Shankland's penalty claim

[Malinga the Swinga]

Given the lack of coverage this received on game highlights and in discussion on game, can I just say that it was a disgraceful decision to book him and was a stonewall penalty.

How the ref didn't give it was bad enough but the decision by VAR to not intervene highlights just how shit our officials are.

[PaddysBar]

I think Hearts will appeal it. 

[HMFC01]

Yeah it looks like contact on the thigh.   MacNamarra  said it was a penalty, I think McCann agreed.   Possibly Thomson.   Not much else to say about it. 

[GYL]

2 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

Yeah it looks like contact on the thigh.   MacNamarra  said it was a penalty, I think McCann agreed.   Possibly Thomson.   Not much else to say about it. 

What was there view on the VAR disallowed goal?

[Morgan]

1 minute ago, GYL said:

What was there view on the VAR disallowed goal?

A penalty claim.  👍

[HMFC01]

Just now, GYL said:

What was there view on the VAR disallowed goal?

 

They thought Shankland's impeded the keepers view.   Only just.  It was close. 

[King Of The Cat Cafe]

On the subject of Shankland, some interesting stuff here:

https://footystats.org/players/scotland/lawrence-shankland

[PaddysBar]

2 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

They thought Shankland's impeded the keepers view.   Only just.  It was close. 

I still think that was a disgraceful decision but WTF was he going there in the first place. 
 

Kingsley was so accurate, he didn’t need shanks to be there. 

[GYL]

6 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

They thought Shankland's impeded the keepers view.   Only just.  It was close. 

When the ball was struck he was never in any line of vision....and as for impeding his view....view of what? Keeper couldn't see the ball for the wall he set up. I think absolutely scandalous decision 🤬

Edited March 16 by GYL

[OTT]

Ref made a complete ***** of it. VAR let him down on the penalty and then ****ed up the Kingsley goal. 

 

We should really be putting in a formal complaint. 

[the posh bit]

23 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Given the lack of coverage this received on game highlights and in discussion on game, can I just say that it was a disgraceful decision to book him and was a stonewall penalty.

How the ref didn't give it was bad enough but the decision by VAR to not intervene highlights just how shit our officials are.

 

Not sure it was a penalty. 

[Paul Shark]

Couldn't tell conclusively at the game if it was a penalty or not. But suspected there was contact as Shankland doesn't go down looking for penalties. Sportscene footage confirmed it was a penalty.

[HMFC01]

3 minutes ago, GYL said:

When the ball was struck he was never in any line of vision....

 

Yeah, only just.  He's affected the keepers decision to move his footing.   

 

He shouldn't have done it is my view.   It's being too clever when you don't need to.    Kingsley doesn't need that help.   He's scored before without that help. 

[PaddysBar]

5 minutes ago, Paul Shark said:

Couldn't tell conclusively at the game if it was a penalty or not. But suspected there was contact as Shankland doesn't go down looking for penalties. Sportscene footage confirmed it was a penalty.

Just like Forrest, Hearts will appeal, we’ll win and the yellow will be rescinded but that will be another penalty not given that means we’ve lost points. 

[Uncle Buck]

There’s debate whether it’s a penalty or not and might have been soft if it was given. But it’s not a case of either a penalty or a yellow card. There is something in between and it is 100% not a dive and a booking.

[Ally Alexander]

 

17 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

Yeah, only just.  He's affected the keepers decision to move his footing.   

 

He shouldn't have done it is my view.   It's being too clever when you don't need to.    Kingsley doesn't need that help.   He's scored before without that help. 

Actually keeper moved nearer to where the ball was placed.  Basically Shankland indicated where it was going.

Edited March 16 by Ally Alexander
Surplus sentence

[Gambo]

24 minutes ago, OTT said:

Ref made a complete ***** of it. VAR let him down on the penalty and then ****ed up the Kingsley goal. 

 

We should really be putting in a formal complaint. 

Correct

[Hearts_fan]

25 minutes ago, OTT said:

Ref made a complete ***** of it. VAR let him down on the penalty and then ****ed up the Kingsley goal. 

