What did the ref blow for before the penalty?

[Kirky Jambo]

19 minutes ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

Dunno how folk can be so confused by this.

 

Sibbick wasn’t classed as offside at the time of the shot and only became offside when he became active and went for the ball. The goal couldn’t stand.

 

The handball that Clancy missed was before Sibbick went for the ball so was the first infringement.

 

Whatever Clancy was blowing for was also after the handball. No goal and penalty was the correct decision by VAR.

 

 

Agreed although I think the point of the thread was to work out what Clancy blew for, and the consensus seems to be that nobody has a clue 😂 

 

Seems he got bailed out by VAR on this occasion.

[1971fozzy]

3 hours ago, feedthefox said:

I think we've had pretty good change out of VAR since it's arrival.

Totally

[Waterboy]

8 minutes ago, Kirky Jambo said:

Agreed although I think the point of the thread was to work out what Clancy blew for, and the consensus seems to be that nobody has a clue 😂 

 

Seems he got bailed out by VAR on this occasion.

 

100%. Ref doesn't blow for offside without the lino putting his flag up. 

 

So genuinely no reason for him to have blown. Then stood at the monitor for about 3 and a half weeks trying to work out how to explain why he'd blown

[Armageddon]

2 hours ago, Armageddon said:

I wondered if there was a shirt pull from Cochrane at the cross, either way, correct decision reached.  Surprised there was no red card though as it was going in.

 

Halliday I meant, not Cochrane.

[The White Cockade]

2 hours ago, joondalupjambo said:

Inverness game?  We were right behind him when it happened.  Straight red I think it was or was it a second yellow?  If it was a straight red VAR would not have saved him.

Straight red 

VAR can overturn red cards but not yellows as far as I’m aware

[joondalupjambo]

7 minutes ago, The White Cockade said:

Straight red 

VAR can overturn red cards but not yellows as far as I’m aware

Blooming VAR I will understand it one of these days.  You are right VAR can intervene if a clear error been made and that Inverness hand ball nonsense was a clear error 👍

Edited January 2, 2023 by joondalupjambo

[The White Cockade]

Ref couldn’t have blown for offside 

My guess I’d that he guessed there was a foul and the length of time he took looking at the screen wasn’t looking at handball as that was obvious but he was  trying to save face by finding something to justify him whistling but the VAR officials didn’t back him up on that

I hate VAR but we’ve done ok out of it so far 

[Bret the Hitman Hearts]

51 minutes ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

Dunno how folk can be so confused by this.

 

Sibbick wasn’t classed as offside at the time of the shot and only became offside when he became active and went for the ball. The goal couldn’t stand.

 

The handball that Clancy missed was before Sibbick went for the ball so was the first infringement.

 

Whatever Clancy was blowing for was also after the handball. No goal and penalty was the correct decision by VAR.

 

 

 

This is the part which most people are questioning

[I P Knightley]

4 hours ago, db211833 said:

 Clancy guessed that something had happened. He had absolutely no idea. Thankfully, despite taking too long, VAR got it right.

This is the correct answer to the question set by the OP.

 

I reckon the time spent VARring was mainly looking for a cover up of that fact. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

 

(+17") 34:25 Clancy gets to the screen

(+1'25") 35:50 Clancy signals penalty after review. 

(+1'20") 37:10 Penalty is taken

Seventeen seconds to get from the edge of the box to the halfway line? 'Kin state of the guy!

[periodictabledancer]

1 hour ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

 

 

Whatever Clancy was blowing for was also after the handball. No goal and penalty was the correct decision by VAR.

 

 

That's the question.

He didn't blow for offside, he didn't blow for a foul because he never indicated where any offence had taken place.

So, what did he blow for ? He could've let the goal stand and let VAR review it - but he didn't. 

VAR let him off the hook. 

 

[soonbe110]

3 hours ago, davemclaren said:

It all worked out in the end. VAR has been a bonus for us so far imo. 

10 pens for Shankland suggests so. 

[soonbe110]

Var has certainly highlighted the number of errors officials make. Two pen decisions changed last week, one or two midweek, and more today.  

[soonbe110]

5 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

That's the question.

He didn't blow for offside, he didn't blow for a foul because he never indicated where any offence had taken place.

So, what did he blow for ? He could've let the goal stand and let VAR review it - but he didn't. 

VAR let him off the hook. 

 

Think he blew for a goal and then gat a word in his ear. 

[Peebo]

1 hour ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

Dunno how folk can be so confused by this.

 

Sibbick wasn’t classed as offside at the time of the shot and only became offside when he became active and went for the ball. The goal couldn’t stand.

