David Munro/penalty ( merged )

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

It was a clear penalty but Boyce will hopefully take on board that rantic player theatrics does not guarantee a decision in OUR favour. If he had clutched his chest instead then there is no way a ref, no matter how biased they are, could turn that down as a penalty decision.

[DS98]

1 hour ago, Boof said:

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.

That is correct but a high foot only results in an indirect free kick if there is no contact. Contact, ANY contact and that makes it a direct free kick or penalty. No ifs no buts. 

 

Clancy, who is a far more experienced ref, would have been telling him exactly that. It’s an absolute astonishing decision. 

[luckyBatistuta]

2 hours 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. 

You can file this with VAR if it was to happen…it will change nothing. You can take refs from anywhere else in Scotland, even abroad and it still won’t change. The pressure from the West that’s always there, will still always be there. Nobody wants to upset the OF for fear of not progressing their career or even losing it. It’s the same with the media pundits too, they just spout west coast bias to keep their cosy wee job with the boys. 
 

1 hour ago, Boof said:

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.

If I was to scythe you down from behind with a two footed lunge through the air, that would be playing in a dangerous manner too.

 

It’s a pen all day long for me. Anywhere else that happened on the pitch, he would have gave a foul, he just didn’t want to give us a pen, for whatever his personal reasons are. I’m 100% convinced that either OF and Motherwell up the other end would be placing the ball on the spot with that scenario.

[DS98]

Imagine if Celtic or Rangers never got a penalty for that? (Don’t laugh).

 

Crawford Allan would’ve already had his tearful apology script drafted before full time. There would be official statements read out on the 6 o’clock news and they’d probably be discussing it in parliament tomorrow. 

[lost in space]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

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 

It was not 100% penalty.

Live on tv - yes defo a penalty for me. Then seeing different angles, I had doubts. Then seeing man/baby rolling about holding his face - I am thinking no.

"Boyce was correctly calling attention to it" you say!!! He was calling attention to a kick in the chest by holding his face????

Take the maroon specs off - Boyce's antics probably made the ref decide that there was no kick in the chest.

[OTT]

11 minutes ago, DS98 said:

Imagine if Celtic or Rangers never got a penalty for that? (Don’t laugh).

 

Crawford Allan would’ve already had his tearful apology script drafted before full time. There would be official statements read out on the 6 o’clock news and they’d probably be discussing it in parliament tomorrow. 

 

You're absolutely spot on. 

 

Its a disgrace. 

 

I'm really falling out of love with Scottish football. Just how rigged a game it is, is depressing the life out of me. I don't think its out of order to ask for impartial and competent referees. We get this by promoting more than just weegies (and only weegies). I'm not asking for West coast officals not to be promoted - far from it, but what we need is parity across all of the Scotland and making use of officials the length and breadth of our country instead of a tiny sliver of what amounts to essentially a 25 minute drive from Glasgow Central station. 

 

Just get left with a feeling of, whats the ****ing point? - I try and just avoid watching us when we play the OF now. Not because I can't handle losing, but because when its even remotely competitive the SFA can't help but put their thumbs on the scale - that Cochrane red card after Walsh had already decided it was a booking for example. Disgraceful and malicious use of VAR and yet the club said absolutely nothing about it. Just rolled over a took it. 

[Boof]

20 minutes ago, DS98 said:

That is correct but a high foot only results in an indirect free kick if there is no contact. Contact, ANY contact and that makes it a direct free kick or penalty. No ifs no buts. 

 

Agree. I believe there was contact and a penalty should have been awarded...but it's not the 'high foot' that's the cause of the penalty, it's the contact. At the very, very least...even if the referee - bizarrely - thought there was no contact, there was still the issue of the dangerous play and an indirect free kick should have resulted.

 

20 minutes ago, DS98 said:

Clancy, who is a far more experienced ref, would have been telling him exactly that. It’s an absolute astonishing decision. 

 

Clancy, normally a complete arsehole, was correct in getting yesterday's referee to review his cock-up...if that was what happened.

