David Munro/penalty ( merged )

[22inarow]

32 minutes ago, noskillson said:

He didn't help his case by lying on the deck holding his face when no contact was made... Blew his creditability there.

Maybe he hurt his face when he hit the ground 😂

[lost in space]

14 minutes ago, flem said:

Completely irrelevant whether or not he was holding his face.  

No, it isn't. If ref sees that he has not been hit in the face, and he is holding his face, ref will believe there was no contact.

[gjcc]

The only question is if the “does this decision benefit Celtic or Rangers(director indirectly)?” question is at the beginning or end of the Ref flowchart. 

[Shaggy2]

2 minutes ago, lost in space said:

No, it isn't. If ref sees that he has not been hit in the face, and he is holding his face, ref will believe there was no contact.

Well, if this is the case Munro deserves credit because he’s the first ref that’s ever came to this conclusion. How many times did Porteous go down holding his head at corners or indirect free kicks that his team mate “saved” aboot 5 yards away? 😀

[Jambof3tornado]

19 minutes ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

On the radio they are saying ( didn't catch it all ) that at the Shanks penalty VaR was looking at an offside., Not seen it so can't say for sure.

Haha never offside in a million years.

 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

[Boyces beard]

2 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Nothing to see here, carry on 

[Lord Montpelier]

2 minutes ago, Boyces beard said:

Nothing to see here, carry on 

Never a pen. Can't see what all the complaining is about.

 

Honestly , Scottish football . Sh**e

[Spellczech]

Even Radio Scotland were perplexed. Willie Miller was reduced to making jokes about it to avoid actually commenting...

[Cisco1914]

1 hour ago, RS86 said:

Having seen the replays of the Boyce one I don't think there was contact tbh.

 

But the Shankland one, wtf! Stone wall penalty.

It’s a foul mate, it’s a high boot. It’s a penalty.you don’t have to make contact.

couple of minutes later Shankland got penalized for the same offense.

[lost in space]

23 minutes ago, Shaggy2 said:

Well, if this is the case Munro deserves credit because he’s the first ref that’s ever came to this conclusion. How many times did Porteous go down holding his head at corners or indirect free kicks that his team mate “saved” aboot 5 yards away? 😀

Boyce hasnt practiced cheating as often as Porto. Boyce needs to perfect this (and many other things) at training.

[Shaggy2]

9 minutes ago, lost in space said:

Boyce hasnt practiced cheating as often as Porto. Boyce needs to perfect this (and many other things) at training.

😂

[south morocco]

Cannie keep putting up with this?? Utter disgrace that’s not a pen. Shanks gets a foul against him for a high boot later in the game???

[Brick Tamland]

That **** Kenny McIntyre called Boyce “a disgrace”   Never heard say anything like that against the bigot twins. Our sports journalists are a disgrace and just as complicit as the referees. 

[RustyRightPeg]

Makes no sense how Motherwell restarted the game with the ball too, at no point did one of their players have control of the ball in the situation 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

On the radio they are saying ( didn't catch it all ) that at the Shanks penalty VaR was looking at an offside., Not seen it so can't say for sure.

If Boyce got anything on the ball in then yes Shanks was offside.  Didn’t look like he got anything on it though. 

[Arry]

2 hours ago, Boris said:

Minimal shminimal.

 

It was a high boot! Doesn't matter the damage, it's still dangerous.

 

 

Correct, people don’t seem to get this 

[gnasher75]

Boyce penalty. Some pundits are saying he was already going down. That's because of the first foul on him outside the box. The high foot on his chest is a blatant foul so how the ref didn't give a penalty is beyond me. Penalty to Hearts and by the letter of the law a yellow for the Motherwell player and arguably a yellow for Boyce for simulation.

 

Shankland penalty. This is a stonewaller. Clearly no offside with the ball in to the box and Boyce doesn't touch it so Shankland can't be offside. Boyce may have pushed his marker but the contact is minimal and play eventually restarts with a goal kick so that foul isn't given. Shankland is clearly taken from behind when in possession. Penalty to Hearts, yellow card for defender.

 

Even with VAR, ref got both decisions wrong.

[Fozzyonthefence]

2 hours ago, PapaShango said:

He was horrific. Had that been an OF player it would be a penalty all day long. Couldn’t wait to give them their one for a ball pelted a yard away into the hand.

Had it been a Celtic player they would have caused a referee strike!  Again.  
 

Edit : I’m wrong.  They would have got the penalty.  Obviously.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Fozzyonthefence

[gordiegords]

Sure I heard Pat nevin wanted a red card for boyce 😆😆😆

[Spitonastranger]

1 hour ago, lost in space said:

No, it isn't. If ref sees that he has not been hit in the face, and he is holding his face, ref will believe there was no contact.

Then goes to VAR, sees there is contact and gives no penalty 🙄 

[John Findlay]

The obvious conclusion was a penalty to Sevco and they don't play until tomorrow!