 

The handball that Clancy missed was before Sibbick went for the ball so was the first infringement.

 

Whatever Clancy was blowing for was also after the handball. No goal and penalty was the correct decision by VAR.

 

 

I’m confused. Fair enough if Sibbick was offside (although I find the rules rather odd now) but the handball was after the offside offence as far as I can tell. How can he award a penalty for a handball which happened after the apparent offside offence? Surely play should go dead at the offside? If it isn’t, why not play on and let goal stand?

 

I personally don’t think Clancy knew what he was doing at the time. I’d say the outcome meant it didn’t really matter but had Sibbick’s goal stood I’d have won £250 so I’m not only bemused about the whole sequence but also slightly bitter! 

[part_time_jambo]

2 hours ago, poggs said:

 

When the shot came in Sibbick was in an offside position.  However he was classed as "inactive" or not interfering with play in old speak.  When the ball rebounded off the hibs player to sibbick, he then became active and thus offside.  So advantage for the handball could not be played.

The only lawful results from the VAR review could have been handball and penalty, or no hand ball and offside.  Referee decided it was handball, so penalty.

 

Goal not an option.

 

Still doesnt explain WTF he saw to blow his whistle before the ball went in.......

Thanks for the explanation.

[part_time_jambo]

1 hour ago, Kirky Jambo said:

Agreed although I think the point of the thread was to work out what Clancy blew for, and the consensus seems to be that nobody has a clue 😂 

 

Seems he got bailed out by VAR on this occasion.

Don't think he was bailed out, just had his incompetence highlighted.

[The Wrinkly Ninja]

5 minutes ago, Peebo said:

I’m confused. Fair enough if Sibbick was offside (although I find the rules rather odd now) but the handball was after the offside offence as far as I can tell. How can he award a penalty for a handball which happened after the apparent offside offence? Surely play should go dead at the offside? If it isn’t, why not play on and let goal stand?

 

I personally don’t think Clancy knew what he was doing at the time. I’d say the outcome meant it didn’t really matter but had Sibbick’s goal stood I’d have won £250 so I’m not only bemused about the whole sequence but also slightly bitter! 

Sibbick was in front of the last defender when the shot was taken. There was no offence at that point because he wasn’t active and he made no attempt to go for the ball. If the shot had gone in it would have been a goal.

 

The offence by Sibbick happened when he came back from his offside position to get the ball which was after the handball.

 

The goal couldn’t stand because Sibbick was offside and he was only offside when he went for the ball which was after the handball.

 

 

[part_time_jambo]

1 hour ago, The White Cockade said:

Ref couldn’t have blown for offside 

My guess I’d that he guessed there was a foul and the length of time he took looking at the screen wasn’t looking at handball as that was obvious but he was  trying to save face by finding something to justify him whistling but the VAR officials didn’t back him up on that

I hate VAR but we’ve done ok out of it so far 

There was a minor tug right at the start of the sequence by one of our defenders on a Hibs player on the bye-line at the left of goal. I'm surprised he didn't use that as the reason for blowing his whistle, although there was a bit of a gap between that and him blowing. Probably took so long at the monitor trying to decide if he could get away with using it.

Talking of the monitor, what a terrible position it was in. Growling supporters in both ears as the ref tries to follow the events. Did feel a wee bit sorry for him there (just a wee bit).

Also, what's with all the players bending his ear while the VAR check was ongoing. He can't do anything until he hears from them.

[Peebo]

2 minutes ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

Sibbick was in front of the last defender when the shot was taken. There was no offence at that point because he wasn’t active and he made no attempt to go for the ball. If the shot had gone in it would have been a goal.

 

The offence by Sibbick happened when he came back from his offside position to get the ball which was after the handball.

 

The goal couldn’t stand because Sibbick was offside and he was only offside when he went for the ball which was after the handball.

 

 

Cheers, I get the explanation but still find it confusing. I don’t understand why the rules would not mean that the play is called dead at the point of the player being offside rather than when they are deemed to be active (I think two Hibs players had touched it by that point). Free kicks are placed at the point of the offside position rather than the activation position (there was at least one example today) so why doesn’t the game sequence stop there? It’s seems like an odd interpretation of what is (apparently) intended by the offside rule. 
 

I’d argue that as Bushiri was blocking the shot and Sibbick played ball after that from an onside position, the phase of play where Sibbick was positionally offside was over. 

[The White Cockade]

8 minutes ago, part_time_jambo said:

There was a minor tug right at the start of the sequence by one of our defenders on a Hibs player on the bye-line at the left of goal. I'm surprised he didn't use that as the reason for blowing his whistle, although there was a bit of a gap between that and him blowing. Probably took so long at the monitor trying to decide if he could get away with using it.

