Shankland appeal rejected

[Hackney Hearts]

Should only be two ways of getting a card for simulation:

 

1. No contact made. 

 

2. If there is contact made, the attacker's reaction has to be clearly exaggerated / theatrical. Just 'going down' (and getting straight up) is far too subjective as to whether the contact was sufficient.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Des Lynam]

2 hours ago, colinmaroon said:

 

Croffles!

 

 

Never had one. But they sound quite nice. 

[Drylaw Hearts]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

Just seen it for the first time. I'd be raging if we got a pen given against us for that. Shankland drops like a stone from basically 0 contact.

My thoughts too.

 

He’s a big lad…..there was nowhere near enough to contact to make him go over and then down in the manner he did.

 

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

6 minutes ago, Drylaw Hearts said:

My thoughts too.

 

He’s a big lad…..there was nowhere near enough to contact to make him go over and then down in the manner he did.

 

 

 

Absolute nonsense.

[Fozzyonthefence]

20 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Absolute nonsense.

It’s very subjective but that’s why I feel there should have been no yellow card even though I don’t think it’s a penalty (it doesn’t have to be one or the other).  In fact Shankland clearly doesn’t think it’s a penalty either but there is clear contact even if it is more him initiating it.  The fact he gets up so quickly without appealing for a penalty probably suggests he knows he’s gone down too easily but I can’t recall another player getting a yellow for simulation when there is such clear contact. 

Edited March 20 by Fozzyonthefence

[GorgieFifeLife]

It may seem a trivial decision to go after but I wonder if there is a way to take this further and challenge the decision based on it not conforming with the rules.  If we can push back on it harder it may open up a wider investigation into the officiating in this country.

[OTT]

Just now, GorgieFifeLife said:

It may seem a trivial decision to go after but I wonder if there is a way to take this further and challenge the decision based on it not conforming with the rules.  If we can push back on it harder it may open up a wider investigation into the officiating in this country.

 

I hope so. The club statement was certainly hinting at further communication. 

[thee jambo]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

This was overturned was it not by VAR? Don't think the ref can subsequently award a yellow for diving as per rules.

 

I may well be wrong about getting overturned.

Var agreed , it was a penalty. 

[colinmaroon]

There can be no other conclusion than this is a blatant stitch up.

 

Who were the members on the panel?  Are they ex-players? What clubs did they play for?

 

Also, appeasement for whining Rogers.

 

It is quite frankly bizarre!

 

 

[Ron Burgundy]

If you think back to some of the unbelievable penalties given this season then that is a stone waller if you apply the same rules. Contact so penalty. Goldsons jersey touched and he flies forward a prime example.

[Ex member of the SaS]

2 hours ago, Jim Panzee said:

on kickback - so makes it a cast iron fact....sorry.....FACT!

It makes no difference where it was suggested. As I stated, IF this is true then we have to act. IF it's not true then what have we got to lose by asking for the transcript. Sevco demanded the transcript of their game, so why can't we?

[Japan Jambo]

3 hours ago, brux said:

That's not cheating, that's just rangers 

 

just helping the referees - much easier for them to give Rangers their penalty if someone actually falls over.

[Gorgierools]

20 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

just helping the referees - much easier for them to give Rangers their penalty if someone actually falls over.

Screaming like a stuck pig also helps. Look at the picture

 Not even touched and he's screaming.

[Drylaw Hearts]

4 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Absolute nonsense.

‘It’s really not nonsense at all.

 

The contact is minimal and it’s not as if Shankland is running at any pace.

 

He’s gone down more than a bit easy there.

[Chillidigits]

19 hours ago, Hearts1975 said:

I dont think its corruption, you are correct, but it looks like they have made a big mistake. 

From the replays, and slow motion, it is clear that the RC defender makes contact with his knee (I think), or upper leg, when Shanks is turning 

At that speed, it is reasonable to suggest that the impact caused him to go down. The fact that he got right up on his feet is neither, here, nor there. 

He wasnt cheating or simulating. I just dont get how they cannot see that there was contact, and why that contact wouldnt have caused him to go down.

You cant really say that a particular type of contact looks bad enough for the player to go down, or not, as the case maybe, as penalties just wouldnt be given for contact in the box. 

My understanding of the rules is that if there is contact in the box and the player goes down, its a penalty. 

AN act of simulation is an act of simulation. BUT, a yellow card is a yellow card.

