Hibs 'Penalty'

[DC_92]

Was I the only one that thought it was a dive?

[TimeBandit]

I agree, not a theatrical one, more a devious cheating one.

 

If eggert had fouled him his momentum would surely have taken him over the leg, but instead his feet came up and he fell almost straight down..

 

If he'd carried on running instead of cheating he would surely have been (rightly) rewarded with the penalty because, as stated, the momentum would have taken him over the leg and it would have looked a far clearer foul.

 

I never really had any negative feelings for Riordan until today, his cynical push on eggert when clearly not going to get to the ball before it went out of play for a hearts throw was the culminating point for me with him.

 

I don't like cynical, dirty players, Riordan for hibs against us is at his worsdt for that type of thing.

 

(I also very much dislike to see a Hearts player be cynical and cheat in the same way.. )

[Jambomo]

He maybe went down a bit easily but there is no way it was not a penalty. We were lucky at that point but if the hibbes want to argue there was nothing wrong with Nade's goal so we wuz robbed too!

[Snake Plissken]

He maybe went down a bit easily but there is no way it was not a penalty. We were lucky at that point but if the hibbes want to argue there was nothing wrong with Nade's goal so we wuz robbed too!

 

Exactly.

 

We got a legit goal chalked off they didn't get a penalty.

 

Evens out.

[N User]

He maybe went down a bit easily but there is no way it was not a penalty. We were lucky at that point but if the hibbes want to argue there was nothing wrong with Nade's goal so we wuz robbed too!

 

agreed

[Gigolo-Aunt]

Stone wall penalty.

[Rick Grimes]

it was a stick on penalty.

[The Leigh]

i was unfortunately working today and had the game online, all i missed was nade's 'goal' my friend who supports neither hearts or hibs said it was harsh, can anyone explain wat happened?

[Gabriel]

Always go with the 'had it been us' test, and I'd say that if we'd been denied that, there would have been collective apoplexy in the Dunbar Road end. Nade's disallowed goal was an equally bizarre decision.

[cosanostra]

I think they didn't get it because Ratboy went down too dramatically. Eggert did catch him but there was no way he hit him hard enough to make him fall. Ratboy felt the contact and dived straight downwards to try and con the ref.

 

Cheating is the word I'd use.

[Canadianjambo]

Exactly.

 

We got a legit goal chalked off they didn't get a penalty.

 

Evens out.

 

Doesn't even out...we had a goal, there's no guarantee that they would have converted the penalty.

[Rick Grimes]

I think they didn't get it because Ratboy went down too dramatically. Eggert did catch him but there was no way he hit him hard enough to make him fall. Ratboy felt the contact and dived straight downwards to try and con the ref.

 

Cheating is the word I'd use.

 

baws. the scrote had his ankle caught & had no option but to go down. it should have been a penalty.

[Guest juvehearts]

it was a poenalty.

 

the ref bottled giving it as he was not 100% sure if rhat bhoy was diving ot contact was made.

 

if he was not sure then the penalty shoud have not been given.

 

throughout the game the ref was whistle happy & stopped the flow as much as he could. the goal that nade scored was always never going to be given, any and i mean ANY kind of contact in either box was going to result in a free kick to the defending team.

 

Its the way the ref set out his stall.

still cant believe he only managed to book 3 players in the whole match.

 

tasty game, but far from a classtc.

[Derek]

I think they didn't get it because Ratboy went down too dramatically. Eggert did catch him but there was no way he hit him hard enough to make him fall. Ratboy felt the contact and dived straight downwards to try and con the ref.

 

Cheating is the word I'd use.

 

This is probably the best description of it.

 

I thought it was a dive to start with, but agree with Gabriel as well, I would have probably claimed it had it been the other end.

[brownkg]

Of course if had been miko that went down like that cue the search for firewood. Yes there was contact but if it had been enough to stop hime dead in his tracks like that he would be hurting a ot more and why he wasn't booked for the shove in the back well .....

[DC_92]

Fair enough, I thought it was a stupid challenge, but after seeing the replays I couldn't see where the contact was.

[Fermi]

I'm quite surprised by the support for it being a penalty, to be honest. I doubt there was even contact. From one of the TV angles it looks a certain penalty, with Jonsson's foot appearing to snag the Scot's as he pulls away. From another angle, however, it shows that Jonsson's foot is nowhere near the Scot's, who promptly dives over.