[DS98]

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

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 

He’s a ****ing rat. They all are. 
 

If he thinks Boyce was cheating then fine, no issues with that. Where was he and his west coast lapdog chums when Kyogo done his usual Willem Dafoe impression? Or When 6’5’’ 16st Connor Goldson threw himself to the floor after a wee pull. 
 

Nowhere to be seen because they’re all shitebags.

[Star Lizard]

1 minute ago, DS98 said:

He’s a ****ing rat. They all are. 
 

If he thinks Boyce was cheating then fine, no issues with that. Where was he and his west coast lapdog chums when Kyogo done his usual Willem Dafoe impression? Or When 6’5’’ 16st Connor Goldson threw himself to the floor after a wee pull. 
 

Nowhere to be seen because they’re all shitebags.

Correct , if you are too spineless to call it out every time it happens then you forfeit the right to call it out sometimes 

[avhudtheteeshirt]

Having watched it a few times, the ref clearly did not want to give a penalty, when asked to go to the VAR monitor, he had a chance to change his mind.

The VAR ref obviously thought it was a penalty and called his attention to the fact.

Having watched the monitor he says no penalty?

After Naismith coming out about penalties against recent games against the uglies, I feel certain if that incident happened in these games with a high boot from a Hearts player it would have been a penalty and a red card for dangerous play!!!! 

[Boof]

23 minutes ago, luckyBatistuta said:

If I was to scythe you down from behind with a two footed lunge through the air, that would be playing in a dangerous manner too.

 

Nope.

 

That would be reckless resulting in a caution or using dangerous force resulting in an ordering off. And the award of a direct free kick.

 

 

23 minutes ago, luckyBatistuta said:

It’s a pen all day long for me. Anywhere else that happened on the pitch, he would have gave a foul, he just didn’t want to give us a pen, for whatever his personal reasons are. I’m 100% convinced that either OF and Motherwell up the other end would be placing the ball on the spot with that scenario.

 

I'm in agreement with that. However the referee thinks he saw it, there is AT LEAST the issue of the dangerous play from the raised boot from the Motherwell defender.

 

Given that there was contact - the still photos (unless PhotoShopped) show that - it was reckless which should have resulted in a caution and penalty.

[Ford Prentice]

There's been a lot of focus on Boyce holding his head when any contact was on his chest but I think a more significant factor in the referee's decision making was Boyce continually going to ground throughout the match. Any time a Motherwell player wen't near him he was on the deck. So when the ref is asked to look at it again and sees Boyce feigning a head injury he gave the benefit of the doubt to the defender. I think it was a penalty but that Boyce's "cleverness" has cost us. Hopefully we'll see more of Tagawa soon.

[feedthefox]

The Sportsound radio host called Boyce "a disgrace" for clutching his face, I immediately thought whoa I look forward to you repeating that every time that happens.

 

That said it was very poor from Boyce and we'd all be frothing if it had been the other way around.

[CMc]

1 hour ago, DS98 said:

That is correct but a high foot only results in an indirect free kick if there is no contact. Contact, ANY contact and that makes it a direct free kick or penalty. No ifs no buts. 

 

Clancy, who is a far more experienced ref, would have been telling him exactly that. It’s an absolute astonishing decision. 

The only way I can see it as not a penalty is if they are calling it a dive from Boyce. This would in theory be the first offence and they could claim play stops there. 
 

 

Ridiculously harsh if so. He was clearly pulled back. But if they felt that wasn’t a foul and he then chose to go down, you can just about see a logic - even if you disagree with each of the decisions in the chain (which I do FWIW). 
 

It’s a tough one. When Rudi first signed for us, he never went down and was spectacular at riding challenges. Never got free kicks and got the shit kicked out of him. Then he started making sure the refs knew when he got hit (definitely not diving to be clear, just a wee hobble step when he got up, etc). Worked for a while and then teams started accusing him of diving. Fouls started to dry up. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. 
 

