andrew Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/7692130.stm Looks like a penalty to me. Mole should have buried that one at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devries4 Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/7692130.stm However, i can't play it as I am in the wrong territory??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinheaven Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/7692130.stm However, i can't play it as I am in the wrong territory??? you most def are ,glasgow is wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devries4 Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 you most def are ,glasgow is wrong Just keeping a weedgie out of a job..:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewis2006 Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Minimal contact but still looks a pen to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Jamie Mole - hang your head in shame. That is an incredible miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyJenkins Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Oooh really difficult to tell from that. Not sure how the linesamn could tell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greedy_Jambo Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Just watched it. Its so hard to tell if the keeper made any contact with mickey. Normally you can make a decision either way but i can't wich makes me think... what the hell was the linesman playing at? to be so sure it wasn't a penalty? if it was a dive it was a pretty realistic one unlike some of the dives ive seen given every week. p.s how empty is tynecastle? looking at the stand during mackies goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 What a pass that was from Nade to set up Wallace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bankies Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 it looks like a penalty only because jamie langfield does not touch the ball he dives at stewart and makes no contact with the ball and therefore runs the risk of a penalty been given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinheaven Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Just watched it. Its so hard to tell if the keeper made any contact with mickey. Normally you can make a decision either way but i can't wich makes me think... what the hell was the linesman playing at? to be so sure it wasn't a penalty? if it was a dive it was a pretty realistic one unlike some of the dives ive seen given every week. p.s how empty is tynecastle? looking at the stand during mackies goal. you will know how empty it was ,were you there yesterday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 p.s how empty is tynecastle? looking at the stand during mackies goal. Not at all bad considering the conditions, I thought. If you want to see empty, have a look at the highlights from Celtic Park! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greedy_Jambo Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 you will know how empty it was ,were you there yesterday? easy tiger. no need to be like that. Obviously i wasn't there. I'll get a season ticket as soon as we get some decent strikers i promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 it pretty much proves it wasn't a penalty. stewart waits on any contact being made and goes down. not a dive as such, pretty much the sort of 'cute' move which the likes of andy wa*ker would describe as clever, unless it's a hearts player natch. the linesman should still have kept his big hooter out of it though because it couldn't have been an easy decision to make with just one look at it in real time. unless he's prepared to make the same call against the OF, he should stick his flag up his erse. the antics of the cheating half-wits langfield and diamond are a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 The linesman has to be 100% sure it's not a penalty to reverse the decision. Even after looking at the replays it isn't conclusive which proves the linesman just made any call and hoped for the best. Load of pish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 it pretty much proves it wasn't a penalty. stewart waits on any contact being made and goes down. not a dive as such, pretty much the sort of 'cute' move which the likes of andy wa*ker would describe as clever, unless it's a hearts player natch. the linesman should still have kept his big hooter out of it though because it couldn't have been an easy decision to make with just one look at it in real time. unless he's prepared to make the same call against the OF, he should stick his flag up his erse. the antics of the cheating half-wits langfield and diamond are a disgrace. Have to disagree. It proves nothing at all. Difficult to say, even after the TV replays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 What a pass that was from Nade to set up Wallace. a terrific pass. i'd love to see what Nade could do with a clinical strike partner on his shoulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 The linesman has to be 100% sure it's not a penalty to reverse the decision. Even after looking at the replays it isn't conclusive which proves the linesman just made any call and hoped for the best. Load of pish. I'm still undecided about whether or not it was a penalty. On balance I think it probably was, though - it looks to me as if there is some contact, then Stewart tries and fails to stay up. That's obviously what the referee saw. For reasons only he will know, he then defers to the linesman, who cannot possibly - from his angle - decide whether or not there has been contact. Completely inexplicable decison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeBandit Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Seen them given.. (not going to say who for etc as I for one am getting fed up of complaining about certain teams getting decisions. It happens, It's a big sh** sandwich but unfortnately in this league its all thats on the menu..) From that clip and the angles it showed, I think contact maybe minimal but its still there... It wasn't given so I'm gonna move on. Moles chance at the end.. I think if he'd had a couple of seasons at this level (such as it is) he'd have buried that. Poor bugger must be kicking himself looking at the replay!! Learn from it Moley son.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irontart Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 What a pass that was from Nade to set up Wallace. yes i thought so too v.good perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeBandit Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Forgot to add that I loved wallaces goal.. fantastic link play with nade and still had a difficult attempt to get off.. Also how wet was it yesterday!! The conditions are the same for both teams obviously and it couldn't have been easy trying to pass the ball and make well timed tackles on that surface... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akfkjambo Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Just watched it and my opinion hasn't changed from being there yesterday; Langfield catches Stewart's left leg after Stewart cleares the keepers (attempted) initial challenge. It wasn't a dive and there is no way the linesman should have over-ruled it when it was that close. Terrible officiating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Inconclusive I change my mind every time I watch it Mole you can forgive a little with the 2 sheep tryig to block him 1 question (stuck in Leeds so not there) going by those 'highlights' I take it, it was all sheep and Hearts were lucky to get a draw:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Have to disagree. It proves nothing at all. Difficult to say, even after the TV replays. that just shows how difficult a decision it was to call, and exactly why the linesman should have kept his trap shut. i've looked again and stand by it not being a penalty. you can see stewart virtually leaving his foot hovering for a split second for contact to be made.... contact was made but stewart could easily have kept his run going and stayed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruck Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 It looked pretty much like a pen to me at the time and the replay does nothing to change that view. The least clear view is from behind - the view that ref had and linesman did not. If ref was convinced from his view, it should have stood. Langfield was asking for trouble sliding in at an attacker's feet in that part of the box. Still, these things even themselves out although I am not expecting any balancing decision next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 It is hard to tell conclusively whether or not Langfield touched Stewart. On balance of probability (and with maroon-tinted specs on), I think it looks like he did. If he did touch him, then it should have been a penalty. If he did not touch him, then it was a blatant dive by Stewart. At the time, I was puzzled as to why Aberdeen were given a goal kick, as the fact that Stewart was not booked implied Langfield got a touch on the ball. The only thing certain, from that footage, is that he did not. Thus, it was either a penalty, or a dive deserving of a yellow card. It is inexplicable why the officials decided it worth neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownkg Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Not withsatnding pen or not and I kind of though it would fortunate if we were given it yesterday from my view Section x row 25, I see the BBC have manged to not show the blatant dive by their no22 just 6 feet from that self same eagle eyed linesman(sorry referee coz he made a decision) nor miko's persistant fouling booking let alone after match afters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Seen them given.. (not going to say who for etc as I for one am getting fed up of complaining about certain teams getting decisions. It happens, It's a big sh** sandwich but unfortnately in this league its all thats on the menu..) From that clip and the angles it showed, I think contact maybe minimal but its still there... It wasn't given so I'm gonna move on. Moles chance at the end.. I think if he'd had a couple of seasons at this level (such as it is) he'd have buried that. Poor bugger must be kicking himself looking at the replay!! Learn from it Moley son.. But it was given - Conroy didn't even hesitate or look to his linesman, he gave it without question.....then he un-awarded it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Freewheelin' Jambo Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 When I saw it yesterday I thought it looked marginal but looking at the replay I don't think Mikey dived so there must have been contact. That means it was a penalty and it was disgraceful decision to rescind it. But that miss from Mole was almost as bad and sums up the lack of predatory instinct amongst our current crop of "strikers". Robbo, JC, Rudi, De Vries etc and all of that ilk would have buried it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Loverman Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Looking at the highlights it's clear that the ref had a completely unobstructed view of the incident. It's difficult to tell what view the lino had, but the last you seen of him in the picture is that he is in line with the Aberdeen defender who would have been obstructing his view of the incident - I'm not saying the lino had no view of it, however, it's pretty clear that the ref had the best view of it and he was clear in his mind it was a penalty, until the lino over ruled him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicTs Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Didn't think it was a penalty at the time and Mickey Stewart's reaction afterwards confirmed that for me. Still don't think it was a pen having watched it. That diddies miss at the end was actually worse 2nd time round. Useless donkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fermi Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 As has been said, it's difficult to tell if there was contact. However, the only certain thing is that the Scottish linesman could not have seen whether it was a penalty or not and it was therefore an outrageous decision. I also notice Mole got absolutely clattered after firing over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 When future refereeing mistakes are made I will be holding the linesmen to account as much as the blundering (or biased) referee's because they clearly have the authority to bring to attention what they consider to be incorrect decisions....although Andy Davies already excercised this power of intervention back in 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeBandit Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 But it was given - Conroy didn't even hesitate or look to his linesman, he gave it without question.....then he un-awarded it. Bit pedantic but I take your point.. It was reversed so therefore not given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Basically this decision comes down to a matter of opinions between the officials, the referee in his opinion was certain it was a penalty as that is what he awarded, the linesman was of the opinion that it wasn't ..... what makes the linesman's opinion hold sway over the referee's in this instance given