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 minute ago, gordiegords said:

Sure I heard Pat nevin wanted a red card for boyce 😆😆😆

He’s demanding the rules get changed then? What a pr1ck!

[FWJ]

15 minutes ago, Brick Tamland said:

That **** Kenny McIntyre called Boyce “a disgrace”   Never heard say anything like that against the bigot twins. Our sports journalists are a disgrace and just as complicit as the referees. 

I heard that and thought exactly the same thing as you

[luckyBatistuta]

2 hours ago, mr fox said:

Seriously how is this not a penalty it’s an utter stonewaller. 
 

A referee will never get a clearer view of dangerous play than that…and yet he managed to get even more views with Var and still managed to cheat us out of a pen. Not even shocked.

[Fozzyonthefence]

5 minutes ago, gnasher75 said:

Boyce penalty. Some pundits are saying he was already going down. That's because of the first foul on him outside the box. The high foot on his chest is a blatant foul so how the ref didn't give a penalty is beyond me. Penalty to Hearts and by the letter of the law a yellow for the Motherwell player and arguably a yellow for Boyce for simulation. 

I think you’re spot on with that but has anyone ever seen a penalty given but the fouled player also given a yellow for simulation?  Should be possible but I’ve never seen it happen. 

[Fort Vallance]

2 hours ago, mr fox said:

Seriously how is this not a penalty it’s an utter stonewaller. 
 

To be fair he didn't have great view of it.

[moshy]

No contact or dangerous play, Boyce should be booked for diving

[Saint Jambo]

1 hour ago, Cisco1914 said:

It’s a foul mate, it’s a high boot. It’s a penalty.you don’t have to make contact.

couple of minutes later Shankland got penalized for the same offense.

 

For a penalty you do have to make contact or at least impede the player without making contact. Just having your foot high in the box is dangerous play and an in direct free kick.

 

If the ref watches the video and thinks it is dangerous play so he should have given an indirect free kick or if he thinks there is contact but it is outside the box then he isn't allowed to change his initial decision to a free kick (unless he judges the foul to be worthy of a red card).

 

All that said, it is hard to fathom how he could have concluded that either there was no contact that impeded Boyce or that it was outside the box based on the stills posted above. Clearly the VAR officials thought it was in the box and there was enough contact to constitute a penalty or they wouldn't have asked him to review it.

 

Also, if he thinks it is dangerous play rather than a penalty on watching the video, how did he miss that in real time given his positioning close to the incident, side on and looking directly at it. Absolute shocking refereeing.

[This is My Story Podcast]

I hope the club call today out. Our first game since Naismith publicly called out refs and VAR and we become the first side in Scotland to have a ref go to the monitor and stick with the original decision. Both incidents are shockingly bad. 

[SectionDJambo]

20 minutes ago, Brick Tamland said:

That **** Kenny McIntyre called Boyce “a disgrace”   Never heard say anything like that against the bigot twins. Our sports journalists are a disgrace and just as complicit as the referees. 

The malaise of sectarianism influencing decisions on the field and the views of many pundits is rife in Scotland. There is a fear of retribution.

Not that that should have made any difference to their narrative of a Motherwell v Hearts game. I have had time for Pat Nevin in the past, I think he’s a decent guy. However, he would never have suggested that a Rangers or Celtic player should be red carded for a similar incident to the Boyce one today. 
You expect such nonsense from the usual crew, like the blue nosed McIntyre, that they give air time to, but I’m surprised at Nevin. Maybe Steven Naismith hit a nerve when he suggested, last week, that referees find it instinctive to give Rangers and Celtic penalties, without any hesitation.

[lost in space]

17 minutes ago, Spitonastranger said:

Then goes to VAR, sees there is contact and gives no penalty 🙄 

Or it goes to VAR who see Boyce holding his face (when VAR man knows Boyce wasn't hit on the face) - so VAR then believes there couldn't have been contact on the chest, as Boyce would be holding his chest.

Boyce's poor cheating meant no penalty given.

[The Old Tolbooth]

I don’t get why Boyce went down clutching his face when he was hit in the chest (Neil Lennon style!), he made a proper meal of it, but contact was very clearly made and it was a foul and a penalty all day long, to go to the screen, watch it a few times, and decide it’s not a penalty is about as corrupt as it gets! 
 

Weegie wanks!! 

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, lost in space said:

Or it goes to VAR who see Boyce holding his face (when VAR man knows Boyce wasn't hit on the face) - so VAR then believes there couldn't have been contact on the chest, as Boyce would be holding his chest.

Boyce's poor cheating meant no penalty given.

if he’s wearing green or blue it’s a penalty all day without question and probably even a red card. 
 

Scottish football, Scotland media even is a corrupt stinking league with a corrupt stinking media

[ramrod]

2 hours ago, lost in space said:

No, it isn't. If ref sees that he has not been hit in the face, and he is holding his face, ref will believe there was no contact.

