear referees try and tell people what the rule is and why it is like that, when there shouldn’t be any need!

I liked the offside and handball rules thirty years ago. Pretty clear to me then but not so much now and I do take the time to try and understand. I'm like the old quote for offside. If he isn't interfering with play why is he on the pitch.

[Snedz]

The most annoying and frustrating aspect is for me the foul on Mackie. Maddon then orders a retake that benefits the fouling team Celtic. It should clearly have been a foul for Hibs and that would have been time up soon after. A shocking passage of play by Maddon.

[I'm_cabbaged]

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

The most annoying and frustrating aspect is for me the foul on Mackie. Maddon then orders a retake that benefits the fouling team Celtic. It should clearly have been a foul for Hibs and that would have been time up soon after. A shocking passage of play by Maddon.

Wonder what would’ve happened if the foul had been the other way? Didn’t something similar happen against the Huns a few seasons back?

[I'm_cabbaged]

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

The most annoying and frustrating aspect is for me the foul on Mackie. Maddon then orders a retake that benefits the fouling team Celtic. It should clearly have been a foul for Hibs and that would have been time up soon after. A shocking passage of play by Maddon.

Wonder what would’ve happened if the foul had been the other way? Didn’t something similar happen against the Huns a few seasons back?

[JimBHibees]

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

Wonder what would’ve happened if the foul had been the other way? Didn’t something similar happen against the Huns a few seasons back?

Madden was certainly in charge with that bizarre extra ball incident at Ibrox seem to remember we got done over by that also. What with Saturday and his 5 yard away penalty in the semi final this clown is definitely on the naughty list.

[Bishop Hibee]

Just watched MOTD2. Two handball decisions ruled out by VAR which were similar to McGinn’s handball. I’d like to hear Madden’s explanation for the Celtc pen but there is no chance of that.

[wookie70]

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

Just watched MOTD2. Two handball decisions ruled out by VAR which were similar to McGinn’s handball. I’d like to hear Madden’s explanation for the Celtc pen but there is no chance of that.

I watched two and they were similar. Have The FA not changed their refs interpretation so less pens are given

[tomf]

I watched Match of the Day 2 and there were two incidents when the ball clearly hit a player on the arm and in both cases they were subject to VAR and not given; the commentators highlighted them so they were fairly obvious. In all honesty I couldn't see much difference between either incident and the one that led to the Celtic penalty. Watching the Hibs game at the time I thought it was an extremely soft penalty and I think with VAR it might well have not been given. The issue, as ever, is really down to the referee's interpretation but from what I saw the ref gave a marginal decision to Celtic and denied a similar, possibly stronger, one for Hibs. It then becomes a matter of consistency.

In Scotland we have seen years absolute bias from refs, incompetence, zero consistency and now we have added a set of rules regarding penalties that acts as a get-out clause for all of that and all of them. We can all live with mistakes but let's not legislate in order to encourage them.

[ancient hibee]

When I watched it live I thought the ball was in play when Mackie was fouled-clearly it wasn't but rugby has the answer with the ability to reverse penalties in the event of backchat or foul play.