they neither had any better view of the incident than the other? And why was a bye kick awarded? It was either a penalty or simulation given the keeper never touched the ball and the ball was still in play when Stewart went down. Farcical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perth to Paisley Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 As I said yesterday on another thread - there doesn't need to be contact before it's a foul - ask Takis for confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicTs Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 When future refereeing mistakes are made I will be holding the linesmen to account as much as the blundering (or biased) referee's because they clearly have the authority to bring to attention what they consider to be incorrect decisions....although Andy Davies already excercised this power of intervention back in 2005. The referee was far less accountable for us dropping another 2 points than either Zaliukas or Mole. Interesting that you blame everybody but the real culprits as per usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 The referee was far less accountable for us dropping another 2 points than either Zaliukas or Mole. Interesting that you blame everybody but the real culprits as per usual. Players make mistakes and these lead to goals or missed chances etc. you could blame some Aberdeen or Hibs players for our goals yesterday or last week or for those teams not scoring another goal etc. But the referee's made a hugely controversial decision that had a major impact on the possible result with the awarded / unawarded penalty. Same as the Riordan decision last week which I thought was a penalty although Riordan did exaggerate his fall. And Nade's disallowed goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Nade's header over the bar from 2 yards out was worse than Mole's miss although it isn't shown in the highlights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malinga the Swinga Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Notice the linesman at the Rangers game didn't intervene when Boyd was offside for Rangers second goal. Still, I'm sure they will next week if Hearts score with borderline decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicTs Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Well done Mickey. All but saying you played for it and this time it didn't come off. Never a pen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Gosling Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Nade's header over the bar from 2 yards out was worse than Mole's miss although it isn't shown in the highlights. The ball had gone out before it reached Nade. The ball was moving when Bruno took the corner (and so shouldn't have been allowed to be taken anyway) and it curled out of play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 I think Mole's chance was a lot harder than people are making out. His standing foot appears to be taken out by Diamond just before he is about to strike the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicTs Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 The ball had gone out before it reached Nade. The ball was moving when Bruno took the corner (and so shouldn't have been allowed to be taken anyway) and it curled out of play. Yep, but don't let that get in the way of NMH trying to pull the wool over the Hearts fans eyes as per usual ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 The ball had gone out before it reached Nade. The ball was moving when Bruno took the corner (and so shouldn't have been allowed to be taken anyway) and it curled out of play. No bye kick was awarded or flag raised though prior to the header going over - you are correct the ball was moving when taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicTs Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 I think Mole's chance was a lot harder than people are making out. His standing foot appears to be taken out by Diamond just before he is about to strike the ball. There was absolutely no need for him to hit the ball like he did. A simple side foot into the empty net would have sufficed. Lack of technique, compusure, intelligence and instinct all rolled into one. Fed up of the sight of the huddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malinga the Swinga Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Well done Mickey. All but saying you played for it and this time it didn't come off. Never a pen. No that isn't what he said. he said there was minimal contact. The ref had a clear view and his opinion was a penalty. The linesman is further away and yet his opinion overrides ref's. Why is linesmans opinion more valid than the referee. The SFA are a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Yep, but don't let that get in the way of NMH trying to pull the wool over the Hearts fans eyes as per usual ! Even if the ball had gone out, which wasn't given as I was standing directly in line with it, there is no way that Nade knew this prior to making his goal attempt and heading over from bar from two yards out underneath it having beaten the keeper and defender to the cross. It was a terrible miss regardless of whether it would have stood or not and as no flag was raised we can only assume it would have been given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicTs Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 No that isn't what he said. he said there was minimal contact. The ref had a clear view and his opinion was a penalty. The linesman is further away and yet his opinion overrides ref's. Why is linesmans opinion more valid than the referee. The SFA are a joke. Stewart all but admitted it was never a pen but that he almost got away with it. There was no contact nevermind minimal. In the dying minutes of a tight match it was 100% the correct thing for Mickey to do but unfortunately it was also the correct decision by the officials however they came to it. The SFA may well be a joke but you my friend are paranoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicTs Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 Even if the ball had gone out, which wasn't given as I was standing directly in line with it, there is no way that Nade knew this prior to making his goal attempt and heading over from bar from two yards out underneath it having beaten the keeper and defender to the cross. It was a terrible miss regardless of whether it would have stood or not and as no flag was raised we can only assume it would have been given. Well we agree on something, Nade is sheite. Unfortunately he remains our best striker. Thanks Romanov. Happy now ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.