 

[Jamb04life]

Will be interesting to see what criticism comes Rangers/mcausland’s way after that dive today….  Unbelievably (not surprising) Rangers got the penalty and the VAR check lasted all of 2 secs! 
 

Had to laugh that it took the officials about 5 mins to check the most offside goal rangers will score all season; they must’ve been desperate to give it but had no choice in the end to disallow it 

 

it’s the inconsistency that is frustrating the fans. Our officials are just not good enough to implement VAR properly 

[Drumjambo]

15 hours 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.

 

Made up after the fact They initially gave offside which it clearly wasn't.

 

I don't know why the club are not calling this use of VAR out its turning in to VAC video assisted cheating. 

 

Clancy wouldn't know a foul if he played the game for 100 years pure and simple !! The referees  are not good enough and Hearts Hibs and the rest want to be asking for better standards. Celtic and Rangers are afforded most decisions so are happy with the status quo - Apart from in Europe where we have all seen the results. And Considerable greetin from the victims in particular

 

Its Crystal clear that  professional refs are now required urgently -  Its way beyond the Weegie mafia bowling club nonsense. 

 

A Job for our CEO you'd think ha ha!!!

[wavydavy]

3 hours 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

 

He was praising Steve Clarke for including O'Donnell in the Scotland Squad a year or two back as well so quite possibly has a leaning towards Motherwell.

[jbee647]

12 minutes ago, feedthefox said:

The Sportsound radio host called Boyce "a disgrace" for clutching his face, I immediately thought whoa I look forward to you repeating that every time that happens.

 

That said it was very poor from Boyce and we'd all be frothing if it had been the other way around.

Maybe Boyce got mud in his eye from Casey’s flying boot, that is no more unlikely than Andy Webster fouling himself after being attacked by John Hartson, the media were quite happy to accept Martin O’Neills explanation at the time.

Boyce held his head when he went down, but immediately clutched his chest, he did not roll around holding his head as has been made out.

This would not even have been up for discussion if it had been an old firm player and Dan Casey would be on a 3 game ban

Like I said, Boyce obviously got something in his eye.

[18Jambo_dave74]

Don’t care how ‘theatrical’ Boyce was - it’s about time. Every shirt pull, block, nudge, hint of contact seems to be spotted when it’s on our box so it’s about time we started falling down and trying to ‘highlight’ fouls. 
 

It’s a high boot therefore a foul - indirect free kick, penalty, whatever. As pointed out the ref had no hesitation giving a foul against shankland on the half way line for a lesser infringement of the same nature. I’ve seen other posters mention it but I remember Goncalves being sent off for a high boot and from memory I’m not sure there was even contact. Talbot for livi against Nicholson just a booking of course…
 

The second one on shankland looked pretty clear to me too - I’d love to know what the ref actually gave as there is absolutely no foul or offside by any of our players.

 

Ref’s instincts for us seem to be not to give decisions/penalties (then send our player off for diving…) yet when it’s the old firm the instinct is to immediately point to the spot. Then it’s deemed not a “clear and obvious” mistake - the Kyogo one the other week was laughable. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind both penalties would have been given had it been the old firm. 

[tcjambo]

19 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.

And the trajectory of the ball was such that it was going over the bar. I think that should be a factor in deciding whether it's a penalty or not. VAR should be able to show the trajectory as  ball tracking does in cricket.

[cazzyy]

3 hours 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.

 

 

When the defenders leg is above his waist and makes contact it's a foul.

[coatbridgejambo]

Club needs to start calling this shit out. The old firm do it all the time without getting finned so a pressident has been set.

[Ricardo Quaresma]

3 hours ago, Aussie Jambo said:

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? 

