Wallace penalty claim

[Victorian]

sorry but this deserves it's own separate thread.

 

this isn't a penalty folks, no way. if we were to have a penalty awarded against us for that we would quite rightly be screaming blue murder about the player going down too easily and/or the referee awarding a soft penalty.

 

there IS contact with wallace's right leg and this is where the waters become muddy. to some people contact means penalty but i think that's wrong and is the root of many arguments about penalties. if you watch the replay closely you can see the contact barely moves wallace's leg and he (crucially) allows himself to go over.

 

we get the ***** end of the stick on many occasions but our claims to that effect will carry a lot more credibility if we have the honesty to admit when the referee has called it right.

[Diego10]

it was a soft tackle but it's a penalty. Hinkel misses the ball and kicks Wallace. in what way is that not a foul? outside the box you'd get that 99 times out of a 100, so it should have been a penalty.

[The Merse]

Was going to say something similar.

 

If that had been at the other end and given we'd have been moaning about being cheated.

 

For a change McDonald didn't have any real impact on yesterdays game and it was our negative tactics and poor decision making late on which cost us the point.

 

Only ourselves to blame.

[The People's Chimp]

it was a soft tackle but it's a penalty. Hinkel misses the ball and kicks Wallace. in what way is that not a foul? outside the box you'd get that 99 times out of a 100, so it should have been a penalty.

 

I agree, for me it's a pen - he misses the ball, hits the man, the man trips. It's a penalty.

 

I don't think it's one where we'd be complaining too much; wallace may allow himself to trip, but it's not as if he was half way down by the time hinkel hits him - he is kicked, he then trips.

[Shaggy2]

I agree, for me it's a pen - he misses the ball, hits the man, the man trips. It's a penalty.

 

I don't think it's one where we'd be complaining too much; wallace may allow himself to trip, but it's not as if he was half way down by the time hinkel hits him - he is kicked, he then trips.

 

Spot on (pun totally intended).

 

It wouldn't have even been soft IMO. If Honkel sticks his leg out to tackle missses the ball and makes contact with and impedes an opponent it's a penalty. The defender has fecked up. Where's the debate?

 

Eggert Jonsson was correctly penalised for doing exactly that first game.

[DG_HMFC]

It's in the soft category, but still a penalty.

[Victorian]

Spot on (pun totally intended).

 

It wouldn't have even been soft IMO. If Honkel sticks his leg out to tackle missses the ball and makes contact with and impedes an opponent it's a penalty. The defender has fecked up. Where's the debate?

 

Eggert Jonsson was correctly penalised for doing exactly that first game.

this is a prime example of why football decisions are so hotly debated.

 

you're entitled to your view about that tannadice penalty but i honestly think it's miles off the mark. there was no contact whatsoever before the player was virtually horizontal. swan-dive took off from a planted foot (much like miko at hampden) and launched himself forward. one of the worst penalty decisions we will see this season.

 

it's because of peoples' vastly different interpretations on these type of things that decisions are poured over to such an amount.

[cosanostra]

Not a penalty IMO.

[Debut 4]

Sorry, but how the fark is that not a penalty? Just watched the highlights again and Hinkel clearly clips Wallace`s leg and if you are suggesting a dive, get a grip.

 

FFS.

[Victorian]

Sorry, but how the fark is that not a penalty? Just watched the highlights again and Hinkel clearly clips Wallace`s leg and if you are suggesting a dive, get a grip.

 

FFS.

that depends on each person's idea of what a 'dive' is.

 

if you take the andy walker approach... 'he was asking the ref to make a decision' then no it's not a dive at all. if you see every player who goes down when he could easily have stayed on his feet as 'diving' then i suppose it is. if that means i'm saying he dived then so be it. if that bothers you then that's a pity.

[Tynecastle Valhalla]

i have watched it about 10 times and for me it is a DEF penalty.

 

the ref had to give it

[Debut 4]

that depends on each person's idea of what a 'dive' is.

 

if you take the andy walker approach... 'he was asking the ref to make a decision' then no it's not a dive at all. if you see every player who goes down when he could easily have stayed on his feet as 'diving' then i suppose it is. if that means i'm saying he dived then so be it. if that bothers you then that's a pity.

 

its doesn`t bother me vic, i didn`t even read yer post! It was just my general opinion. Defo penalty end of.

 

Enough contact there to make someone go down, legally, not in diving mode.

[cosanostra]

I think if he'd really, really wanted to, he could have stayed on his feet.

[Drylaw Hearts]

If it had been Wallace who made the tackle and a Celtic player went to ground we would all agree that it wasn't a pen.

