Jump to content

David Munro/penalty ( merged )


liam11

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

😀

 

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

I never watched the game but jeeeees looking at that  our board should question var !! it’s just not right this .yes I know it’s being going for years but things have to change as we now have the technology to challenge and get a fairer outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 547
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Sooks

    47

  • lost in space

    34

  • cazzyy

    23

  • kingantti1874

    22

lost in space
1 minute ago, Fozzyonthefence said:


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

Yes, VAR man thought it might be a clear and obvious error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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.

 

Must be 1,000,000th of a mm gap there.   As has been stated high boot is dangerous play.  Foul, there fore, penalty.  Only a Lanarkshire SFA official could NOT give that.  If at the other end, our defender would have been sent off.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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. 

 

 

Plus the twit was wrong.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naismith seems to be suggesting we should have had a pen for a foul after a block in the box, similar to the Haring one against Rangers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naismith: “Then the second one, at Ibrox we get blocked and the penalty (for Rangers) stands. This time there’s saying there’s a block and blocks now count. It’s the inconsistency that’s ruining it. You just hope at some point it changes.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fort Vallance
49 minutes ago, This is My Story Podcast said:

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. 

Not a chance. We'll suck it up like we always do.

This would be the time to do it though without being accused as being bad lovers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fort Vallance
Just now, Fort Vallance said:

Not a chance. We'll suck it up like we always do.

This would be the time to do it though without being accused as being bad losers. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Berra than you
5 minutes ago, Pete Elliott said:

Naismith: “Then the second one, at Ibrox we get blocked and the penalty (for Rangers) stands. This time there’s saying there’s a block and blocks now count. It’s the inconsistency that’s ruining it. You just hope at some point it changes.”

This is the shankland penalty. Was told it's not cause Boyce blocks the defender before hand. Never in a million years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spitonastranger
56 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.

Rubbish, VAR would show contact, the ref cheated not Boyce 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spitonastranger
36 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

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

👏

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.


Its 4pm here and i wish i was off my face enough for this post. Will read again later…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lost in space
2 minutes ago, Spitonastranger said:

Rubbish, VAR would show contact, the ref cheated not Boyce 

There does seem to be contact but probably not enough to make any difference - otherwise Boyce would have felt contact and held his chest.

Boyce holding his face proves that he tried to cheat.

Dud ref cheat? I don't know. Not conclusive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Club should demand clarification. 

 

Works for Rangers. 

 

We're absolute pussies when it comes to dealing with the SFA. Time and time again, we just bend over and take it. 

 

Should be going off our tits about it, instead we just accept it and move on. I don't get it, does paying fans a huge injustice and feels a bit like a slap in the face the club is so willing to roll over on this constantly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boyce could hold his 'nads and it's still a penalty.   Contact is contact especially a high foot. 

 

The only argument is was it in the box.   We don't have a line from the side. 

Edited by HMFC01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

How incompetent/biased do these clowns have to be before we make a complaint?

 

Apparently there isn't a basement to the level the quality will drop to for us to say enough. 

 

Just another incompetent weegie, refereeing top flight football purely because he comes from the West. 

 

Its a ****ing disgrace. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, lost in space said:

Yes, Var guy thought it MIGHT be.

 

Yes but that's not what you said though.

 

"VAR then believes there couldn't have been contact on the chest, as Boyce would be holding his chest."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, lost in space said:

There does seem to be contact but probably not enough to make any difference - otherwise Boyce would have felt contact and held his chest.

Boyce holding his face proves that he tried to cheat.

Dud ref cheat? I don't know. Not conclusive.

 


Boyve could’ve held his todger for all it mattered. A more experienced ref with multiple angles deemed it a penalty. Which it was, high boot + contact = penalty. But only that wee nerd of a ref thought different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lost in space
4 minutes ago, cazzyy said:

 

Yes but that's not what you said though.

 

"VAR then believes there couldn't have been contact on the chest, as Boyce would be holding his chest."

