David Munro/penalty ( merged )

[mr fox]

12 hours ago, luckyBatistuta said:

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.

Incredible really 

[wavydavy]

15 hours ago, liam11 said:

Not as recognisable a name as Nick Walsh or Willie Collum, but no less incompetent.

 

High boot on Boyce in the box. No foul.

High boot on a Motherwell player two mins later. Foul.

 

Don’t get me started on the second VAR check.

 

Had to laugh after watching Sportscene where they said he got it worng but he was consistent with his decisions. Really!!!!

[manaliveits105]

Our board should definitely tell bbc to do one not welcome 

[wavydavy]

12 hours ago, SectionDJambo said:

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.

 

 

Quote below from the unbiased BBC Sport.

 

Hearts thought they should have had a spot-kick when Boyce went down theatrically holding his face on the edge of the box following a high boot from Dan Casey.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

2 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

Had to laugh after watching Sportscene where they said he got it worng but he was consistent with his decisions. Really!!!!

He probably was (consistent with his decisions). There's a use of the word 'consistent' in football (mostly by pundits & under pressure managers) that seems to suggest a team/player/ref is doing doing something well, ignoring the fact that you can be consistently wrong/bad just as often as consistently right/good.

[savage]

Sportscene never even discussed the Shankland penalty and I cannot see any circumstances which don't account to a penalty.  Two stonewallers for me and how Casey lasted 90 minutes is beyond me.  Paton also should have had two yellows. Appalling performance from Munro

[Hook]

27 minutes ago, Thomaso said:

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

😁 Indeed….it can only get worse….

[soonbe110]

1 minute ago, savage said:

Sportscene never even discussed the Shankland penalty and I cannot see any circumstances which don't account to a penalty.  Two stonewallers for me and how Casey lasted 90 minutes is beyond me.  Paton also should have had two yellows. Appalling performance from Munro

If Boyce got  even the slightest touch on the ball in then Shankland was offside  so no need for var to even look at the pen incident. 

[Valois No1]

Both were penalties. Both would have been given for the old firm. I also believe both would have been given at the other end of the park for Motherwell. I suspect there has been an anti Hearts agenda for many many years and decisions like this make my suspicions even stronger. 

 

Corrupt to the core.

[Taffin]

The contact for the first one was minimal and for me not enough to constitute a penalty. We'd have penalties endlessly if that was the threshold. I also don't like to see simulation rewarded.

 

Thought the second one was a clear penalty.

[EIEIO]

10 hours ago, Borders Jambo said:

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

Correct and it's the best time to call it out as we won anyway.

[HMFC 86]

18 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

 

Quote below from the unbiased BBC Sport.

 

Hearts thought they should have had a spot-kick when Boyce went down theatrically holding his face on the edge of the box following a high boot from Dan Casey.

That report is packed with sly digs, Clive Lindsay the BBC “journalist” clearly has an agenda in common with his employer

[OTT]

3 minutes ago, Valois No1 said:

Both were penalties. Both would have been given for the old firm. I also believe both would have been given at the other end of the park for Motherwell. I suspect there has been an anti Hearts agenda for many many years and decisions like this make my suspicions even stronger. 

 

Corrupt to the core.

 

Yep. The fact that "Penalty Rangers" has become a ****ing meme should put any defence of the referees to bed. 

 

We need root and branch overhaul of the refereeing association. 

 

Quota system to ensure parity in promotions across all 12 of the local refereeing associations and no more only promoting from Ayrshire, Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and Glasgow. 

 

This would deepen the pool of referees and allow for greater diversity in appointments, more competition and actual accountability - demotions, when referees make big errors. 

 

The current culture within the refereeing body seems to be it doesn't matter as long as its not against Rangers/Celtic. 

 

It reminds me of a kitchen in Kitchen Nightmares when you have a chef that just doesn't give a ****. Zero accountability and is ruining the experience. 

 

Go into every game now wondering how the ref is going to **** us. Thats a depressing place to be. 

[Jamhammer]

15 hours ago, Boof said:

 

He was also off-balance due to the Motherwell defender yanking his arm.

This

[OTT]

4 minutes ago, Taffin said:

The contact for the first one was minimal and for me not enough to constitute a penalty. We'd have penalties endlessly if that was the threshold. I also don't like to see simulation rewarded.

 

Thought the second one was a clear penalty.