Thats basically the ref saying that Shanks was cheating and deliberately trying to win the penalty, which just isnt true - imo 

I actually wonder if Shanks comments about anticipating the contact etc to the press was what cost him the decision in the first place 

Agree with last comment. Gave them something to latch on to. Would expect him to zip his lip in future.

[HeartsandonlyHearts]

1 hour ago, Gorgierools said:

Screaming like a stuck pig also helps. Look at the picture

 Not even touched and he's screaming.

He was obviously anticipating the upcoming pain he was about to feel.

Poor wee soul. Hope he’s recovered.

[Ally Alexander]

1 hour ago, Drylaw Hearts said:

‘It’s really not nonsense at all.

 

The contact is minimal and it’s not as if Shankland is running at any pace.

 

He’s gone down more than a bit easy there.

On Hearts TV, it looked like the county player gave Shankland a push at the same time.

[RENE]

1 minute ago, Ally Alexander said:

On Hearts TV, it looked like the county player gave Shankland a push at the same time.

That's what I thought after seeing it again. Stuck his leg into Shanklands thigh and pushing him at same time.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

 

Was watching live and could hardly believe it even went to VAR. Still convinced it was a legit penalty.

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 hours ago, Drylaw Hearts said:

‘It’s really not nonsense at all.

 

The contact is minimal and it’s not as if Shankland is running at any pace.

 

He’s gone down more than a bit easy there.

 

Have you considered he would be off balance when the contact was made thus causing the tumble.

[GinRummy]

3 hours ago, Drylaw Hearts said:

‘It’s really not nonsense at all.

 

The contact is minimal and it’s not as if Shankland is running at any pace.

 

He’s gone down more than a bit easy there.

Is it simulation?

[Drylaw Hearts]

11 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Have you considered he would be off balance when the contact was made thus causing the tumble.

Clutching.

 

At.

 

Straws.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Just now, Drylaw Hearts said:

Clutching.

 

At.

 

Straws.

 

Nope. 

 

 

[Drylaw Hearts]

1 minute ago, GinRummy said:

Is it simulation?

If it was Martin Boyle going down so easily under a similar challenge we’d be calling him all sorts.

 

Only Shankland knows for certain here…..but my view is he’s gone to ground very easily for a guy of his physical stature.

[JamboAl]

3 hours ago, Drylaw Hearts said:

‘It’s really not nonsense at all.

 

The contact is minimal and it’s not as if Shankland is running at any pace.

 

He’s gone down more than a bit easy there.

Where in the Laws does it state that the contact has to be more than minimal and at what pace does it have to be before a penalty can be awarded?

In context, what does minimal mean?

Your answer may provide a guide for future reference, especially if we are defending a similar situation in our next OF games.

[Fozzyonthefence]

35 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Is it simulation?

Only Shankland knows the answer to that and that’s why the yellow card should have been rescinded.   The panel are merely guessing that it was simulation and the fact there was contact should give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Edited March 20 by Fozzyonthefence

[Drylaw Hearts]

34 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Where in the Laws does it state that the contact has to be more than minimal and at what pace does it have to be before a penalty can be awarded?

In context, what does minimal mean?

Your answer may provide a guide for future reference, especially if we are defending a similar situation in our next OF games.

🤣

 

Away and play with the buses.

 

 

[Cranston]

Didn't deserve a yellow card. It would have been a soft penalty, but shanks didn't dive. He got up quickly, and didn't appeal for the pen. Thought, it would be overturned tbf.

Edited March 20 by Cranston

[paul1874]

14 hours ago, Drylaw Hearts said:

‘It’s really not nonsense at all.

 

The contact is minimal and it’s not as if Shankland is running at any pace.

 

He’s gone down more than a bit easy there.

Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play.

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official
• throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object

See also offences in Law 3

 

Where does it mention minimal contact?

[Drylaw Hearts]

2 hours ago, paul1874 said:

Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play.

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official
• throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object

See also offences in Law 3

 

Where does it mention minimal contact?

The contact was minimal….and it wasn’t enough to warrant a penalty imo.

 

If we are giving penalties for any contact, minimal or otherwise, there would 20 penalties a game.

 

It that penalty was given against us there would have been an uproar on here…..and rightly so.

[JamboAl]

13 hours ago, Drylaw Hearts said:

🤣

 

Away and play with the buses.

 

 

I apologise that I may have phrased this badly but my post was not meant to be critical of what you said.

It was meant to suggest that whatever definition you, or indeed anyone else for that matter, came up with, it would not apply to the OF.  In fact, if Saturday's incident had involved an OF player there would have been a penalty and no booking for the forward.  The defender might even have been red carded as the ref belongs to the Glasgow refs association.