[cosanostra]

baws. the scrote had his ankle caught & had no option but to go down. it should have been a penalty.

 

Pish.

 

Just because there was physical contact between an attacker and a defender does not mean it's a foul or a penalty. Jonsson did touch him but no where near hard enough to make him fall.

 

The rat made the most of it by diving straight downwards, face first. Like I said, cheating.

[Ryan Gosling]

Never a pen.

[rustyboy]

i seriously can not see the contact, sounds biased but is in fact what i picked up from the replays! I couldn't of complained if the ref gave it from seeing it in real time but i am just not convinced that there was contact!

[bighusref]

Stonewall penalty. Anybody saying otherwise must have been at the game and have not seen the replays yet.

[Groatallar]

I felt that rat boy saw Eggert foolishly put his leg out and thought that'll do me and went into it. Anyway my mum said it wasn't a penalty and she supports the vermin.

 

Thankfully my Dad made sure we were brought up properly

[Ray Winstone]

Stonewall penalty.

 

He had lost control of the ball which was our only saving grace.

[Harry Palmer]

First impressions? Never a pen.

Saw the replay; dubious.

 

The ref should have booked ratboy if he was of the opinion that he was trying to cheat a decision. Anyway, the ref says 'No', therefore get on wi' it!

 

FTH

[TimeBandit]

Replay clearly showed riordan throwing his feet back and falling straight down,.. Now If I could make people do that on the Judo mat when I go to competitions etc then I'd be a champion.

 

In order for riordan to fall how he didas a result of contactEggert would have had to sweep his feet away however his foot was firmly planted, not sweeping.

 

riordan, stops dead and falls straight down.

 

I think we can all be sure though, Hearts and Hibs fan alike, that if it was through west for a different team....... Different decision would have been made.

 

I'm saying it's a penalty because we have the benefit of hindsight, replays and the ability to analise it, have to admit at first (before replay) I thought it was a penalty.

[Captain Scarlett]

who cares cause the rat never got it and in no way did it change the game

[Dazo]

Stonewall penalty. Anybody saying otherwise must have been at the game and have not seen the replays yet.

 

Watched it a few times mate and I don't think the contact is there. He sticks his leg in and pulls it away before ratboy dives over it IMO.

[Ivan Drago]

I thought it was similar to Audrey's 'claim' in the first game against Motherwell which i thought was never a pen.

[Tyrion Lannister]

I agree, not a theatrical one, more a devious cheating one.

 

If eggert had fouled him his momentum would surely have taken him over the leg, but instead his feet came up and he fell almost straight down..

 

If he'd carried on running instead of cheating he would surely have been (rightly) rewarded with the penalty because, as stated, the momentum would have taken him over the leg and it would have looked a far clearer foul.

 

I never really had any negative feelings for Riordan until today, his cynical push on eggert when clearly not going to get to the ball before it went out of play for a hearts throw was the culminating point for me with him.

 

I don't like cynical, dirty players, Riordan for hibs against us is at his worsdt for that type of thing.

 

(I also very much dislike to see a Hearts player be cynical and cheat in the same way.. )

 

That just summed Riordan up for me, a nasty cheap shot from behind.

[fan40]

The replay shows Eggart drawing his leg back - the force wouldn't have been enough to squash a knat - except a hibby knat

[Victorian]

never a penalty. he jumped over the challenge rather than being brought down.

 

it's unbelieveable that 'football people' would think that was a penalty.

 

fek the hibs.

[easthousesjambo]

rat boy was lookin for it.nade goal should have stood tho:hobofish:

[The Don]

I think its one of those ones where a lot of refs would have given it and a as in todays case a lot wouldnt. However Having looked at it a few times since i got back, There DOES NOT seem to be contact and ratboy definately makes a meal of it. The ref however should have booked him, if he doesnt see it as a penalty which he doesnt then he has to assume ratboy has tried to con him which means a booking. I can see where people are coming from if it had been the other way round we would be screaming for it of course we would. in fairness though I don't think it was a penalty. If anything Eggy left his leg in slightly but not fully committed Riorden has taken advantage of this and took a dive. I think someone earlier in this thread said had he kept running he would have got it. I think thats the case, because had he kept going there would have been contact and a trip.

 

Basically ratboy by trying to cheat a penalty out of the ref only ended up cheating himself and his team from what could have been a certain penalty had he not dived.