 

Minimal is still contact, and his feet were high. 

 

Its a freekick anywhere on the pitch, so its a penalty. 

 

Boyce did throw himself about with some theatrics, but that is the nature of modern football now. Its a penalty all day long. 

 

Had it been given, there would have been no complaints. 

[King prawn]

Thought the high boot was a penalty but I’d be embarrassed going down holding my face if I were Boyce 

[Taffin]

6 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Minimal is still contact, and his feet were high. 

 

Its a freekick anywhere on the pitch, so its a penalty. 

 

Boyce did throw himself about with some theatrics, but that is the nature of modern football now. Its a penalty all day long. 

 

Had it been given, there would have been no complaints. 

 

Minimal is still contact yes, but not all contact is a penalty. There's near continuous contact in football. 

 

'Contact being a foul', face holding, rolling about, re-reffing games etc are not good elements of the modern game for me...so I'd be glad to see the back of them.

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Taffin

[naeclue]

17 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

If Boyce got  even the slightest touch on the ball in then Shankland was offside  so no need for var to even look at the pen incident. 

From what Naismith is saying, second was ruled out due to Hearts blocking, ie in the opposite way to us v Rangers at Ibrox.

[Valois No1]

13 minutes ago, Taffin said:

The contact for the first one was minimal and for me not enough to constitute a penalty. We'd have penalties endlessly if that was the threshold. I also don't like to see simulation rewarded.

 

Thought the second one was a clear penalty.

I get your point but if you look at the close up pic you can see Boyce’s shirt being tugged by the studs….it’s all creased. It’s defo a pen man. It defo would be for the stink in Glasgow. 

[OTT]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

Minimal is still contact yes, but not all contact is a penalty. There's near continuous contact in football. 

 

'Contact being a foul', face holding, rolling about, re-reffing games etc are not good elements of the modern for me...so I'd be glad to see the back of them.

 

 

And what about the high feet? Its a two part, there is the contact, but also the high feet - so in tandem you're left with an undeniable penalty. 

 

FWIW, I don't like seeing players exaggerate injury. Hate that wee cheating bowl cut ***** Kyogo because he does it all the time. Would have preferred Boyce to just go down and claim for the pen - gesture about the boot to the chest and see what the ref does. Do wonder if his theatrics maybe played a part in it not being awarded - which would be fine if it was consistent.. but its not. 

[Berra than you]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

Minimal is still contact yes, but not all contact is a penalty. There's near continuous contact in football. 

 

'Contact being a foul', face holding, rolling about, re-reffing games etc are not good elements of the modern game for me...so I'd be glad to see the back of them.

 

There is a difference between minimal contact from a normal challenge, and one where the defenders boot connects with the attackers chest. It's a foul anywhere else on the park, (even if contact isn't made). 

Whilst he probably shouldn't have held.his face, it shouldn't matter at all when there was still contact. 

 

[Boof]

For those saying 'high foot = penalty'...it isn't the case.

 

 Indirect Free Kick 

An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:

plays in a dangerous manner

 

PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

[Fozzyonthefence]

22 minutes ago, Taffin said:

The contact for the first one was minimal and for me not enough to constitute a penalty. We'd have penalties endlessly if that was the threshold. I also don't like to see simulation rewarded.

 

Thought the second one was a clear penalty.

It was dangerous play irrespective of amount of contact.  Only decision to make was either a penalty or indirect free kick.  Ref had a perfect view so incredible he gave neither (especially when he penalised Shankland for a high boot early 2nd half).  I think I’m right in saying once it went to VAR the option to award an indirect free kick disappears.

[thegreatsd]

The ref even gesturing he got the ball at that first penalty shout is another laughable moment. Absolutely nowhere near it at any point. 

[Valois No1]

23 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Yep. The fact that "Penalty Rangers" has become a ****ing meme should put any defence of the referees to bed. 

 

We need root and branch overhaul of the refereeing association. 

 

Quota system to ensure parity in promotions across all 12 of the local refereeing associations and no more only promoting from Ayrshire, Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and Glasgow. 

 

This would deepen the pool of referees and allow for greater diversity in appointments, more competition and actual accountability - demotions, when referees make big errors. 

 

The current culture within the refereeing body seems to be it doesn't matter as long as its not against Rangers/Celtic. 