Talking of the monitor, what a terrible position it was in. Growling supporters in both ears as the ref tries to follow the events. Did feel a wee bit sorry for him there (just a wee bit).

Also, what's with all the players bending his ear while the VAR check was ongoing. He can't do anything until he hears from them.

You’re right that’s not the best position for the monitor 

supporters giving him abuse is more likely to make them go against us if they possibly can

that’s human nature

[McCrae]

2 hours ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

Dunno how folk can be so confused by this.

 

Sibbick wasn’t classed as offside at the time of the shot and only became offside when he became active and went for the ball. The goal couldn’t stand.

 

The handball that Clancy missed was before Sibbick went for the ball so was the first infringement.

 

Whatever Clancy was blowing for was also after the handball. No goal and penalty was the correct decision by VAR.

 

 

How can he be offside when the ball came off two H1B5 players before he touched it?

[part_time_jambo]

3 minutes ago, McCrae said:

How can he be offside when the ball came off two H1B5 players before he touched it?

Coming off two Hibs players is irrelevant if he was offside when the ball was kicked by a Hearts player.

[The White Cockade]

25 minutes ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

Sibbick was in front of the last defender when the shot was taken. There was no offence at that point because he wasn’t active and he made no attempt to go for the ball. If the shot had gone in it would have been a goal.

 

The offence by Sibbick happened when he came back from his offside position to get the ball which was after the handball.

 

The goal couldn’t stand because Sibbick was offside and he was only offside when he went for the ball which was after the handball.

 

 

 Couldn’t give a goal if whistle had gone before it went in 

[The Wrinkly Ninja]

22 minutes ago, Peebo said:

Cheers, I get the explanation but still find it confusing. I don’t understand why the rules would not mean that the play is called dead at the point of the player being offside rather than when they are deemed to be active (I think two Hibs players had touched it by that point). Free kicks are placed at the point of the offside position rather than the activation position (there was at least one example today) so why doesn’t the game sequence stop there? It’s seems like an odd interpretation of what is (apparently) intended by the offside rule. 
 

I’d argue that as Bushiri was blocking the shot and Sibbick played ball after that from an onside position, the phase of play where Sibbick was positionally offside was over. 

The play is stopped dead at the point of being offside. A player who isn’t active isn’t offside though. Sibbick wasn’t offside until he became active. Not everybody who is ahead of defenders is offside. If they were then our first goal wouldn’t have stood because Ginnelly would have been considered offside and Shankland would also have been considered offside when Snodgrass crossed before the second. But neither was.

Free kicks are placed at the point of becoming active which is why you see some free kicks being taken from the opposing half for offside.

 

The last time we played the rangers at home was an example where we had a free kick in the the rangers half for an offside decision and you had Scott Arfield arguing the often shouted ‘ye cannae be offside in yer own half’, which is true but the free kick can be taken from there because that’s where the offence was. 

[part_time_jambo]

1 minute ago, jonesy said:

Just remember that these refs only do this as a part-time gig and all have professional careers outside of football. Therefore, reffing for them is basically a skilled hobby that allows them to travel  (possibly around the world if they get on the FIFA list) and play a major role in one of the major cultural aspects of Scottish society. If the abuse they get - often a result of their inconsistency and ineptitude - is too much for them, then they can easily walk away from it all and continue to live a reasonably comfortable life, I'd imagine. They put themselves in this position and some seem to thrive on being the bad guy. Feeling sorry for them doesn't come into the equation when they routinely ruin games that thousands of people have paid their hard-earned cash to watch.

It's a lousy job but someone's got to do it.

[The Wrinkly Ninja]

11 minutes ago, McCrae said:

How can he be offside when the ball came off two H1B5 players before he touched it?

The ball went forward from Devlins shot.

[Bull's-eye]

Clancy blew for something nobody else witnessed, is that the crux of it then ?

 

[Pap]

 

[McCrae]

13 minutes ago, part_time_jambo said:

Coming off two Hibs players is irrelevant if he was offside when the ball was kicked by a Hearts player.

So he was offside before the H1b5 player handled…how come a PK was given?

[part_time_jambo]

1 minute ago, McCrae said:

So he was offside before the H1b5 player handled…how come a PK was given?

He was in an offside position but considered "inactive" so not offside.

[Peebo]

5 minutes ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

The play is stopped dead at the point of being offside. A player who isn’t active isn’t offside though. Sibbick wasn’t offside until he became active. Not everybody who is ahead of defenders is offside. If they were then our first goal wouldn’t have stood because Ginnelly would have been considered offside and Shankland would also have been considered offside when Snodgrass crossed before the second. But neither was.