 

We should really be putting in a formal complaint. 

 

100%.

[Hearts_fan]

16 minutes ago, PaddysBar said:

Just like Forrest, Hearts will appeal, we’ll win and the yellow will be rescinded but that will be another penalty not given that means we’ve lost points. 

 

100%. The symmetry between this and the previous match with them at Tynecastle is uncanny.

[HMFC01]

Yeah.   The keeper has had to move left a bit because his vision is blocked.   He's still not saved it.   ☺. 

 

 Shankland needs to move away as soon as Kingsley makes a move.   He's delayed just a bit.   I think it's too close to call.   On the balance of a decision I'm saying he's tried to block his sight and that's that.   You can't spend all day making a decision on VAR.   I think it's fair it's disallowed.    Crap but fair. 

[JennytheJambo]

There won’t be a week’s long debate on the officiating as it went against us. As soon as I seen the ref booking Shankland just knew Kingsley’s goal was going to be disallowed when he went to the monitor. He had to book Shanks otherwise he would have had to give the penalty. With Beaton on VAR say no more.

[Philfigo]

3 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

Yeah.   The keeper has had to move left a bit because his vision is blocked.   He's still not saved it.   ☺. 

 

 Shankland needs to move away as soon as Kingsley makes a move.   He's delayed just a bit.   I think it's too close to call.   On the balance of a decision I'm saying he's tried to block his sight and that's that.   You can't spend all day making a decision on VAR.   I think it's fair it's disallowed.    Crap but fair. 

Agree, Shankland knows what he is trying to do, put keeper off. Really stupid move if you ask me as when Kingslay hits sweet as he did it wouldn't matter if the keeper had full view he aint saving it. Kinglsay doesn't need any side acting like that just let him hit it and 80% of the time it's goal keeper no chance.

[D4nny_]

Think the officials had one eye on their free week next week. Arseholes.

[XB52]

55 minutes ago, PaddysBar said:

Just like Forrest, Hearts will appeal, we’ll win and the yellow will be rescinded but that will be another penalty not given that means we’ve lost points. 

How can we appeal??

[SectionDJambo]

7 minutes ago, XB52 said:

How can we appeal??

You can appeal yellow cards issued for simulation and mistaken identity.

It’s the third time it’s happened to us this season.

Forrest, Kingsley (rescinded by VAR) and now Shankland.

[XB52]

2 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

You can appeal yellow cards issued for simulation and mistaken identity.

It’s the third time it’s happened to us this season.

Forrest, Kingsley (rescinded by VAR) and now Shankland.

Thanks, didn't see the incident so hadn't realised the booking was for simulation 

[SectionDJambo]

1 minute ago, XB52 said:

Thanks, didn't see the incident so hadn't realised the booking was for simulation 

I don’t think they included it in the highlights but looked at it later, on Sportscene.

[liam11]

Hearts will appeal it, and I think it will be rescinded. Not for the first time this season, either.

 

I’d hope we’re asking how this can happen once, let alone twice now. In over turning they essentially admit the decision was wrong

[HeartsandonlyHearts]

My big take away from the game was that I didn’t know who the ref was prior to the game. Now we can add him to the list of “look at me” refs we appear to have in Scottish football. Horrible, clueless moron. Another one in a long list of guesser’s.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

1 hour ago, Philfigo said:

Agree, Shankland knows what he is trying to do, put keeper off. Really stupid move if you ask me as when Kingslay hits sweet as he did it wouldn't matter if the keeper had full view he aint saving it. Kinglsay doesn't need any side acting like that just let him hit it and 80% of the time it's goal keeper no chance.

 

I totally agree.

No idea why he had to be there to kick off with, and btw, it was a penalty. Still, shouldn't be losing to RC, ffs!

[Nessjambo67]

9 hours ago, PaddysBar said:

Just like Forrest, Hearts will appeal, we’ll win and the yellow will be rescinded but that will be another penalty not given that means we’ve lost points. 