 

It reminds me of a kitchen in Kitchen Nightmares when you have a chef that just doesn't give a ****. Zero accountability and is ruining the experience. 

 

Go into every game now wondering how the ref is going to **** us. Thats a depressing place to be. 

Agreed mate

[Taffin]

2 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

And what about the high feet? Its a two part, there is the contact, but also the high feet - so in tandem you're left with an undeniable penalty. 

 

I'm not sure you can conflate the two. For me (and it's just my take) there wasn't enough contact for a penalty as I don't believe it really impeded him. Whether that's a high boot, or shoulder to shoulder doesn't change that. I don't think it was reckless or with excessive force. Careless; could be on that one in fairness but it's a bit subjective.

 

2 minutes ago, OTT said:

FWIW, I don't like seeing players exaggerate injury. Hate that wee cheating bowl cut ***** Kyogo because he does it all the time. Would have preferred Boyce to just go down and claim for the pen - gesture about the boot to the chest and see what the ref does. Do wonder if his theatrics maybe played a part in it not being awarded - which would be fine if it was consistent.. but its not. 

 

Agree, the consistency is shocking. 

 

1 minute ago, Berra than you said:

There is a difference between minimal contact from a normal challenge, and one where the defenders boot connects with the attackers chest. It's a foul anywhere else on the park, (even if contact isn't made). 

Whilst he probably shouldn't have held.his face, it shouldn't matter at all when there was still contact. 

 

 

I'm not sure it is a foul anywhere on the park for the reasons above. As I say that's just my opinion though. You obviously do consider it to meet the criteria. Which is cool 👍

 

Can't agree with the bit in bold though. Feigning a head injury is pathetic regardless.

[Fozzyonthefence]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I'm not sure you can conflate the two. For me (and it's just my take) there wasn't enough contact for a penalty as I don't believe it really impeded him. Whether that's a high boot, or shoulder to shoulder doesn't change that. I don't think it was reckless or with excessive force. Careless; could be on that one in fairness but it's a bit subjective.

 

 

Agree, the consistency is shocking. 

 

 

I'm not sure it is a foul anywhere on the park for the reasons above. As I say that's just my opinion though. You obviously do consider it to meet the criteria. Which is cool 👍

 

Can't agree with the bit in bold though. Feigning a head injury is pathetic regardless.

Yet the ref gave a foul against Shankland for the same thing.  Easy to give on the halfway line though. 

[Russ1977]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

I'm not sure you can conflate the two. For me (and it's just my take) there wasn't enough contact for a penalty as I don't believe it really impeded him. Whether that's a high boot, or shoulder to shoulder doesn't change that. I don't think it was reckless or with excessive force. Careless; could be on that one in fairness but it's a bit subjective.

 

 

Agree, the consistency is shocking. 

 

 

I'm not sure it is a foul anywhere on the park for the reasons above. As I say that's just my opinion though. You obviously do consider it to meet the criteria. Which is cool 👍

 

Can't agree with the bit in bold though. Feigning a head injury is pathetic regardless.

The ref gave a foul against shankland for exactly the same thing later in the game and there was zero contact. Boyce made a meal of it but there was definite contact so it was far more of a foul than the one given against shankland. 

[Dalstonjambo]

31 minutes ago, HMFC 86 said:

That report is packed with sly digs, Clive Lindsay the BBC “journalist” clearly has an agenda in common with his employer

I don’t know if it still does, but the initial report (still up last night) had the first goal as a flick following a Jorge Grant header. Jorge Grant was on the bench, is 6 inches shorter than Frankie Kent and looks completely different. 
 

Incredible 

[Aussie Jambo]

Funnily enough the SPL footage on YouTube doesn't show the incident with Boyce. Does though with the handball for penalty. 

Why is it all of a sudden they are targeting guys? 

[section s heart]

29 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Minimal is still contact, and his feet were high. 

 

Its a freekick anywhere on the pitch, so its a penalty. 

 

Boyce did throw himself about with some theatrics, but that is the nature of modern football now. Its a penalty all day long. 

 

Had it been given, there would have been no complaints. 

This. Ref should be in no doubt after VAR that it's a stonewall penalty. He can have a word with or even book Boyce as he thinks he's tried to con him, but he has to give the pen. 

[Sleepy head]

44 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

If Boyce got  even the slightest touch on the ball in then Shankland was offside  so no need for var to even look at the pen incident. 