Free kicks are placed at the point of becoming active which is why you see some free kicks being taken from the opposing half for offside.

 

The last time we played the rangers at home was an example where we had a free kick in the the rangers half for an offside decision and you had Scott Arfield arguing the often shouted ‘ye cannae be offside in yer own half’, which is true but the free kick can be taken from there because that’s where the offence was. 

Again I appreciate the explanation, cheers. But I am still confused by the real life application of the rules. And the positioning of free kicks is one of the reasons. There was an example today of the older interpretation of the rules (or just the older rules) being applied - free kick was placed where someone (Gino?) was positionally offside despite it taking a while for the flag to go up as he only became active much further down the pitch. 

 

In the case in question, I guess for me I don’t understand how Sibbick was apparently deemed to be offside despite two Hibs players touching it and ball moving away from goal - seemed to be a long phase where a couple of things happened. But if he was offside, feels like that should trump the handball on the sequence of offences. 
 

Not saying the ultimate decision was incorrect, but it is an area of the rules which I now find confusing (and not particularly intuitive in the spirit of what they are they for, in my opinion). 

[part_time_jambo]

2 minutes ago, Peebo said:

Again I appreciate the explanation, cheers. But I am still confused by the real life application of the rules. And the positioning of free kicks is one of the reasons. There was an example today of the older interpretation of the rules (or just the older rules) being applied - free kick was placed where someone (Gino?) was positionally offside despite it taking a while for the flag to go up as he only became active much further down the pitch. 

 

In the case in question, I guess for me I don’t understand how Sibbick was apparently deemed to be offside despite two Hibs players touching it and ball moving away from goal - seemed to be a long phase where a couple of things happened. But if he was offside, feels like that should trump the handball on the sequence of offences. 
 

Not saying the ultimate decision was incorrect, but it is an area of the rules which I now find confusing (and not particularly intuitive in the spirit of what they are they for, in my opinion). 

Coming off two Hibs players is irrelevant if he was offside when the ball was kicked by a Hearts player.

[McCrae]

2 minutes ago, Peebo said:

Again I appreciate the explanation, cheers. But I am still confused by the real life application of the rules. And the positioning of free kicks is one of the reasons. There was an example today of the older interpretation of the rules (or just the older rules) being applied - free kick was placed where someone (Gino?) was positionally offside despite it taking a while for the flag to go up as he only became active much further down the pitch. 

 

In the case in question, I guess for me I don’t understand how Sibbick was apparently deemed to be offside despite two Hibs players touching it and ball moving away from goal - seemed to be a long phase where a couple of things happened. But if he was offside, feels like that should trump the handball on the sequence of offences. 
 

Not saying the ultimate decision was incorrect, but it is an area of the rules which I now find confusing (and not particularly intuitive in the spirit of what they are they for, in my opinion). 

Am in the same boat… confused.

[part_time_jambo]

Just now, McCrae said:

Am in the same boat… confused.

Don't worry. The BBC VAR review with ex-ref Dougal will clear it all up, telling us how all the officials did everything correctly and reached all the correct decisions.

[Peebo]

2 minutes ago, part_time_jambo said:

Coming off two Hibs players is irrelevant if he was offside when the ball was kicked by a Hearts player.

Fair enough. I would then argue that the Hibs player handling it is irrelevant if the Hearts player was already offside during the same phase of play…

[MrBones]

Clear red for deliberately handling the ball. Rowles got a red for less

[Peebo]

Just now, MrBones said:

Clear red for deliberately handling the ball. Rowles got a red for less

Aye, I haven’t even mentioned how ****ing baffled I was by that! 

[Jambo 4 Ever]

5 hours ago, feedthefox said:

I think we've had pretty good change out of VAR since it's arrival.

Agreed

[part_time_jambo]

2 minutes ago, Peebo said:

Fair enough. I would then argue that the Hibs player handling it is irrelevant if the Hearts player was already offside during the same phase of play…

He was deemed inactive at that stage therefore not ruled offside.

[part_time_jambo]

1 minute ago, Peebo said:

Aye, I haven’t even mentioned how ****ing baffled I was by that! 

Don't worry. The BBC VAR review with ex-ref Dougal will clear it all up, telling us how all the officials did everything correctly and reached all the correct decisions.

[Peebo]

Just now, part_time_jambo said:

He was deemed inactive at that stage therefore not ruled offside.

