Riordan "exaggerated"

[The xx]

according to McGhee and Gordon on BBC.

 

Not 'dive', no?

 

Not a booking, no?

 

Not a two match ban, no?

[gowestjambo]

according to McGhee and Gordon on BBC.

 

Not 'dive', no?

 

Not a booking, no?

 

Not a two match ban, no?

 

It is quite clear, HE DIVED!!!! no contact whatsoever, good on Mark McGhee telling it straight!!

[The xx]

Actually my point was that they used the word 'exaggerated' rather than 'dived'.

[brownkg]

aggravated fell like a sack of tatties to 'exaggerate' what that fact that not being a diving lLithuanian he is incapable of cheating?

 

'exaggerate(d)' noun to try and cheat whilst displaying all the arisanic qualities of flair:mad:

[slashishere]

Thought spoke very well of the game, called rearends 'fall' for what it was and said that there was nothing wrong with Nade's 'goal'.

Pity there aint a few more well spoken, well knowledged 'pundits' going about.

 

.........but I do get where you are coming from, however, I dont think he has thrown those types of accusataions at our players, but i'm sure someone can prove me wrong??

[Tyrion Lannister]

But in all honestly, with the maroon tinted specs off, I can see what they are saying.

 

Riordan didn't dive, he exaggerated when he was fouled.

 

Diving is trying to make an innocent and clean tackle/act look like a foul, when it isn't.

 

Riordan however, didn't do this, what he did do though was exaggerate the foul, yes he was fouled, so it should of been a penalty, but he tried to make it worse than it looked so the penalty was given, hence McGhee and Strachan have a point.

 

Euan

[Only a Game]

But in all honestly, with the maroon tinted specs off, I can see what they are saying.

 

Riordan didn't dive, he exaggerated when he was fouled.

 

Diving is trying to make an innocent and clean tackle/act look like a foul, when it isn't.

 

Riordan however, didn't do this, what he did do though was exaggerate the foul, yes he was fouled, so it should of been a penalty, but he tried to make it worse than it looked so the penalty was given, hence McGhee and Strachan have a point.

 

Euan

 

Watched this several times now from the only angle thats telling you anything. Jonsson mistimes the tackle. No doubt about that, but his foot makes no contact with Riordans right foot. Instead Riordan takes the opportunity and allows his left shin, in fact deviates his left shin to clash with Jonssons outstretched leg, which by now is firmly planted in front of him. There was no foul and it wasnt a penalty. The referee got it 100% right and its a great decision from him consdering he only saw it once at full speed. Slow it right down if you can and watch what Riordan does with his left lower leg in relation to Jonnsons planted left leg.

 

I was going to end with a well done Mr Smith, but he got the Nade "goal" seriously wrong.

[The Don]

Exaclty what i Said yesterday as well when people were going on about it being a clear cut penalty etc etc.

 

Riorden made a meal of the tackle. He tried to con the ref by "Exagerating" the foul its for this reason I dont think a penalty was given. I do believe had he kept going as normal there may have been more contact and perhaps a trip leading to a definate penalty. What he basically did was cheated himself and his team out of a penalty by trying to cheat the Ref and Us.

[Tyrion Lannister]

Watched this several times now from the only angle thats telling you anything. Jonsson mistimes the tackle. No doubt about that, but his foot makes no contact with Riordans right foot. Instead Riordan takes the opportunity and allows his left shin, in fact deviates his left shin to clash with Jonssons outstretched leg, which by now is firmly planted in front of him. There was no foul and it wasnt a penalty. The referee got it 100% right and its a great decision from him consdering he only saw it once at full speed. Slow it right down if you can and watch what Riordan does with his left lower leg in relation to Jonnsons planted left leg.

 

I was going to end with a well done Mr Smith, but he got the Nade "goal" seriously wrong.

 

I forgot to put I do actually think the ref got the general decision right, but when I saw it for the first time in full speed, my immediate thought was penalty. And with the serious over-protection of goalkeepers these days I could see the ref giving the foul on Makalamby a mile off. Which sadly, and wrongly, he did.

[bighusref]

Watched it a bunch of times and all I see is a penalty. His foot is planted (despite some saying he draws his leg back) and he fouls Riordan.

 

I was set to come on and discuss the ignorance of the press yesterday, they made a big thing about Riordan's penalty but nowt of the goal chopped off. I was going to make a big song and dance saying that the press are ignoring one of two clear decisions that were ignored by the referee. I decided not to when we as Hearts fans are doing exactly the same as the press (and incidently the Hibs fans).

 

Had that been Van Zanten on Driver and it would have been an outcry, those saying it is not a penalty, ask yourselves how you would feel about it had it been the other way around.

[BobbyJenkins]

Watched it a bunch of times and all I see is a penalty. His foot is planted (despite some saying he draws his leg back) and he fouls Riordan.

 

I was set to come on and discuss the ignorance of the press yesterday, they made a big thing about Riordan's penalty but nowt of the goal chopped off. I was going to make a big song and dance saying that the press are ignoring one of two clear decisions that were ignored by the referee. I decided not to when we as Hearts fans are doing exactly the same as the press (and incidently the Hibs fans).

 

Had that been Van Zanten on Driver and it would have been an outcry, those saying it is not a penalty, ask yourselves how you would feel about it had it been the other way around.

 

If that was us I would have screamed for it and probably still would be but I honestly think he dived. Why did his legs go backwards instead of his momentum taking him forward?

