David Munro/penalty ( merged )

[kingantti1874]

14 minutes ago, lost in space said:

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

serious question.  Whats your agenda here? Did Boyce make a meal of it? Yes.  Should he have becuase it was stonewall and he was trying to draw attention? Yes. Do other players do it? Yes! 
 

your position here is weird. It was a penalty. If it was rangers or Celtic it’s awarded. The end 

[lost in space]

1 minute ago, Sooks said:

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

Yes, but the ref didnt believe it was a foul.  Some were saying it was automatically a pen as there was contact above waist height.  I have not seen that rule!!! (not saying it doesnt exist).

You said "It is a penalty by the laws of the game and there are no two ways about it".

It is up to the ref to decide apparently and there is two ways about it!

[Star Lizard]

Just now, lost in space said:

Yes, but the ref didnt believe it was a foul.  Some were saying it was automatically a pen as there was contact above waist height.  I have not seen that rule!!! (not saying it doesnt exist).

You said "It is a penalty by the laws of the game and there are no two ways about it".

It is up to the ref to decide apparently and there is two ways about it!

You are misunderstanding the law . It clarifies when it is a penalty at the end . It is written that way to rule out contact with your own player 

[lost in space]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

serious question.  Whats your agenda here? Did Boyce make a meal of it? Yes.  Should he have becuase it was stonewall and he was trying to draw attention? Yes. Do other players do it? Yes! 
 

your position here is weird. It was a penalty. If it was rangers or Celtic it’s awarded. The end 

My agenda is - too many saying 100% penalty. It isnt.

Boyces' stupid simulation (he cant even get that right) may have stopped us getting the pen.  If he wanted to "draw attention", he should have held his chest.

[Bill Sikes]

Regards the Boyce incident.

 

If thats your team, your screaming for a penalty & if thats against your team your expecting a penalty against you.

 

Its not a difficult call to make ffs.

[Trigger]

1 minute ago, lost in space said:

My agenda is - I really dislike Boyce.

Obviously.

[lost in space]

3 minutes ago, Sooks said:

You are misunderstanding the law . It clarifies when it is a penalty at the end . It is written that way to rule out contact with your own player 

Not misunderstanding it. I accept your definition re "own player".   What I am saying is - not automatic that a pen should be given for a high boot. It could be given, only.

[lost in space]

2 minutes ago, Trigger said:

Obviously.

Re Boyce - he has been very good for us for years. Now think he is maybe past it - after injury. Not a great no 10 but WAS a good 9.  Wouldnt be sorry to see him go now unless he can get fitter.  I have never disliked him.

[Star Lizard]

1 minute ago, lost in space said:

Not misunderstanding it. I accept your definition re "own player".   What I am saying is - not automatic that a pen should be given for a high boot. It could be given, only.

No the could part is a caveat to rule out getting a penalty for two opposing players defending the goal making contact with a high boot on one another . Boyce was pulled back by Butcher just outside the box and it pulled him to his right in a stoop , Casey then swings a high boot at him above waste height and makes contact with him when he is in the box . This impedes Boyce making it a foul . A foul is a direct free kick and a direct free kick in the box is a penalty 

[ramrod]

17 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

Regards the Boyce incident.

 

If thats your team, your screaming for a penalty & if thats against your team your expecting a penalty against you.

 

Its not a difficult call to make ffs.

That's basically it in a nutshell. 

The fact it wasn't given was mind-boggling the fact it wasn't given after VAR intervened was absolutely incomprehensible. 

[kingantti1874]

26 minutes ago, lost in space said:

My agenda is - too many saying 100% penalty. It isnt.

Boyces' stupid simulation (he cant even get that right) may have stopped us getting the pen.  If he wanted to "draw attention", he should have held his chest.

you are wrong though, it was a penalty. As was shanks in the second half’s. I’ve just watched Celtic being awarded a pen for far less.  Shock 

[lost in space]

18 minutes ago, Sooks said:

No the could part is a caveat to rule out getting a penalty for two opposing players defending the goal making contact with a high boot on one another . Boyce was pulled back by Butcher just outside the box and it pulled him to his right in a stoop , Casey then swings a high boot at him above waste height and makes contact with him when he is in the box . This impedes Boyce making it a foul . A foul is a direct free kick and a direct free kick in the box is a penalty 

Not true. the "could" is saying the ref can decide to give a pen. The bit you highlighted is the caveat for 2 players in same team.