He didn't though. Did he?

[Fozzyonthefence]

6 minutes ago, section s heart said:

This. Ref should be in no doubt after VAR that it's a stonewall penalty. He can have a word with or even book Boyce as he thinks he's tried to con him, but he has to give the pen. 

Indirect free kick was another option but he couldn’t give that after VAR.  Could only have been an indirect free kick if that was the ref’s onfield decision.  

[Cruickie's Moustache]

The argument is not if the Boyce incident was a penalty or not - its about inconsistency.

 

Against Celtic the other week Kyogo was looking for contact. Cochrane had minimal contact by just touching the Celtic player's foot. Kyogo goes down like he has been shot and does a backwards somersault - Penalty Celtic.

 

Regardless of Casey's high boot,  Boyce chests the ball into the box and goes after it but has his arm tugged back by the other Motherwell player. Like Goldson at Ibrox,  Boyce makes a meal of it And flings himself to the ground. A wee tug and theatrical fall = Penalty Rangers.

 

Of course we then saw a free kick for Shanklands high boot later in the game. The same ref managed to see that fine and make an instant decision of dangerous play despite 'minimal' contact.

 

All most fans want is a level and consistent playing field.

[tiger Rudi]

16 hours ago, Boris said:

Minimal shminimal.

 

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

 

 

Yep, a high boot doesn't have to make contact. It's dangerous play and should have been penalised. Don't think Boyce helped matters with his theatrics, (that were grossly exaggerated by pundits in my view) but it should have been given. 

[The Old Tolbooth]

1 hour ago, manaliveits105 said:

Our board should definitely tell bbc to do one not welcome 

That would involve our board actually growing some sort of spine. 

[rmreido]

The referees are consistent,..... they never give us anything.... and constantly give the opposition everything, its a ####in joke!!!

[Sooks]

They had Bobby Madden on Sportsound as a pundit . He called it a penalty right away and then said that when he sees it on VAR he will give it . Then once it was not given he started trying to explain and justify why it wasnt given . All the time Kenny McIntyre is screeching away in the background calling Boyce a cheat and a disgrace 

[Sooks]

So :

 

last week we were the first team to have a yellow for simulation rescinded 

 

this week we were the first team to have a referee not change his decision after looking at it on the monitor

 

We are trailblazers eh

[lost in space]

Imagine the seethe on here if it had been Boyle who had rolled around holding his face, trying to get a pen.

[Sooks]

1 minute ago, lost in space said:

Imagine the seethe on here if it had been Boyle who had rolled around holding his face, trying to get a pen.

People are calling out his theatrics though . They are just also correctly pointing out that it was a penalty 

[kingantti1874]

6 minutes ago, lost in space said:

Imagine the seethe on here if it had been Boyle who had rolled around holding his face, trying to get a pen.

hed have been awarded the pen. This is the point you seem to be unable to grasp. It was a pen 100%, Boyce was correctly calling attention to it.  Boyle, Hibs, Celtic, Rangers are all getting the pen.

 

still you fail to grasp why people are pissed.  Let’s not talk

sbiut the one on Shankland which was possibly even more of a pen.

 

cheating weegie ****s 

[HexhamJambo]

Lots of people are pointing out that the contact was minimal, but why was that? Because Boyce threw himself out of the way to avoid getting six studs smashed in to his chest.

 

Are we saying that if someone jumps in, in a studs up, two footed lunge, its not a red card offence if you jump out of the way to avoid having your leg broken?

[Sherbet]

VAR looks at any reason to give pens to the old firm and any reason not to give to the rest

[flem]

1 minute ago, Sherbet said:

VAR looks at any reason to give pens to the old firm and any reason not to give to the rest

Spot on 

[Sooks]

The extent of the contact is not a factor , merely if there is any contact . If there is no contact then it is an indirect free kick . If there is contact then it is a penalty 

[gordiegords]

It’s a pen ffs, the boys foot is high and hits boyce on his left tit, pen all day long.

[alicante jambo]

I have watched it about a dozen times and every time its a penalty. The ref is just another poor one off conveyor belt.Btw shanklands was a stonewaller too.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Never mind Sportscene. The Hearts TV highlights don't even show the Shankland foul for the second penalty.

[RENE]

Great piece of reporting by graeme Croser.  He said that VAR looked at penalty claim after 'a tumble by Boyce' .