 

We don't know what anyone was actually thinking. We are all trying to work out what actually happened.

Some think it was a pen and some think not.

There was a small amount of contact probably to the chest. If Boyce hadn't held his face he may have got the pen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Pete Elliott said:

Naismith: “Then the second one, at Ibrox we get blocked and the penalty (for Rangers) stands. This time there’s saying there’s a block and blocks now count. It’s the inconsistency that’s ruining it. You just hope at some point it changes.”

 

28 minutes ago, Berra than you said:

This is the shankland penalty. Was told it's not cause Boyce blocks the defender before hand. Never in a million years.

 

If so, why does the game restart with a Motherwell goal kick not a free kick where Boyce was standing?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

Must be 1,000,000th of a mm gap there.   As has been stated high boot is dangerous play.  Foul, there fore, penalty.  Only a Lanarkshire SFA official could NOT give that.  If at the other end, our defender would have been sent off.

 

 

Screenshot_20231111_222011_Gallery.thumb.jpg.df4412fabd0effee7b68a8dcccffe100.jpg

 

I'd have taken it, don't get me wrong. But without contact was never gonna be given. Boyce turned and ran towards him and his foot is clearly outstretched and close to his head but equally close to the ball, but Boyce isn't completely upright either which makes his foot look higher on some of the replay angles.

 

Would be curious if Boyce hadn't made out there had been contact and was more appealing on the basis of having to evade contact what the call would have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kingantti1874
Just now, RS86 said:

Screenshot_20231111_222011_Gallery.thumb.jpg.df4412fabd0effee7b68a8dcccffe100.jpg

 

I'd have taken it, don't get me wrong. But without contact was never gonna be given. Boyce turned and ran towards him and his foot is clearly outstretched and close to his head but equally close to the ball, but Boyce isn't completely upright either which makes his foot look higher on some of the replay angles.

 

Would be curious if Boyce hadn't made out there had been contact and was more appealing on the basis of having to evade contact what the call would have been.


I think you need to read the thread back. There was contact 100% 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RS86 said:

Screenshot_20231111_222011_Gallery.thumb.jpg.df4412fabd0effee7b68a8dcccffe100.jpg

 

I'd have taken it, don't get me wrong. But without contact was never gonna be given. Boyce turned and ran towards him and his foot is clearly outstretched and close to his head but equally close to the ball, but Boyce isn't completely upright either which makes his foot look higher on some of the replay angles.

 

Would be curious if Boyce hadn't made out there had been contact and was more appealing on the basis of having to evade contact what the call would have been.


That still was taken a millisecond before he was studded in the chest. 

 

Boyce shouldn’t have grabbed his head but all players are told to exaggerate things to grab the refs attention. For example when Connor Goldson gets a wee pull in his shirts but swan dives forward. Bet no one in the media called him a disgrace, wonder why.

Edited by DS98
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

Boyce could hold his 'nads and it's still a penalty.   Contact is contact especially a high foot. 

 

The only argument is was it in the box.   We don't have a line from the side. 

Pulled and a high boot, but Motherwell get the decision. Incompetence or cheating. Can only be one or the other 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brick Tamland

2 stonewall penalties, no ifs, buts, or maybes. Anyone thinking otherwise needs to give their heads a wobble. If you do think they were not penalties, do you think the bigot twins would have been denied them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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. 


They'd never dare. OId firm lickspittle cheerleaders. 
 

1 hour ago, gordiegords said:

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


Hibs prick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gizmo said:


They'd never dare. OId firm lickspittle cheerleaders. 

 

A lot of the easy ride the OF get is from the sheer volume of incoherent abuse that comes from their unwashed hordes if anyone dares to crticise their team. 

 

Maybe we just need more mouth breathers in our support. More fans willing to take things straight to 10 all the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Borders Jambo

The only disgrace in all of this is the referee and BBC Scotland so called football commentators,

 

As for Nevin, for someone so called intelligent have another look at the footage or is he so much up the orifices of the BBC. 