Here is another bit of the rule on "high boot"-

"A direct free kick, which allows a player to directly score from the kick, can be awarded in the event that contact was made with another player."

For "direct free kick" - substitute "penalty" - as in the box. Note the word "can".

[lost in space]

4 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

you are wrong though, it was a penalty. As was shanks in the second half’s. I’ve just watched Celtic being awarded a pen for far less.  Shock 

If there was no simulation, we probably/might have got the pen. 

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

5 minutes ago, lost in space said:

If there was no simulation, we probably/might have got the pen. 

If penalties were ruled out after VAR review for simulation, Furahashi would never get one

[Star Lizard]

17 minutes ago, lost in space said:

Not true. the "could" is saying the ref can decide to give a pen. The bit you highlighted is the caveat for 2 players in same team.

Here is another bit of the rule on "high boot"-

"A direct free kick, which allows a player to directly score from the kick, can be awarded in the event that contact was made with another player."

For "direct free kick" - substitute "penalty" - as in the box. Note the word "can".

I cant believe you are still going with this tbh 

 

Here is a screen shot of the IFAB Laws of the game PDF concerning fouls

 

https://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/laws-of-the-game/2023-24/laws-of-the-game-2023-24.ashx

 

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Sooks

[GBJambo]

So it wasn’t a penalty because Boyce made the most of it ?!  🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻
 

Why no card for diving then 

[Buster HMFC]

55 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

serious question.  Whats your agenda here? Did Boyce make a meal of it? Yes.  Should he have becuase it was stonewall and he was trying to draw attention? Yes. Do other players do it? Yes! 
 

your position here is weird. It was a penalty. If it was rangers or Celtic it’s awarded. The end 

The sima one today ruins your argument 

[cazzyy]

1 hour ago, lost in space said:

 

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

 

[lost in space]

3 minutes ago, GBJambo said:

So it wasn’t a penalty because Boyce made the most of it ?!  🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻
 

Why no card for diving then 

The simulation (and there was some) may well have put doubts in refs mind. If he had given a yellow - difficult to argue - as the one thing the pix do show is - there was no contact to the face.

The ref had a few choices he could have made, like an indirect free kick (if he thought no contact).

[cazzyy]

55 minutes ago, Sooks said:

You are misunderstanding the law . It clarifies when it is a penalty at the end . It is written that way to rule out contact with your own player 

 

Or the attacker making high contact with a defender, that's not a penalty. The rules are written this way to avoid confusing numpties.

[Star Lizard]

Just now, cazzyy said:

 

Or the attacker making high contact with a defender, that's not a penalty. The rules are written this way to avoid confusing numpties.

Yes that too . I posted a link to the IFAB laws above . It is pretty clear on the issue imo 

[periodictabledancer]

"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."

It doesn't matter that Boyce was falling, he would've been kicked around waist height even if he wasn't falling. 

He didn't just threaten Boyce he made contact with him - although the match "commentators" said there wasn't "sufficient  contact" for it to be a penalty. 

 

It was a penalty all day long.

[lost in space]

9 minutes ago, Sooks said:

I cant believe you are still going with this tbh 

 

Here is a screen shot of the IFAB Laws of the game PDF concerning fouls

 

 

I dont want to be unkind as I have seen your posts before and agree with many - but you are not getting this.

Of course it is a direct free kick (pen in box) if these offences take place. The crux is - the ref does not believe an offence has taken place.

 

 

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, lost in space said:

The simulation (and there was some) may well have put doubts in refs mind. If he had given a yellow - difficult to argue - as the one thing the pix do show is - there was no contact to the face.

The ref had a few choices he could have made, like an indirect free kick (if he thought no contact).

Imagine going to this amount of effort to defend a referee for not awarding a stonewall pen. I notice you haven’t even me mentioned the second one.
 

If we had consistency,  this wouldn’t have generated so much controversy and discussion. 
 

if furuhashi had been denied, or Goldson you’d have a points. But they weren’t denied and you don’t. 

[cazzyy]

1 minute ago, lost in space said:

I dont want to be unkind as I have seen your posts before and agree with many - but you are not getting this.