This is what’s confusing. If he was inactive, then him being offside was also irrelevant at that point. It became relevant after he touched it. Stuff happened in between. If it was all the same phase, I am ultimately confused as to why him being in an offside position (activated by him subsequently touching it) isn’t deemed to be the primary offence. 
 

Again, I follow your argument but find it to be a strange sequential application of the offside rule. But as above, it may well be correct. Wouldn’t be the first thing I’ve been confused about! 

[part_time_jambo]

2 minutes ago, Peebo said:

This is what’s confusing. If he was inactive, then him being offside was also irrelevant at that point. It became relevant after he touched it. Stuff happened in between. If it was all the same phase, I am ultimately confused as to why him being in an offside position (activated by him subsequently touching it) isn’t deemed to be the primary offence. 
 

Again, I follow your argument but find it to be a strange sequential application of the offside rule. But as above, it may well be correct. Wouldn’t be the first thing I’ve been confused about! 

They have made the offside rule very complicated, but better than when a player could be flagged offside for being in an offside position while down injured at the corner flag with the ball nowhere near him. Hate it when they let a player run 50 yards when it is obvious he is trying to get the ball, only to flag when he actually gets it.

[The White Cockade]

32 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

Clancy blew for something nobody else witnessed, is that the crux of it then ?

 

That’s the situation 

we’ll probably never know what he blew for but we got the penalty and beat the muppet men 3-0 so not worth bothering about I don’t suppose 

[Footballfirst]

20 minutes ago, part_time_jambo said:

Coming off two Hibs players is irrelevant if he was offside when the ball was kicked by a Hearts player.

Sibbick was in an offside position (and inactive) when the initial shot came in, but was onside when the first Hibs player played the ball (but still inactive).  He only became active after the handball.

 

If you want to argue that the playing of the ball by the first defender was just a deflection, then fair enough, but I felt that he played the ball, rather than the ball played him.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Footballfirst

[Kirky Jambo]

5 minutes ago, part_time_jambo said:

They have made the offside rule very complicated, but better than when a player could be flagged offside for being in an offside position while down injured at the corner flag with the ball nowhere near him. Hate it when they let a player run 50 yards when it is obvious he is trying to get the ball, only to flag when he actually gets it.

I agree although what’s even worse is the nonsense about not flagging obvious offsides to allow play to continue and VAR to intervene if necessary. The idea is sensible but it’s applied terribly in practice. One today where Nisbet got it out wide, back to goal near the half way line when clearly offside, then they let play continue for about 30 seconds then flagged when it fizzled out. It should only really be done for tight calls when a dangerous attack is in motion.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Kirky Jambo

[Jambo92]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

Sibbick was in an offside position (and inactive) when the initial shot came in, but was onside when the first Hibs player played the ball (but still inactive).  He only became active after the handball.

 

yip this is what I don't get, if Sibbick is offside, then there's no penalty- as soon as Rocky catches it, its a new phase, there was no deliberate pass to Sibbick and no attempt to play the ball until the next phase so it should be a goal from Sibbick.

 

Secondly, how no red for stopping ball Cross line with hand?

[Footballfirst]

27 minutes ago, Jambo92 said:

 

yip this is what I don't get, if Sibbick is offside, then there's no penalty- as soon as Rocky catches it, its a new phase, there was no deliberate pass to Sibbick and no attempt to play the ball until the next phase so it should be a goal from Sibbick.

 

Secondly, how no red for stopping ball Cross line with hand?

Sibbick couldn't have been deemed active (influencing the defenders actions) at either the first touch by a defender or the second (handball), otherwise he would have been given offside.

 

The fact that a penalty was given, suggests that Clancy had given a free kick, or had blown inadvertently, before the ball was knocked into the net.

 

The image below is the closest I can get to the first defender playing the ball, which shows Sibbick to be onside, if the defender has in fact been deemed to have played the ball.

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Footballfirst

[SectionDJambo]

No flag, that I saw, from the linesman.

So what did Clancy disallow Sibbick‘s goal for in the first place?

Another thing, this is a referee who had no difficulty or hesitation in red carding 2 Hearts players at Parkhead for 2 soft second yellow cards, but he couldn’t manage to give Cadden his second yellow for a rash challenge at Tynecastle. 
All we need to know about him.

 

[Melbourne Jambo]

He indicated to SIbbick that he'd blown the foul for a push. Reckon he's thought Sibbick pushed Bashiri 😂

[part_time_jambo]

9 hours ago, Melbourne Jambo said:

He indicated to SIbbick that he'd blown the foul for a push. Reckon he's thought Sibbick pushed Bashiri 😂

So he must have just guessed that when he couldn't find it after 2 minutes at the monitor.