What a lot of bollocks, he went to the monitor and it  was obvious to anyone with eyes that the Motherwell players boot made contact with Boyces chest, whether or not he is holding his head is irrelevant as far as the role book us concerned. 

[HMFC01]

1 hour ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

 

😀 

 

Clearly  enough contact there to me.    That's a penalty. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

26 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

I think you’re spot on with that but has anyone ever seen a penalty given but the fouled player also given a yellow for simulation?  Should be possible but I’ve never seen it happen. 

Actually ref couldn’t give Boyce a yellow for simulation after VAR check could he because I don’t think VAR can be used for yellow card decisions?  So VAR was only to decide if a penalty and maybe potentially red card for the defender. 

[cazzyy]

14 minutes ago, lost in space said:

Or it goes to VAR who see Boyce holding his face (when VAR man knows Boyce wasn't hit on the face) - so VAR then believes there couldn't have been contact on the chest, as Boyce would be holding his chest.

Boyce's poor cheating meant no penalty given.

 

What are you on about? If anything the VAR thought it might be a penalty or wouldn't have asked the referee to have a look at it.

[kingantti1874]

 

the Shankland decison is possibly even worse

[cazzyy]

10 minutes ago, ramrod said:

What a lot of bollocks, he went to the monitor and it  was obvious to anyone with eyes that the Motherwell players boot made contact with Boyces chest, whether or not he is holding his head is irrelevant as far as the role book us concerned. 

 

The VAR replays didn't even show the face holding.

[lost in space]

3 minutes ago, ramrod said:

What a lot of bollocks, he went to the monitor and it  was obvious to anyone with eyes that the Motherwell players boot made contact with Boyces chest, whether or not he is holding his head is irrelevant as far as the role book us concerned. 

I watched game "live" on tv and also sportscene highlights. The still pix are horrendous - def penalty and red card. The movie though is not so clear. 

When I watched live, I said "penalty" but when I saw from a different angle it is not sure there is actual contact. Boyce stupidly clutching his face adds to the doubts.

Possible pen for dangerous high foot- was an option.

Thought the foul on Shanks later was a pen.

[lost in space]

3 minutes ago, cazzyy said:

 

What are you on about? If anything the VAR thought it might be a penalty or wouldn't have asked the referee to have a look at it.

Yes, Var guy thought it MIGHT be.

[gnasher75]

4 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Actually ref couldn’t give Boyce a yellow for simulation after VAR check could he because I don’t think VAR can be used for yellow card decisions?  So VAR was only to decide if a penalty and maybe potentially red card for the defender. 

 

You are right, although for me that's a problem with VAR. If it's being used it should allow the ref to make the correct decision, whatever that is.

 

I can't remember seeing a penalty given and the attacking player booked for simulation. Technically the exaggeration comes after the foul so I don't see why it couldn't happen. 

[kingantti1874]

2 minutes ago, lost in space said:

I watched game "live" on tv and also sportscene highlights. The still pix are horrendous - def penalty and red card. The movie though is not so clear. 

When I watched live, I said "penalty" but when I saw from a different angle it is not sure there is actual contact. Boyce stupidly clutching his face adds to the doubts.

Possible pen for dangerous high foot- was an option.

Thought the foul on Shanks later was a pen.

would it have been awarded if it were rangers and Celtic? Stop making excuses for these Glaswegian tosspots 

[GinRummy]

40 minutes ago, Spitonastranger said:

Then goes to VAR, sees there is contact and gives no penalty 🙄 

Should be as simple as that. If it’s rangers or Celtic then it definitely would have been as simple as that. 
 

Incredibly VAR is leading to even more poor decisions. Only in Scotland eh

[ramrod]

5 minutes ago, lost in space said:

I watched game "live" on tv and also sportscene highlights. The still pix are horrendous - def penalty and red card. The movie though is not so clear. 

When I watched live, I said "penalty" but when I saw from a different angle it is not sure there is actual contact. Boyce stupidly clutching his face adds to the doubts.

Possible pen for dangerous high foot- was an option.

Thought the foul on Shanks later was a pen.

Watched it on Hearts TV aswell and was astonished the ref never game it and absolutely dumbfounded he never gave it after VAR intervened. 

Another clear case of incompetence by Scottish referees.

How anyone in the media can try and defend the decision is baffling  

Edited November 11, 2023 by ramrod

[lost in space]

Just now, kingantti1874 said:

would it have been awarded if it were rangers and Celtic? Stop making excuses for these Glaswegian tosspots 

Probably.  Don't think they are ALL weegie tosspots.

They are ALL west coast tosspots tho.

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 minute ago, lost in space said:

Probably.  Don't think they are ALL weegie tosspots.

They are ALL west coast tosspots tho.

Weegies aren’t west coast but I get the drift!

[Australis]

I think we are still suffering for Vlad calling them all cheats.

He was right, of course.

 

[Fozzyonthefence]

8 minutes ago, lost in space said:

Yes, Var guy thought it MIGHT be.

It’s supposed to be “clear and obvious error”.  So VAR thought it was.