 

[Jim Panzee]

7 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

I apologise that I may have phrased this badly but my post was not meant to be critical of what you said.

It was meant to suggest that whatever definition you, or indeed anyone else for that matter, came up with, it would not apply to the OF.  In fact, if Saturday's incident had involved an OF player there would have been a penalty and no booking for the forward.  The defender might even have been red carded as the ref belongs to the Glasgow refs association.

 

I think this is the main part of the issue here - the consistency (or lack of) from officials - on field and VAR.

 

The expectation was that VAR would help eliminate this - and IMO it has done well a lot of the time.

 

 It's likely either ugly sister gets the pen here - and at the very worst - no pen, no card.

 

to gain an objective view I showed the clip to a mate down south who said he felt Shanks made more of the challenge than it was, but technically (these days) a pen - was surprised at the booking for simulation, given Shanks not looking for one and getting up ASAP.

 

 

[JamboAl]

4 minutes ago, Jim Panzee said:

I think this is the main part of the issue here - the consistency (or lack of) from officials - on field and VAR.

 

The expectation was that VAR would help eliminate this - and IMO it has done well a lot of the time.

 

 It's likely either ugly sister gets the pen here - and at the very worst - no pen, no card.

 

to gain an objective view I showed the clip to a mate down south who said he felt Shanks made more of the challenge than it was, but technically (these days) a pen - was surprised at the booking for simulation, given Shanks not looking for one and getting up ASAP.

 

 

Fair comment

[GBJambo]

Some questionable posters on here suggesting Shankland had dived 🤔

[HeartsandonlyHearts]

1 hour ago, Drylaw Hearts said:

The contact was minimal….and it wasn’t enough to warrant a penalty imo.

 

If we are giving penalties for any contact, minimal or otherwise, there would 20 penalties a game.

 

It that penalty was given against us there would have been an uproar on here…..and rightly so.

Was it a deserved yellow?

 

[Drylaw Hearts]

3 hours ago, HeartsandonlyHearts said:

Was it a deserved yellow?

 

If he’s gone down when the contact didn’t really warrant it……then it’s hard to argue against it being a yellow.

 

And I think he’s known this, which is why he’s got to his feet right away and didn’t claim for a penalty.

 

 

[HMFC01]

8 hours ago, paul1874 said:

Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play.

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official
• throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object

See also offences in Law 3

 

Where does it mention minimal contact?

 

The defender clearly sticks his leg out.   The ball was a foot away.   With Shankland pursuing the ball, the defender attempting to trip, tackle or challenge,  whatever the **** he was doing. 

 

 It's a foul to me.  Shankland can go down if he wants.   The contact was made by the defender not Shankland. 

 

Penalty.   If its good enough for the OF ya know. 

[Jim_Duncan]

4 hours ago, GBJambo said:

Some questionable posters on here suggesting Shankland had dived 🤔

Should be an easy cull if the mods have the minerals to do it. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

28 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

The defender clearly sticks his leg out.   The ball was a foot away.   With Shankland pursuing the ball, the defender attempting to trip, tackle or challenge,  whatever the **** he was doing. 

 

 It's a foul to me.  Shankland can go down if he wants.   The contact was made by the defender not Shankland. 

 

Penalty.   If its good enough for the OF ya know. 

Shankland didn’t think it was a penalty but seen them given, especially for those two. 

[thegreatsd]

In all the time he has been with us I have never seen him go down easily or anything close to going down easily. He’s always up for a challenge and enjoys the physical stuff. Definitely contact in the challenge, probably a penalty and definitely not a yellow. 

[Hearts_fan]

You’re allowed to foul big lads without being penalised  

 

Utter drivel on here sometimes, and criticising our own players too. 

 

A foul is a foul.

 

 

 

 

[colinmaroon]

10 hours ago, Hearts_fan said:

You’re allowed to foul big lads without being penalised  

 

Utter drivel on here sometimes, and criticising our own players too. 

 

A foul is a foul.

 

 

 

 

 

I know, it beggars belief.  The video evidence shows contact and plenty of penalties have been given for similar.  To state definitely no possible foul there would have to be no contact; there was, end of.

 

So it comes down to opinion trumping fact, par for the course these days.  The contrarian approach is just stirring it, I hope, because they're either hibbies or deluded, or mischievous. 

 

I fully expect as we become more serious competitors that we'll see a repeat of the SFA standing up for the incestuous duo.  IMHO last week was a reaction to the Lizard's whining over the decisions at Tynecastle.  We had a very rare day when decisions went for us in a big way, we have many games ahead for the SFA to restore the status quo.