Some really bizarre decisions here mate I get that absolutely up for debate but come on we have to be happy with what’s gone on in the Hibs and Celtic games 2 softish pens and an upgraded yellow to red we’ll get some decisions and won’t get others 

[Robbo-Jambo]

9 hours ago, Philfigo said:

Agree, Shankland knows what he is trying to do, put keeper off. Really stupid move if you ask me as when Kingslay hits sweet as he did it wouldn't matter if the keeper had full view he aint saving it. Kinglsay doesn't need any side acting like that just let him hit it and 80% of the time it's goal keeper no chance.

Exactly.

 

Kingsley doesn't need any help like that with his left foot accuracy.

[Shaggy2]

11 minutes ago, Nessjambo67 said:

Some really bizarre decisions here mate I get that absolutely up for debate but come on we have to be happy with what’s gone on in the Hibs and Celtic games 2 softish pens and an upgraded yellow to red we’ll get some decisions and won’t get others 

Which one don’t you agree with?

 

The Hibs game was re-refereed to try and deny us a penalty. There are two, albeit very light, points of contact on Vargas and thankfully Clancy was strong. 
As for the Celtic game, which of the red card and the two handballs was wrong? After their penalty as well, which wasn’t re-refereed, funnily enough. 
 

As for yesterday, it would have been very soft again but there’s enough contact to knock Shankland off his feet, something he certainly does not do of his own free will when there’s a shooting chance presenting itself. My opinion FWIW, no penalty but certainly no dive. 

[Nessjambo67]

3 minutes ago, Shaggy2 said:

Which one don’t you agree with?

 

The Hibs game was re-refereed to try and deny us a penalty. There are two, albeit very light, points of contact on Vargas and thankfully Clancy was strong. 
As for the Celtic game, which of the red card and the two handballs was wrong? After their penalty as well, which wasn’t re-refereed, funnily enough. 
 

As for yesterday, it would have been very soft again but there’s enough contact to knock Shankland off his feet, something he certainly does not do of his own free will when there’s a shooting chance presenting itself. My opinion FWIW, no penalty but certainly no dive. 

TBH I’ve not seen the the pen shout so I’ll take your opinion yes I think var cost us a point ( though being 2 0 down is unacceptable and does not help our cause)  does look like shanks was blocking keepers view even though he stepped away unfortunately you just don’t know what your gonna get with var That’s the frustration 

[Shaggy2]

2 minutes ago, Nessjambo67 said:

TBH I’ve not seen the the pen shout so I’ll take your opinion yes I think var cost us a point ( though being 2 0 down is unacceptable and does not help our cause)  does look like shanks was blocking keepers view even though he stepped away unfortunately you just don’t know what your gonna get with var That’s the frustration 

Totally agree. They’re using it for stuff it’s not meant to be used for (the re-reffing).

Yesterday can go either way. No complaints other than the harsh yellow card. 

[Tommy Brown]

9 hours ago, JennytheJambo said:

There won’t be a week’s long debate on the officiating as it went against us. As soon as I seen the ref booking Shankland just knew Kingsley’s goal was going to be disallowed when he went to the monitor. He had to book Shanks otherwise he would have had to give the penalty. With Beaton on VAR say no more.

He only HAD to book him as he thought he dived.

He would not HAVE to give a penalty  otherwise.

It is a contact sport and not necessarily a dive or a penalty.

[Diadora Van Basten]

I thought both the penalty and the free kick goal could have gone either way as they were borderline decisions and unfortunately both went against us.

 

I also expected Ross County’s first goal to be chalked off as Murray used his arm to block Sibbick clearance but this wasn’t even mentioned on Sportscene.

[Tommy Brown]

Not watched a replay of the free kick yet.

It was difficult to tell yesterday if he had moved before the kick or not.

I felt he had moved in time.

 

This is the key issue, if he moved before the kick there is no way he can be penalised. Only if he was preventing the GK from seeing the ball when it was struck.

 

I 

[kila]

5 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

I thought both the penalty and the free kick goal could have gone either way as they were borderline decisions and unfortunately both went against us.

 

I also expected Ross County’s first goal to be chalked off as Murray used his arm to block Sibbick clearance but this wasn’t even mentioned on Sportscene.