 

There's more to if than that; the replay 'apparently' showing no contact from behind the goal, on Boyce, has been rendered at 1 or 2 FPS

 

This skips the contact altogether and lets persistence of vision convince the viewer that there's no contact, but we saw it and we've seen the still at the moment of contact

 

This is ******* scandalous and someone definitely is ******* around trying to pull the wool

 

I will demonstrate by posting the 'one frame to the next' video on YouTube later

[Taffin]

23 minutes ago, cazzyy said:

 

When the defenders leg is above his waist and makes contact it's a foul.

 

I haven't read that rule in fairness, but as I said I was just just sharing my preference. Players getting brushed shouldn't be penalties for me and rolling about holding their faces is just embarrassing.

 

More idealistic than anything.

[Gizmo]

3 hours ago, Cruickie's Moustache said:

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.

I've no doubt that Pat Nevin and Kenny McIntyre were going tonto at Kyogo going down theatrically after engineering minimal contact, right? right?
 

2 hours ago, All roads lead to Gorgie said:

It was a clear penalty but Boyce will hopefully take on board that rantic player theatrics does not guarantee a decision in OUR favour. If he had clutched his chest instead then there is no way a ref, no matter how biased they are, could turn that down as a penalty decision.

So it's not awarded for the infringement when it's Hearts, we are awarded on how measured our player's response is to a high kick to the chest in the box? Okaaay.
 

1 hour ago, lost in space said:

It was not 100% penalty.

Live on tv - yes defo a penalty for me. Then seeing different angles, I had doubts. Then seeing man/baby rolling about holding his face - I am thinking no.

"Boyce was correctly calling attention to it" you say!!! He was calling attention to a kick in the chest by holding his face????

Take the maroon specs off - Boyce's antics probably made the ref decide that there was no kick in the chest.

Again, we aren't judging penalties on their dramatic elements any more than we award goals depending on how well they are celebrated! Maybe Boyce held his face in pain, who the **** are you or the referee to pre-judge?

I've no doubt that the referees, having set this additional and arbitrary reasoning will be looking forward to enforcing them during the Livingston v Rangers match, right?

Oh wait, what's that? Customary two Rangers penalties, one so laughable that it's even labelled "a clear dive" by the pundits and even the BBC reporting it as thus...
 

PENALTY TO RANGERS

Livingston 0-0 Rangers

Ross McCausland goes down in a heap as goalkeeper Shamal George dives at his feet near the byeline.

Not a lot of contact there...

**** the referees, **** Glasgow, **** the west coast disease, **** the pundits and **** this league. 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Gizmo

[ramrod]

1 hour ago, lost in space said:

It was not 100% penalty.

Live on tv - yes defo a penalty for me. Then seeing different angles, I had doubts. Then seeing man/baby rolling about holding his face - I am thinking no.

"Boyce was correctly calling attention to it" you say!!! He was calling attention to a kick in the chest by holding his face????

Take the maroon specs off - Boyce's antics probably made the ref decide that there was no kick in the chest.

What Boyce did after the incident has ZERO impact on the incident.

It's either a penalty or iit isn't regardless of what happened in the aftermath unless we are condoning incompetence in arriving at the decision. 

That was a penalty every day of the week and twice on a Sunday , only an idiot would think otherwise. 

[Gizmo]

22 minutes ago, ramrod said:

What Boyce did after the incident has ZERO impact on the incident.

It's either a penalty or iit isn't regardless of what happened in the aftermath unless we are condoning incompetence in arriving at the decision. 

That was a penalty every day of the week and twice on a Sunday , only an idiot would think otherwise. 

Exactly, it's like someone shot dead and the Police go;  Well, you know what, he went down like he was in a cheap Western movie, Wilhelm scream and all. Pathetic, 1/10, no oscar for this *****. Let's just not bother investigating this one.

 

[Star Lizard]

48 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I haven't read that rule in fairness, but as I said I was just just sharing my preference. Players getting brushed shouldn't be penalties for me and rolling about holding their faces is just embarrassing.

 

More idealistic than anything.

I agree with you actually I get wound up by the statement “ I felt contact so I went down “ . Always seem to give away penalties through that shit 

[jamboozy]

1 hour ago, coatbridgejambo said:

Club needs to start calling this shit out. The old firm do it all the time without getting finned so a pressident has been set.

