Malinga the Swinga Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddysBar Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 I think Hearts will appeal it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HMFC01 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GYL Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 1 minute ago, GYL said: What was there view on the VAR disallowed goal? A penalty claim. 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HMFC01 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Of The Cat Cafe Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 On the subject of Shankland, some interesting stuff here: https://footystats.org/players/scotland/lawrence-shankland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddysBar Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GYL Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTT Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the posh bit Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Shark Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HMFC01 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddysBar Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Alexander Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambo Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts_fan Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts_fan Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HMFC01 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennytheJambo Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philfigo Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D4nny_ Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 Think the officials had one eye on their free week next week. Arseholes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB52 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionDJambo Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB52 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionDJambo Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liam11 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartsandonlyHearts Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T.F.Robertson Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nessjambo67 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo-Jambo Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggy2 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nessjambo67 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggy2 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kila Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nessjambo67 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggy2 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettigrewsstylist Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daktari Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a11ank Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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!😍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CostaJambo Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1953 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Seen them given for this in the past. In no way was it simulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tynecastle Valhalla Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Treasurer Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Shanklands reaction at the penalty incident is key, he gets straight back up and tries to win the ball. Doesn't claim for anything. So whether it was a penalty or not (I think it was), he definitely didn't dive and should not have been booked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.