[arfurdaley]

I think they didn't get it because Ratboy went down too dramatically. Eggert did catch him but there was no way he hit him hard enough to make him fall. Ratboy felt the contact and dived straight downwards to try and con the ref.

 

Cheating is the word I'd use.

 

I reckon you've got it spot on. There was contact, but the way he went down was pathetic. Mind I'd have wanted a pen if it had happened at the other end!!

[Maple Leaf]

It looked like a penalty to me.

[Hearts of Vladland]

It really depends on what angle you seen from the replay it wasn't a penalty but the my first thought was penalty.

[maroonedinoz]

It was a clear penalty.

 

Had it been the other way and one of our players was 'tackled' like that we would be yelling blue murder.

 

Sometimes, I think we need to be a bit mature and look objectively and not through heavily maroon tinted glasses.

 

Nade's goal should have stood by the way, but that does not make a penalty that was a penalty, not a penalty.

[Le Chat]

I think they didn't get it because Ratboy went down too dramatically. Eggert did catch him but there was no way he hit him hard enough to make him fall. Ratboy felt the contact and dived straight downwards to try and con the ref.

 

Cheating is the word I'd use.

 

That's how I saw it.

 

Eggert put his foot in and Ratboy went over it.

 

Bugger all wrong with Nade's 'goal' either.

[H2]

Exactly.

 

We got a legit goal chalked off they didn't get a penalty.

 

Evens out.

 

No it doesn't - they still need to put the ball in the net, and no guarantee of that!

What would you rather have a goal or a penalty?

[H2]

I reckon you've got it spot on. There was contact, but the way he went down was pathetic. Mind I'd have wanted a pen if it had happened at the other end!!

 

Had it been Miko the commetators would have had a different view of it, as would the ref who would have booked Miko.

[Paul_]

From the camera in the stand it looked like a pen. From the one on the sidelines though Im not convinced and this is the angle that the ref would most likely have seen it. The replay doesnt go slow enough but it actually looks like Eggys foot is planted infront of Ratboys.

 

The more and more I see it the less and less a penalty it looks.

[Corrie Jambo]

Stuart Lovell was his usual balanced self demanding a penalty and stated that it could change the game.

 

IMHO - It was not a penalty and the RAT BOY dived.

 

I'm gutted though cos we should have taken them today and we missed two sitters (Kingston and Nade).

[Father Tiresias]

Was I the only one that thought it was a dive?

 

Dunno why, it was a stone-waller.

[Hereward]

Saw the replay a number of times and it looks like a dive to me all the way. Reminded me of the Takis sending-off at Darkheid except this time the ref got it right.

[south morocco]

was at the game and thought it was a stonewaller there and then ,we should have pumped them today given our chances

[CJGJ]

Penalty -- yes -- though soft as rat boy made the most of it and had lost control of the ball -- he then flung himself at the contact making sure he fell well within the box.

 

If it had been for us we would all have claimed and been disappointed if itwas not given -- but the same can be said of Nade's 'goal' -- Mo Calmity made a hash of it and it should have stood.

[stevie1874]

If there was contact which im not sure there was then the ref should have given a penalty as it was in the box, but in my opinion he should have booked riordan for a ronaldoesque swandive to try and con the ref

[lost in leith]

Wasn't sure at the game. Folk who saw the TV replays (Jambos, Hibbees and neutrals reckoned it was probably a penalty). I think the ref's angle meant that he couldn't be certain. In that case he did the right thing - he didn't award a penalty.

 

I wasn't convinced that Nade fouled their keeper for the goal that was chalked off. However, he had warned Nade and was looking right at him when the ball came in. Not seen that on the TV yet so can't comment.

 

Could it be that that the ref got both right

[The White Cockade]

stonewaller

Jonsson got in the wrong position and stuck out a foot

no chance of getting the ball

glad he didn't give it though

and I thought Nade's "goal" should have stood

[DC_92]

Wasn't sure at the game. Folk who saw the TV replays (Jambos, Hibbees and neutrals reckoned it was probably a penalty). I think the ref's angle meant that he couldn't be certain. In that case he did the right thing - he didn't award a penalty.

 

I wasn't convinced that Nade fouled their keeper for the goal that was chalked off. However, he had warned Nade and was looking right at him when the ball came in. Not seen that on the TV yet so can't comment.

 

Could it be that that the ref got both right

 

 

No;)