 

So...........

 

 

No pen imo.

[Debut 4]

If it had been Wallace who made the tackle and a Celtic player went to ground we would all agree that it wasn't a pen.

 

So...........

 

 

No pen imo.

totally disagree DH. I don`t shout for pens against Hearts but i look at it afterwards and give an honest opinion.

 

Thats a pen in any box. Scratching my head here, i really am.

[The Old Tolbooth]

Even Celtic fans reckon it was a penalty, says it all for me.

[maroonlegions]

Soft one but contact was made, in that contact Wallace was impeded or prevented from continuing his run in the box, so if you look at it like that then prevention or the act of impeding is a foul , penalty.

[Victorian]

Even Celtic fans reckon it was a penalty, says it all for me.

that's quite interesting to know. on one hand you could think it points to it being a penalty in that case but there's also the fact that it's celtic fans saying it.

 

i wouldn't trust a celtic fan to call a penalty any more than i would trust stevie wonder. for their own team they scream for every little thing going.

 

for me... celtic fans' opinions of what constitutes a penalty means baws.

[Shaggy2]

totally disagree DH. I don`t shout for pens against Hearts but i look at it afterwards and give an honest opinion.

 

Thats a pen in any box. Scratching my head here, i really am.

 

That goes for me too.

 

I gauge my opinion on the Dundee Utd penalty as much on Jonsson's reaction as anything else. He knew it was a penalty.

[Dazo]

 

for me... celtic fans' opinions means baws.

 

Sorted that for you.

[Optimus Prime]

sorry but this deserves it's own separate thread.

 

this isn't a penalty folks, no way. if we were to have a penalty awarded against us for that we would quite rightly be screaming blue murder about the player going down too easily and/or the referee awarding a soft penalty.

 

there IS contact with wallace's right leg and this is where the waters become muddy. to some people contact means penalty but i think that's wrong and is the root of many arguments about penalties. if you watch the replay closely you can see the contact barely moves wallace's leg and he (crucially) allows himself to go over.

 

we get the ***** end of the stick on many occasions but our claims to that effect will carry a lot more credibility if we have the honesty to admit when the referee has called it right.

 

Some people being FIFA and UEFA?

 

The overturning of the Eduardo incident sends a clear message that even the most minimal of contact can result in a penalty.

[Victorian]

Some people being FIFA and UEFA?

 

The overturning of the Eduardo incident sends a clear message that even the most minimal of contact can result in a penalty.

yep it looks that way but i think it's warped. it's only likely to send out a clear message to all and sundry that it's fine to collapse under your own weight as long as the defender's boot has brushed the top of your sock.

[ASSASSIN]

soft it may be but there WAS contact so its a pen

[NoseLikeMahe]

It's a contact sport - you are allowed to make contact without it being a foul. Everybody seems to ignore this once it's in the box.

 

Also - just because a guy goes down but penalty isnt given, doesn't automatically make it a dive.

 

The problem to me is the game has developed a set of unofficial, unwritten rules over the years since games appeared on TV. Total over-analysis and the desire to create stories where there are none are to blame and the governing bodies are guilty of buying into it rather than dismissing it as nonesense. These unwritten rules include the understanding that you cant win a penalty if you stay on your feet - even if you are fouled.

 

Try this now... If you're at work, go up to one of your workmates, put your hand on their shoulder and pull it towards you. See how many times their legs collapse under them and the end up in a heap on the floor beside you.

 

P.S. I think it was one of those your disappointed not to get but know you'd be gutted if the other lot got it. Not a decision to get angry about.

[Optimus Prime]

yep it looks that way but i think it's warped. it's only likely to send out a clear message to all and sundry that it's fine to collapse under your own weight as long as the defender's boot has brushed the top of your sock.

 

Well going by the letter of the law the Wallace incident was a penalty regardless of how soft it was as there was contact.

[Victorian]

It's a contact sport - you are allowed to make contact without it being a foul. Everybody seems to ignore this once it's in the box.

 

Also - just because a guy goes down but penalty isnt given, doesn't automatically make it a dive.

 

The problem to me is the game has developed a set of unofficial, unwritten rules over the years since games appeared on TV. Total over-analysis and the desire to create stories where there are none are to blame and the governing bodies are guilty of buying into it rather than dismissing it as nonesense. These unwritten rules include the understanding that you cant win a penalty if you stay on your feet - even if you are fouled.

 

Try this now... If you're at work, go up to one of your workmates, put your hand on their shoulder and pull it towards you. See how many times their legs collapse under them and the end up in a heap on the floor beside you.