Of course it is a direct free kick (pen in box) if these offences take place. The crux is - the ref does not believe an offence has taken place.

 

 

 

You're missing the point, those offences took place and the referee was wrong in thinking that they didn't.

[kingantti1874]

4 minutes ago, lost in space said:

I dont want to be unkind as I have seen your posts before and agree with many - but you are not getting this.

Of course it is a direct free kick (pen in box) if these offences take place. The crux is - the ref does not believe an offence has taken place.

 

 

but he would have believed an offence had taken place had it been rangers or Celtic. 

Edited November 12, 2023 by kingantti1874

[Star Lizard]

1 minute ago, lost in space said:

I dont want to be unkind as I have seen your posts before and agree with many - but you are not getting this.

Of course it is a direct free kick (pen in box) if these offences take place. The crux is - the ref does not believe an offence has taken place.

 

 

The VAR replay clearly shows he is impeded by contact from Casey . It is a penalty and the ref is either incompetent or wonky if he does not see that even after the replay 

[lost in space]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

Imagine going to this amount of effort to defend a referee for not awarding a stonewall pen. I notice you haven’t even me mentioned the second one.
 

If we had consistency,  this wouldn’t have generated so much controversy and discussion. 
 

if furuhashi had been denied, or Goldson you’d have a points. But they weren’t denied and you don’t. 

The second (against Shankland) was a penalty, in my opinion. I believe somebody has said it wasnt a pen as Boyce fouled a Well player before that. I hvant reviewed the footage so still think it was a pen.

I am not even saying the first was definitely not a pen.   It is a tough one to call for a ref given the simulation.  Some were saying - automatic pen as high kick in box. I was merely pointing out that it is not.

[Buster HMFC]

4 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Imagine going to this amount of effort to defend a referee for not awarding a stonewall pen. I notice you haven’t even me mentioned the second one.
 

If we had consistency,  this wouldn’t have generated so much controversy and discussion. 
 

if furuhashi had been denied, or Goldson you’d have a points. But they weren’t denied and you don’t. 

Sima today. Clear pull of the Jersey before he touched the centre half. If that was celtic and rangers tho

[lost in space]

10 minutes ago, Sooks said:

The VAR replay clearly shows he is impeded by contact from Casey . It is a penalty and the ref is either incompetent or wonky if he does not see that even after the replay 

Boyce looks as though he is already on his way down so not sure what impeding is going on. 

[cazzyy]

12 minutes ago, lost in space said:

The second (against Shankland) was a penalty, in my opinion. I believe somebody has said it wasnt a pen as Boyce fouled a Well player before that. I hvant reviewed the footage so still think it was a pen.

I am not even saying the first was definitely not a pen.   It is a tough one to call for a ref given the simulation.  Some were saying - automatic pen as high kick in box. I was merely pointing out that it is not.

Why do you keep repeating this when it's been shown to you that you are wrong in saying it?

[Star Lizard]

1 minute ago, lost in space said:

Boyce looks as though he is already on his way down so not sure what impeding is going on. 

Boyce was jerked back by Butcher and it was causing him to slope to the right . He kept going in to the box however , and then Casey came in from Boyces left and kicked him on the tit . The replay shows this and the referee has no excuse . I agree with you about him stupidly holding his head , but Boyce was impeded in the box by Casey who kicked him 

[lost in space]

1 minute ago, cazzyy said:

Why do you keep repeating this when it's been shown to you that you are wrong in saying it?

OK, please show me where it says it is a penalty in the box for a high kick.

[kingantti1874]

32 minutes ago, Buster HMFC said:

The sima one today ruins your argument 

it really doesn’t. Exceptions vs the rule 

[kingantti1874]

Just now, lost in space said:

OK, please show me where it says it is a penalty in the box for a high kick.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 arguing that studs, making contact on the chest isn’t a foul. 

[cazzyy]

3 minutes ago, lost in space said:

OK, please show me where it says it is a penalty in the box for a high kick.

 

Instead of arguing the toss do a wee bit of research, you'll not like the answer though.