 Not a chance will we do this mate, we even have SFA apologists on here saying Boyce is a cheat( or words to that effect).

[Harry Potter]

2 hours ago, lost in space said:

It was not 100% penalty.

Live on tv - yes defo a penalty for me. Then seeing different angles, I had doubts. Then seeing man/baby rolling about holding his face - I am thinking no.

"Boyce was correctly calling attention to it" you say!!! He was calling attention to a kick in the chest by holding his face????

Take the maroon specs off - Boyce's antics probably made the ref decide that there was no kick in the chest.

That would be a penalty in any other game, i think you need maroon specs.😃.

While im here was that not a high kick which is dangerous play, maybe a sending off, that ref was a joke, but just the normal standard.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Harry Potter

[Cisco1914]

17 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

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.

If that decision is against any one of the old firm it’s a penalty and a sending off.

[lost in space]

44 minutes ago, ramrod said:

What Boyce did after the incident has ZERO impact on the incident.

It's either a penalty or iit isn't regardless of what happened in the aftermath unless we are condoning incompetence in arriving at the decision. 

That was a penalty every day of the week and twice on a Sunday , only an idiot would think otherwise. 

Quite a few disagree with your opinion - so they are all idiots???  That says a lot about you.

I do agree tho that Boyce's simulation should not have changed the decision. However, when making a decision - seeing a player simulate will have a bearing on the person making the decision.

 

[lost in space]

8 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

That would be a penalty in any other game, i think you need maroon specs.😃.

Ha, I do have maroon specs but they are not permanently attached - unlike some posters.

[Star Lizard]

5 minutes ago, lost in space said:

Quite a few disagree with your opinion - so they are all idiots???  That says a lot about you.

I do agree tho that Boyce's simulation should not have changed the decision. However, when making a decision - seeing a player simulate will have a bearing on the person making the decision.

 

Does not matter how many people get it wrong , that does not change the fact that they are wrong . Leg above waste height and contact with player is a foul and a foul in the box is a penalty . Not idiotic to not be aware of this but definitely idiotic to still keep going with it when it has been proven to be wrong . Someone posted the rule / law earlier in the thread 

[lost in space]

18 minutes ago, jamboozy said:

 Not a chance will we do this mate, we even have SFA apologists on here saying Boyce is a cheat( or words to that effect).

I think we all agree that Boyce simulated an injury to his face (apart from the poster who said that maybe he got mud in his eye😀).

Simulating is an attempt at cheating, isnt it?  If it was Wiggy, we would all be shouting for a yellow card.

 

Some saying the club should be going to SFA with this. Can you imagine going over the video footage of this with the SFA - with the video showing Boyce's antics. Embarrassing.

[jamboozy]

Just now, lost in space said:

I think we all agree that Boyce simulated an injury to his face (apart from the poster who said that maybe he got mud in his eye😀).

Simulating is an attempt at cheating, isnt it?  If it was Wiggy, we would all be shouting for a yellow card.

 

Some saying the club should be going to SFA with this. Can you imagine going over the video footage of this with the SFA - with the video showing Boyce's antics. Embarrassing.

Is it or is it not a penalty in your eyes? It is in mine , opinions eh? 

[frankblack]

Just now, jamboozy said:

Is it or is it not a penalty in your eyes? It is in mine , opinions eh? 

 

In Europe that would be a pen 100%.  High boot penalised every time.

[Firefox]

Don't buy this 'it was because he was holding his face' pish! How many time have you seen players taking a sore one to their ankle or calf, then go down holding their face? Boyce was held back initially just outside the box but a high foot is a high foot, contact or not, and there was contact in this case. Shankland was penalised for a high foot that didn't make contact. By the rules of the game, a high foot is a foul, and a foul inside the box is a penalty. 

[Harry Potter]

15 minutes ago, lost in space said:

Ha, I do have maroon specs but they are not permanently attached - unlike some posters.