 

P.S. I think it was one of those your disappointed not to get but know you'd be gutted if the other lot got it. Not a decision to get angry about.

best post on the thread.

[NoseLikeMahe]

Some people being FIFA and UEFA?

 

The overturning of the Eduardo incident sends a clear message that even the most minimal of contact can result in a penalty.

 

No... UEFA overturned the ban due to not being convinced he intentionally cheated. Their remit wasn't to decide if it was in fact a penalty.

 

Wenger conceded it probably wasn't a penalty but they were contesting the fact he was labelled a cheat.

 

Very important difference in the setting of a precedent.

[Victorian]

Well going by the letter of the law the Wallace incident was a penalty regardless of how soft it was as there was contact.

i don't like going down the 'by the letter of the law' route because it gets nowhere.

 

surely we all know that there are no referees who apply the strict letter of the law for 90 mins in every match. there's also the fact that referees continually operate two different set of rules/laws when it's a game involving the OF.

 

if we were to follow the 'letter of the law' route then every game would result in 4-5 sent off and about 6 penalties.

[Debut 4]

It's a contact sport - you are allowed to make contact without it being a foul. Everybody seems to ignore this once it's in the box.

 

.

Nobody is denying it`s a contact sport. But you still can`t foul FFS.

 

Did Hinkel get the ball?

 

Did he go shoulder to shoulder and outmuscle Wallace fairly, and it was just a coming together?

 

Was it a decent hard tackle where he took the ball first then caught Wallace a little just because of follow through?

 

No, he made no contact with the ball .

[maroonlegions]

Wallace was going past the Smeltic defender and the defender knew this, he realised that he would not get the ball so intentionally put his foot were Wallace would be impeded in continuing his run in the box.The intention was there from the defender so in my books its a penalty however soft.

[Gambo]

Misses the ball and hits Wallace , that normally equals a penalty. The Celtic claim for a pen is one of those 50/50 situations, depends on how ref seen it. IE Hearts claim, defo contact, Celtic claim, debateable contact.

 

In saying that i would like to see the notion that 'contact' must mean a penalty/foul............time to make it a mans game again.

[jambojim52]

I haven't read all the posts, but in answer to the OP. In the DDutd game they had a penalty where there was minimal contact and their player was falling over BEFORE the touch, and here you are saying Wallace's was NOT a penalty? Since the start of the season we have had, against us, one soft penalty and one given for a foul outside the box. Now, we have had FOUR good shouts refused in the same time. No matter how soft,we have been denied and I for one will take any penalty in the future.

[Optimus Prime]

No... UEFA overturned the ban due to not being convinced he intentionally cheated. Their remit wasn't to decide if it was in fact a penalty.

 

Wenger conceded it probably wasn't a penalty but they were contesting the fact he was labelled a cheat.

 

Very important difference in the setting of a precedent.

 

They were contesting a ban for simulation. Arsenals case (which was accepted) was that there was contact. Given that contact was proven this made simulation impossible and led to UEFA overturning the ban. The fact contact was proven was the key to overturning the decision.

[maroonlegions]

Misses the ball and hits Wallace , that normally equals a penalty. The Celtic claim for a pen is one of those 50/50 situations, depends on how ref seen it. IE Hearts claim, defo contact, Celtic claim, debateable contact.

 

In saying that i would like to see the notion that 'contact' must mean a penalty/foul............time to make it a mans game again.

 

Aye ,can see your point but if there is intention to imped or prevent then even if the contact is slight or soft then its a different matter.The intention to strike someone on the park by a player but then he pulls out of it or slightly contacts the player can be viewed as intentional.

[Victorian]

I haven't read all the posts, but in answer to the OP. In the DDutd game they had a penalty where there was minimal contact and their player was falling over BEFORE the touch, and here you are saying Wallace's was NOT a penalty? Since the start of the season we have had, against us, one soft penalty and one given for a foul outside the box. Now, we have had FOUR good shouts refused in the same time. No matter how soft,we have been denied and I for one will take any penalty in the future.

on this thread i have said that the DU penalty was a shocker of a decision. one of the worst dives we will see this season.

[Optimus Prime]

i don't like going down the 'by the letter of the law' route because it gets nowhere.

 

surely we all know that there are no referees who apply the strict letter of the law for 90 mins in every match. there's also the fact that referees continually operate two different set of rules/laws when it's a game involving the OF.

 

if we were to follow the 'letter of the law' route then every game would result in 4-5 sent off and about 6 penalties.