 

 

 

[Nessjambo67]

3 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

I thought both the penalty and the free kick goal could have gone either way as they were borderline decisions and unfortunately both went against us.

 

I also expected Ross County’s first goal to be chalked off as Murray used his arm to block Sibbick clearance but this wasn’t even mentioned on Sportscene.

You know what it’s now getting to the point where I really don’t know if any goal is gonna stand did he foul someone in the lead up is attackers knee an inch off ? It’s just so frustrating don’t re referee the game it does my head in 

[Diadora Van Basten]

3 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Not watched a replay of the free kick yet.

It was difficult to tell yesterday if he had moved before the kick or not.

I felt he had moved in time.

 

This is the key issue, if he moved before the kick there is no way he can be penalised. Only if he was preventing the GK from seeing the ball when it was struck.

 

I 

He half moved out the way.

 

His upper body was out the way but lower body still across the goalkeeper line of sight.

 

So the goalkeeper could see the ball but at same time he was technically across his line of sight.

[Jim_Duncan]

12 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

I thought both the penalty and the free kick goal could have gone either way as they were borderline decisions and unfortunately both went against us.

 

I also expected Ross County’s first goal to be chalked off as Murray used his arm to block Sibbick clearance but this wasn’t even mentioned on Sportscene.

I thought it hit his chest. 

[Shaggy2]

12 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

I thought both the penalty and the free kick goal could have gone either way as they were borderline decisions and unfortunately both went against us.

 

I also expected Ross County’s first goal to be chalked off as Murray used his arm to block Sibbick clearance but this wasn’t even mentioned on Sportscene.

I shouted handball at the game and thought Ross County were a bit subdued with their celebrations and expected at least a more thorough check. They actually awarded that goal very quickly given what they should have been checking. 

[pettigrewsstylist]

Was only a few feet from it and thought it looked like a cheap penalty, but penalty none the less, at the time. At the time it appeared  as though Shanks was going to have a clear shot from close range as soon as he went down. He got back up pretty quickly.

 

Having seen highlights now, i would be confident of this beibng rescinded on appeal.

 

Another clear example of total incompetence. The best referees are hardly noticed. Our shambles are determined to get column inches.

[Daktari]

What I thought was telling about Shankland's booking was that there were no dramatics or appeals from Shanks himself.  He basically rolled and got back up and tried to play on. If he didn't try to appeal for the penalty, surely that will strengthen the appeal that he didn't simulate it to gain advantage.

[a11ank]

35 minutes ago, Daktari said:

What I thought was telling about Shankland's booking was that there were no dramatics or appeals from Shanks himself.  He basically rolled and got back up and tried to play on. If he didn't try to appeal for the penalty, surely that will strengthen the appeal that he didn't simulate it to gain advantage.

This!

 

Shankland didn't do the Boyle rolling about stuff.  He didn't fling his arms in the air.  He got up to get on with the game.

 

No Dive. Stupid booking.  Stupid referee!😍

[CostaJambo]

13 hours ago, HMFC01 said:

 

They thought Shankland's impeded the keepers view.   Only just.  It was close. 

You can more or less "prove" that the keeper's view was not impeded. If he had been impeded, he would have been rooted to the spot holding up his hands in despair as the ball hit the back of the net. The fact that he got so close to it should've led our amateur officials to realise that of course he saw it fully, as there is no human on the planet who could've got that close to it with an impeded view.

[1953]

Not sure if it was a penalty but 100% Shanks didn't dive. He didn't even try and claim for anything but rolled and got right up again and would have got on with the game if the ref hadn't blown his whistle. 

[Deevers]

Seen them given for this in the past.  In no way was it simulation.

 

[Tynecastle Valhalla]

Was not a dive 

 

would have been given to rangers or Celtic 

 

beaton was on a mission to show the world (Celtic fans) he isn’t helping hearts 

 

that Glasgow based small minded mentality that there is only Rangers and Celtic and nothing else matters 

 

he set out on the day to give everything against hearts 

 

started with the Murray goal handball 

 

then Shankland penalty incident 

 

then Kingsley free kick