[Dazo]

Watched it a bunch of times and all I see is a penalty. His foot is planted (despite some saying he draws his leg back) and he fouls Riordan.

 

I was set to come on and discuss the ignorance of the press yesterday, they made a big thing about Riordan's penalty but nowt of the goal chopped off. I was going to make a big song and dance saying that the press are ignoring one of two clear decisions that were ignored by the referee. I decided not to when we as Hearts fans are doing exactly the same as the press (and incidently the Hibs fans).

 

Had that been Van Zanten on Driver and it would have been an outcry, those saying it is not a penalty, ask yourselves how you would feel about it had it been the other way around.

 

Completely disagree BigH I just don't see any foul. He does go to make a tackle but pulls out and makes not attempt to play the ball or the player. As far as I am aware ratboy tries to take advantage or Eggert sticking his leg in.

[bighusref]

If that was us I would have screamed for it and probably still would be but I honestly think he dived. Why did his legs go backwards instead of his momentum taking him forward?

 

Completely disagree BigH I just don't see any foul. He does go to make a tackle but pulls out and makes not attempt to play the ball or the player. As far as I am aware ratboy tries to take advantage or Eggert sticking his leg in.

 

I will say the same to the both of you, look at the video again and look at Jonsson's foot. It plants right infront of Riordan and his foot does not move. His leg does though, why would his leg move whilst his foot is planted in the ground?

 

I am not having a go at you guys or indeed anybody else, I merely cannot fathom how there is any debate as to whether it was a penalty, well, apart from it was HIM and at THAT ground and we were already one nil down to THEM.

[Charlie-Brown]

I will say the same to the both of you, look at the video again and look at Jonsson's foot. It plants right infront of Riordan and his foot does not move. His leg does though, why would his leg move whilst his foot is planted in the ground?

 

I am not having a go at you guys or indeed anybody else, I merely cannot fathom how there is any debate as to whether it was a penalty, well, apart from it was HIM and at THAT ground and we were already one nil down to THEM.

 

Clearly BH is being held hostage by his Hibby neighbour who has him posting Hibs propaganda on JKB.....

[bighusref]

Clearly BH is being held hostage by his Hibby neighbour who has him posting Hibs propaganda on JKB.....

 

Hehehe!

 

I moved away from the Hibee neighbour, the poster I referred to made me!

 

As for Hibees, NMH, I wouldn't have thought you would have the nerve....

[Juanimator]

I merely cannot fathom how there is any debate as to whether it was a penalty,

 

Dinnae let a certain person think you believe that BigH or he'll not gie you his ticket for Saturday . . . He winnae want a sitting in his seat

[bighusref]

Dinnae let a certain person think you believe that BigH or he'll not gie you his ticket for Saturday . . . He winnae want a sitting in his seat

 

Too late bud, it is sitting on the chest of drawers.

 

See you Saturday.

[Jambomo]

Watched it a bunch of times and all I see is a penalty. His foot is planted (despite some saying he draws his leg back) and he fouls Riordan.

 

I was set to come on and discuss the ignorance of the press yesterday, they made a big thing about Riordan's penalty but nowt of the goal chopped off. I was going to make a big song and dance saying that the press are ignoring one of two clear decisions that were ignored by the referee. I decided not to when we as Hearts fans are doing exactly the same as the press (and incidently the Hibs fans).

 

Had that been Van Zanten on Driver and it would have been an outcry, those saying it is not a penalty, ask yourselves how you would feel about it had it been the other way around.

 

Going to be brave and say I agree with you, I have seen it a few times now and it still looks as much a penalty now as it did then.

[Jam Tarts 1874]

Riordan almost comes to a standstill in order to ensure his left leg catches Jonsson's already planted and stationary leg. I remember Shammy getting booked for an almost identical penalty shout at Celtic Park last season in the CIS Cup.

[Denny Crane]

He wasn't tripped, Jonsson bumped into the back of him. Riordan simlulated a trip though, making him a cheating little baw hair.

 

Don't suppose you could whizz up to my office right now Borthers as I'm trying to make this point and one against 10 is not exactly a fair fight.

[deesidejambo]

The fact that there are different views on this thread shows what a close call it was. imo it was a penalty.

 

I'm much more peeved by the Nade goal. Full marks to McGee for saying that the ref bottled it. That was a clear goal and I hate refs that just blow up the moment the ball gets near the keeper.

[Dunks]

The point is the ref saw it for what it was and waved play on. Pity he blinked at the Nade "goal".

[Victorian]

you see this quite often from 'football people' and media types. they tend make a distinction between outright dives with no contact and the likes of riordan "exaggerating" a challenge when there has been contact.

 

where the hypocrisy kicks in is in the comparitive description of certain players' 'exaggeration' of challenges. where riordan was spared any hysterical claims of being a player who tends to 'go down too easily', our very own public enemy No1 would have been slaugtered for it.

 

for the record, riordan isn't a player who is particularly known for throwing himself about, dean shiels on the other hand is one example of a downright cheat who hasn't felt the force of our media witch-hunt machine. there are plenty more.

 

do the media know about the cheating of players such as nakamura, boyd and broadfoot? of course they do. it's simply that it doesn't fit in with the general self-interest for them to do something radical and express their honestly held views on the matter.

 

don't expect any SPL manager to criticise a player for simulation, with one exception, they will if it's been against their team. that's the only time you will ever hear them complaining about OF bias as well.

 

the self-interest and acceptance of one's place in the scottish football foodchain is despicable.