 

Well like it or not if a player goes down after contact from an opponent with no contact made with the ball there is a legitimate case for a penalty.

[Mark_Mywords]

I think if he'd really, really wanted to, he could have stayed on his feet.

 

How many players would stay on their feet in that situation cosanostra?

[maroonlegions]

Well like it or not if a player goes down after contact from an opponent with no contact made with the ball there is a legitimate case for a penalty.

 

Correct, no contact with the ball was made but Wallace was prevented from continuing his run by that contact, so pen.

[jambojim52]

on this thread i have said that the DU penalty was a shocker of a decision. one of the worst dives we will see this season.

 

Not having a dig Vic just how I saw the game.

[gorgie rd eh11]

It was a foul, it was in the box, it was a penalty. The least surprising decision of the weekend was that it wasn't given.

[DETTY29]

Haven't watched it yet, but I'll base my opinion on what would happen in a similar position if I was playing 5s at the Corn Exchange.

 

If I get marginally clipped but not enough to hit the deck, or put me right off my next move, then fair play to the defending player.

[colinmaroon]

It's a contact sport - you are allowed to make contact without it being a foul. Everybody seems to ignore this once it's in the box.

 

Also - just because a guy goes down but penalty isnt given, doesn't automatically make it a dive.

 

The problem to me is the game has developed a set of unofficial, unwritten rules over the years since games appeared on TV. Total over-analysis and the desire to create stories where there are none are to blame and the governing bodies are guilty of buying into it rather than dismissing it as nonesense. These unwritten rules include the understanding that you cant win a penalty if you stay on your feet - even if you are fouled.

 

Try this now... If you're at work, go up to one of your workmates, put your hand on their shoulder and pull it towards you. See how many times their legs collapse under them and the end up in a heap on the floor beside you.

 

P.S. I think it was one of those your disappointed not to get but know you'd be gutted if the other lot got it. Not a decision to get angry about.

 

 

 

Now ask one of your workmates to run past you at full speed, and just stick out your leg and just catch them (not "whack" them) and see how many times they don't go down!!!

 

 

Penalty! End of!!!

 

 

 

 

.......................

[colinmaroon]

Haven't watched it yet, but I'll base my opinion on what would happen in a similar position if I was playing 5s at the Corn Exchange.

 

If I get marginally clipped but not enough to hit the deck, or put me right off my next move, then fair play to the defending player.

 

 

 

Big difference between a nudge or imposing your body and sticking out a leg!!!

 

 

 

 

....................

[jambojim52]

Haven't watched it yet, but I'll base my opinion on what would happen in a similar position if I was playing 5s at the Corn Exchange.

 

If I get marginally clipped but not enough to hit the deck, or put me right off my next move, then fair play to the defending player.

 

 

So what you are saying is, you have never moaned about a soft penalty against us?

Too many times have we been the worse off due to soft penaties and can't think of getting many in our favour ( maybe a couple). Most times it's a stonewaller that can't be refused.

[Victorian]

Now ask one of your workmates to run past you at full speed, and just stick out your leg and just catch them (not "whack" them) and see how many times they don't go down!!!

 

 

Penalty! End of!!!

 

 

 

 

.......................

 

are you seriously suggesting that wallace was running at full speed?

[Le Chat]

Very similar to Robbie Keane at Stamford Bridge yesterday.

 

Both penalties imo. Neither of them given.

 

Celtic's shout for a pen looked a reasonable one too.

 

Seems to me that in light of the Eduardo nonsense refs are becoming really reluctant to give a pen unless its an absolute stick-on. Except if its Rangers and its two yards outside the box that is.

[cosanostra]

How many players would stay on their feet in that situation cosanostra?

 

Probably not too many i'd expect.

[Paolo]

It's in the soft category, but still a penalty.

 

I agree - a soft penalty is still a penalty.

[Paolo]

[/size]

 

 

So what you are saying is, you have never moaned about a soft penalty against us?

Too many times have we been the worse off due to soft penaties and can't think of getting many in our favour ( maybe a couple). Most times it's a stonewaller that can't be refused.

 

 

I do not complain about soft penalties - I would say they are soft, but accept they are penalites - what I complain about is non-penalties, like the Rangers one a couple of weeks ago.

[Debut 4]

There`s people on here being defiant while pretty much being proved wrong, and being the "impartial" Hearts fan.

 

I`m confused to why you wouldn`t think it was a penalty?

 

There`s too much science being sprinkled on the subject.

 

Player running with ball at a decent speed, other player clips ankle and doesn`t touch ball, hard enough contact to make other human fall to ground....

 

Play on.................