[lost in space]

2 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Boyce was jerked back by Butcher and it was causing him to slope to the right . He kept going in to the box however , and then Casey came in from Boyces left and kicked him on the tit . The replay shows this and the referee has no excuse . I agree with you about him stupidly holding his head , but Boyce was impeded in the box by Casey who kicked him 

Agree re Butcher.  Dont agree ref has no excuse. He maybe/probably sees simulation. The movie clips are not that clear re contact.

p.s - I am not the ref or a relative/boyfriend!!

[Buster HMFC]

2 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 arguing that studs, making contact on the chest isn’t a foul. 

No mate that was a pen. Arguing the point you made about the auld squirm wouldn't get that. It happened today which ruined that argument.

[Star Lizard]

5 minutes ago, lost in space said:

Agree re Butcher.  Dont agree ref has no excuse. He maybe/probably sees simulation. The movie clips are not that clear re contact.

p.s - I am not the ref or a relative/boyfriend!!

 

 

I think it is clear and I would hope a referee would see this too . The fact that he did not makes me a little suspicious of his reasons tbh

[lost in space]

7 minutes ago, cazzyy said:

 

Instead of arguing the toss do a wee bit of research, you'll not like the answer though.

Not sure where you are getting that from. "above the chest" now. Well thats different. 

What you are failing to understand, and i am having to repeat to different posters, is that some are saying that it is an automatic pen for a high boot in the box - it isnt. 

Re contact in the box with a high boot - ref "can" give a pen.  The ref probably isnt convinced there is contact - since Boyce is holding his face which has had no contact + pix are not clear re contact.

[lost in space]

5 minutes ago, Sooks said:

 

 

I think it is clear and I would hope a referee would see this too . The fact that he did not makes me a little suspicious of his reasons tbh

To be honest, I am not exactly sure if a pen or not!!! but I do think the ref had reasons for not giving it. 

He should maybe given Hearts an indirect free kick and a yellow card for Boyce - which would have upset both teams.

[cazzyy]

3 minutes ago, lost in space said:

Not sure where you are getting that from. "above the chest" now. Well thats different. 

What you are failing to understand, and i am having to repeat to different posters, is that some are saying that it is an automatic pen for a high boot in the box - it isnt. 

Re contact in the box with a high boot - ref "can" give a pen.  The ref probably isnt convinced there is contact - since Boyce is holding his face which has had no contact + pix are not clear re contact.

 

My last words on it because I'm simply repeating myself hoping against hope that it will sink in.

 

What you replied to said that raising his boot above his chest and not making contact is an indirect free kick, if he makes contact it is a penalty. 

Not that the referee "can give a penalty" but that "it is a penalty". The referee failed to implement the rules yesterday.

[coatbridgejambo]

3 hours 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).

Boyce did hold his face rather than chest but that's irrelevant. The fact is contact was made and it was dangerous play therfore penalty rangers..oops I mean penalty hearts 

[Buster HMFC]

13 minutes ago, Sooks said:

 

 

I think it is clear and I would hope a referee would see this too . The fact that he did not makes me a little suspicious of his reasons tbh

Suspicious of what reasons. 

[lost in space]

4 minutes ago, cazzyy said:

 

My last words on it because I'm simply repeating myself hoping against hope that it will sink in.

 

What you replied to said that raising his boot above his chest and not making contact is an indirect free kick, if he makes contact it is a penalty. 

Not that the referee "can give a penalty" but that "it is a penalty". The referee failed to implement the rules yesterday.

Agree - last words. I (and you and others probably) am getting bored with this now.

Previous posters were saying "if high boot in box" - has to be pen. This is not true.

What I am saying is this - if ref believes there is contact, he should give a pen.  It was not clear to him if contact made though probably. 

If ref believes there was no contact but there was dangerous play - 

"An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner

• impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made".

[Star Lizard]

9 minutes ago, Buster HMFC said:

Suspicious of what reasons. 

I suspect he may be an alien that has snatched a human body 

[Buster HMFC]

Just now, Sooks said:

I suspect he may be an alien that has snatched a human body 

Or maybe he snatched an alien body. You're point

[Thomaso]

8 hours 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” 🤣🤣🤣

[Star Lizard]

15 minutes ago, Buster HMFC said:

Or maybe he snatched an alien body. You're point

I made my point 

[Deevers]

Is there anyone at all on here who thinks that if that had been an Old Firm player booted in the chest that the penalty would not have been awarded?