[Jambo in Bathgate]

3 hours ago, colinmaroon said:

 

I know, it beggars belief.  The video evidence shows contact and plenty of penalties have been given for similar.  To state definitely no possible foul there would have to be no contact; there was, end of.

 

So it comes down to opinion trumping fact, par for the course these days.  The contrarian approach is just stirring it, I hope, because they're either hibbies or deluded, or mischievous. 

 

I fully expect as we become more serious competitors that we'll see a repeat of the SFA standing up for the incestuous duo.  IMHO last week was a reaction to the Lizard's whining over the decisions at Tynecastle.  We had a very rare day when decisions went for us in a big way, we have many games ahead for the SFA to restore the status quo.

Sometimes I wonder about who some posters support! Have they outed themselves. 

[HopeDiouf]

On 21/03/2024 at 11:49, HeartsandonlyHearts said:

Was it a deserved yellow?

 

probably not.  Equally, probably not definitely undeserved enough to be overturned on appeal.  (e.g. the Forrest one that was overturned was more blatant).

[Fozzyonthefence]

4 hours ago, colinmaroon said:

 

I fully expect as we become more serious competitors that we'll see a repeat of the SFA standing up for the incestuous duo.  IMHO last week was a reaction to the Lizard's whining over the decisions at Tynecastle.  We had a very rare day when decisions went for us in a big way, we have many games ahead for the SFA to restore the status quo.

That really is taking paranoia a bit too far!  Are the SFA out to get us in favour of Ross County?!  And you do realise the SPFL is not run by the SFA?

 

As for the Celtic game, the decisions correctly went for us, even if on the soft side but the Celtic penalty most certainly did not and was the worst decision on the day. 

[colinmaroon]

14 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

That really is taking paranoia a bit too far!  Are the SFA out to get us in favour of Ross County?!  And you do realise the SPFL is not run by the SFA?

 

As for the Celtic game, the decisions correctly went for us, even if on the soft side but the Celtic penalty most certainly did not and was the worst decision on the day. 

 

Don't be ridiculous.  Ross County?  Give us a break!  There's nothing in what I said that could be interpreted that way, except by a shit stirrer.  The SFA is the focus because for decades the officials have demonstrated long term bias towards the Uglies.  They even boast about it.

 

Do you really think we would have got these decisions if we were a point behind Celtic, or Rangers?

 

And it was obvious that Beaton was on VAR for that game, as he was for the Ross County game.  Interested to see how many times a referee on VAR officiated in consecutive weeks.  He made up for the Celtic game, didn't he?

[Fozzyonthefence]

2 hours ago, colinmaroon said:

 

Don't be ridiculous.  Ross County?  Give us a break!  There's nothing in what I said that could be interpreted that way, except by a shit stirrer.  The SFA is the focus because for decades the officials have demonstrated long term bias towards the Uglies.  They even boast about it.

 

Do you really think we would have got these decisions if we were a point behind Celtic, or Rangers?

 

And it was obvious that Beaton was on VAR for that game, as he was for the Ross County game.  Interested to see how many times a referee on VAR officiated in consecutive weeks.  He made up for the Celtic game, didn't he?

So they have it in for Hearts against Ross County - how does that benefit the uglies?  We were playing Ross County last week, not Rangers or Celtic and we’re no threat to their duopoly anyway so what have they got to do with it?  And other than the yellow card which was wrong but didn’t affect the result of the game, how did Beaton make up for it?  He got the big decisions correct - no penalty (even Shankland didn’t claim a penalty), and by the rules unfortunately Kingsley’s free kick had to be disallowed (similar to McTominay’s v Spain). 

[HeartsandonlyHearts]

On 21/03/2024 at 11:16, Drylaw Hearts said:

If he’s gone down when the contact didn’t really warrant it……then it’s hard to argue against it being a yellow.

 

And I think he’s known this, which is why he’s got to his feet right away and didn’t claim for a penalty.

 

 

So he went down for over nothing? Then halfway down has some kind of epiphany and realizes he’s made a terrible blunder.

That’s what you’re sticking with?
 

[Wee Mikey]

7 hours ago, Jambo in Bathgate said:

Sometimes I wonder about who some posters support! Have they outed themselves. 

 

Our team captain is a cheatin' diver; our club are a disgrace to have challenged the decision ...

 

... or, maybe ...

 

... just maybe ...

 

... my h1b5 papa-in-law has re-located to Drylaw.

 

Lol.