😃, good reply.

[jamboozy]

3 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

In Europe that would be a pen 100%.  High boot penalised every time.

Thanks 👍

[Star Lizard]

2 minutes ago, Firefox said:

Don't buy this 'it was because he was holding his face' pish! How many time have you seen players taking a sore one to their ankle or calf, then go down holding their face? Boyce was held back initially just outside the box but a high foot is a high foot, contact or not, and there was contact in this case. Shankland was penalised for a high foot that didn't make contact. By the rules of the game, a high foot is a foul, and a foul inside the box is a penalty. 

Correct . It is not even debatable so I do not understand why there are people still trying to falsely argue differently . It is a penalty by the laws of the game and there are no two ways about it 

[Ricardo Quaresma]

9 minutes ago, lost in space said:

I think we all agree that Boyce simulated an injury to his face (apart from the poster who said that maybe he got mud in his eye😀).

Simulating is an attempt at cheating, isnt it?  If it was Wiggy, we would all be shouting for a yellow card.

 

Some saying the club should be going to SFA with this. Can you imagine going over the video footage of this with the SFA - with the video showing Boyce's antics. Embarrassing.

 

The video the referee saw skipped the point of contact on Boyce; completely and utterly bunny-hopped it

[kingantti1874]

11 minutes ago, lost in space said:

I think we all agree that Boyce simulated an injury to his face (apart from the poster who said that maybe he got mud in his eye😀).

Simulating is an attempt at cheating, isnt it?  If it was Wiggy, we would all be shouting for a yellow card.

 

Some saying the club should be going to SFA with this. Can you imagine going over the video footage of this with the SFA - with the video showing Boyce's antics. Embarrassing.

you are embarrassing. We could go with 50 examples. Furuhashi and Goldson over the last 3 weeks. 

[Berra than you]

5 hours 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.

I actually agree, I just meant it shouldn't come into the referee's thinking at all given the foul (wether you think it is or not, matter of opinion) happens before hand.

[lost in space]

21 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Does not matter how many people get it wrong , that does not change the fact that they are wrong . Leg above waste height and contact with player is a foul and a foul in the box is a penalty . Not idiotic to not be aware of this but definitely idiotic to still keep going with it when it has been proven to be wrong . Someone posted the rule / law earlier in the thread 

Is it this rule -

"If a high kick occurs in the penalty area and makes contact with a player, it could result in a direct penalty kick being awarded. For a direct penalty kick to be awarded for a high kick, the defending team must commit the foul against a player on the offensive team."

[Star Lizard]

2 minutes ago, lost in space said:

Is it this rule -

"If a high kick occurs in the penalty area and makes contact with a player, it could result in a direct penalty kick being awarded. For a direct penalty kick to be awarded for a high kick, the defending team must commit the foul against a player on the offensive team."

Yes that one 

[lost in space]

12 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

you are embarrassing. We could go with 50 examples. Furuhashi and Goldson over the last 3 weeks. 

Ok, go with 49 examples. Just dont use the one where Boyce is simulating/cheating.😇

[lost in space]

1 minute ago, Sooks said:

Yes that one 

 

You did notice the "could" didnt you??????????

[Ricardo Quaresma]

Right; if you record the screen from the Sky Sports vid, then play it back, hammering the play / pause, you'll see the point of contact with Boyce, the rendering on the webpage is skipping frames

 

But I am pretty sure that's what the ref sees on his monitor too; reckon this needs investigating but that system is not good enough, I think; it needs far more frames per second, 60, 120, 144, 165, but can it do more already but it's set to a lower rate?

 

Can't be ar$ed putting the YouTube vid up, like I stated earlier; it's there, but they've put it in short format again and the trial period for the app that fixes it has expired 😔

[Star Lizard]

7 minutes ago, lost in space said:

 

You did notice the "could" didnt you??????????

Yes . Did you notice the explanation of when it would be a penalty later on