 

Blatant and don't tell me these wouldn't have ben given to Rangers, or Pat's beloved Celtic, oh no sorry Hibs.

 

We should really be asking for an explanation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh

For those saying there was no contact think back to when the Shepherd (Goncalves) got sent off when he jumped up as well as his foot being high but was not within a foot or two of the opposition player. Clearly contact was irrelevant that day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spitonastranger
1 hour ago, lost in space said:

There does seem to be contact but probably not enough to make any difference - otherwise Boyce would have felt contact and held his chest.

Boyce holding his face proves that he tried to cheat.

Dud ref cheat? I don't know. Not conclusive.

 

So Hearts player cheats, but not ref, ok good night 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pen all day long. Does mot need to be much contact because just the leg being that high near enough to the face is dangerous play and puts the player off. 
 

A truly awfuk decision by the ref on the pitch and to then be told and go look at it and stick with the wrong decision is terrible. 
 

Thankfully didnt cost us today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunder and Lightning

So, are our board incompetent or complicit in the cheating?

 

Thst don't call it out so are either too stupid to see it, or are happy for it to continue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Default SFA-VAR position seems to be award penalty immediately against Hearts and hope VAR doesn't take it away and not award a penalty for Hearts and hope VAR can find some half-arsed reason not to give one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hearts00 said:

Pen all day long. Does mot need to be much contact because just the leg being that high near enough to the face is dangerous play and puts the player off. 
 

A truly awfuk decision by the ref on the pitch and to then be told and go look at it and stick with the wrong decision is terrible. 
 

Thankfully didnt cost us today. 

 

I've always interpreted the ref being told to go look at it as "you've got this wrong mate, here is an out for you..." - actually remember against Celtic, Collum forcing Walsh to look at the VAR screen and the media basically hinting that the communication to refs is essentially to back VAR. So clearly that has changed again... 

 

To stick with his decision is piss poor. Stonewaller, and TBH the ref should be sanctioned for it. 

 

We should have sufficient depth in the refereeing ranks to actually punish poor referees by demoting them until they've proven competent again. I.e they're not just down for a week or two, they actually stay down until its clear they're not being complacent etc. 

 

I'm not saying refs need to be humilated or anything, but the total lack of accountability is piss poor beyond belief. Basically carte blanche to do as they like and zero repercussions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Thunder and Lightning said:

So, are our board incompetent or complicit in the cheating?

 

Thst don't call it out so are either too stupid to see it, or are happy for it to continue. 

 

I think McKinley wants to be in the in crowd within the SFA, and Budge is apathetic from her previous dealings with the SFA. 

 

I find it weak. Our Chair and CEO have an obligation to the fans to represent their interests/ protect the interests of the football club. 

 

Just conceding that every referee is a weegie and that having zero accountability for terrible decisions is okay is doing the fans a massive disservice. 

 

I really hope at the AGM there are a significant number of questions directed towards Savage, McKinley & Budge about this - message from the stands needs to be clear that just accepting this isn't good enough. Fans pay good money to follow the team, the least any of us deserve is impartial and competent referees. By shrinking the pool to just 4 of the local associations, they're ensuring that there isn't sufficient depth and competition (and therefore quality) within the refereeing ranks. Willie Collum for example has been a FIFA list referee for 17 years, are they seriously telling us that Willie Collum has been at the top of his game as a referee for 17 years ? There hasn't been anyone capable of knocking him out of the FIFA list in say, the last 7 years given he's now 44??? Christ, there hasn't been an Edinburgh FIFA referee since Callum Murray in 2013 (interestingly Murray was only on the FIFA list for 8 years...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I joined JKB in 2004/05 and was gobsmacked that not every Hearts fan would get behind the appointment of John Robertson, our greatest living legend with not a bad managerial record at all. 
Therefore it comes as no surprise that there are Hearts fans who refuse to be convinced that OUR player being studded in the chest inside the opposition box is a penalty. Bonkers but there you have it. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, hearts00 said:

Pen all day long. Does mot need to be much contact because just the leg being that high near enough to the face is dangerous play and puts the player off. 
 

A truly awfuk decision by the ref on the pitch and to then be told and go look at it and stick with the wrong decision is terrible. 
 

Thankfully didnt cost us today. 

This. I think there is a brush of contact but it doesn’t matter if there’s none. That’s a high boot up at face/neck level endangering an opponent and it’s a red card and a penalty.

 

The Shankland one seems to have been turned down for Boyce blocking the central defender. We should be right through to Hampden with Videos of that and the ‘block’ in the Ibrox game just before the shirt pull and demanding to know wtf the rule is regarding blocking in the box by either side. 

Edited by JimmyCant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't read through the post.  High boot on Boyce nothing. Shankland plays the ball with a high boot but no contact foul?. We as a club have to start asking for clarity. Other clubs do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gorgie rd eh11
9 hours ago, Boris said:

Minimal shminimal.

 

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

 

 


VAR is not the problem, it’s the incompetent cheating arseh**s from “Lanarkshire” who are the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The foot is high and dangerous. Do they only think it counts it that connects with Boyces face and he requires stitches and to be substituted?

 

These refs have never kicked a ball in their life, if anyone kicks you in real time that high your initial defensive reaction would be to raise your hands to your face. When you slow things down you can pick away and critique every detail though which is not really the point of VAR.

 

As for the BBC and VAR saying its because he held his face... if that's the case where were they when Goldson was pulled back but fell forward. Where were they when Stevenson handballed a goalbound shot and Porteous went down holding his face?! 

 

The double standards in this country is astonishing and needs called out pronto. Only Vlad would do it and look at how they turned on the Lithuanians 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought both were stonewall penalties on first viewing and nothing I have seen will convince me otherwise. 

As for the BBC,  maybe it is time that our club adopted a stance against these old firm apologists and told them that they are not welcome at our club.

Years of them being frightened of criticising either bigot brother in case they are excluded from the corporate freebies means they are incapable of anything resembling fair and balanced reporting.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kingantti1874 said:


for posters on page 3 who think no contact. 

This should be sent to the SFA and BBC Scotland with a letter demanding an apology.

  It’s high time our club grew a pair and stood up for itself and it’s fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OTT said:

 

I think McKinley wants to be in the in crowd within the SFA, and Budge is apathetic from her previous dealings with the SFA. 

 

I find it weak. Our Chair and CEO have an obligation to the fans to represent their interests/ protect the interests of the football club. 

 

Just conceding that every referee is a weegie and that having zero accountability for terrible decisions is okay is doing the fans a massive disservice. 

 

I really hope at the AGM there are a significant number of questions directed towards Savage, McKinley & Budge about this - message from the stands needs to be clear that just accepting this isn't good enough. Fans pay good money to follow the team, the least any of us deserve is impartial and competent referees. By shrinking the pool to just 4 of the local associations, they're ensuring that there isn't sufficient depth and competition (and therefore quality) within the refereeing ranks. Willie Collum for example has been a FIFA list referee for 17 years, are they seriously telling us that Willie Collum has been at the top of his game as a referee for 17 years ? There hasn't been anyone capable of knocking him out of the FIFA list in say, the last 7 years given he's now 44??? Christ, there hasn't been an Edinburgh FIFA referee since Callum Murray in 2013 (interestingly Murray was only on the FIFA list for 8 years...  

 

Absolutely spot on.

 

We really need to start and grow a pair.


This trying to be all nicey nicey hasn’t got us anywhere for far too long now, so let’s have a go - what’s there to lose ffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Hook said:

 

Absolutely spot on.

 

We really need to start and grow a pair.


This trying to be all nicey nicey hasn’t got us anywhere for far too long now, so let’s have a go - what’s there to lose ffs.


But if we have a go the referees will treat us unfairly………

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...