Wallace penalty claim

[DETTY29]

[/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.

 

So, if the rules (guidelines) were that penalties in professional games were only given if players were clearly taken out or if refs decided only to give them based on what they would do themselves when kicking about with their pals, we would be in a better position because we would have less soft ones given against us.

 

It's a bit like complaining why Boyd doesn't get booked for celebrating with Rangers fans, but Obua did last week for us. If no-one got booked for celebrating with their own fans, then we would have less bookings or suspensions.

 

It's a very sad with football that instead of going back to basics (which might lead to more fairness - that would benefit us) people see their team being the victim, and want everyone else to be the victim/victimised too.

 

I really can't fathom why people can't get this.

[cosanostra]

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.

 

I don't understand your logic there at all.

 

Surely, each case is either a penalty or not a penalty? How can there be degrees or shades of penalty that would make them soft?

[Victorian]

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

 

1. nothing has been 'proved'.

2. he's barely going faster than walking speed!!!!

[Paolo]

I don't understand your logic there at all.

 

Surely, each case is either a penalty or not a penalty? How can there be degrees or shades of penalty that would make them soft?

 

That is my point - people on here are saying it was not a penalty because it is soft - I disagee, it is a penalty or it is not, like you said.

 

This was a foul in the box, so a penalty.

[Tommy Wiseau]

It seems we're now so used to not getting penalties that we are going to whatever lengths necessary to rationalise the decisions as correct.

 

Stockholm Syndrome?

 

It seems a fairly open and shut penalty claim - defender trips attacker without touching the ball. It's a foul and would have been given anywhere else on the pitch.

 

(Celtic one looked a penalty to me as well, as it happens.)

[Old Nick]

Stopped reading halfway down the 1st page, but some strange viewpoints. Wallace was in control of the ball, a celtic player-who is behind wallace - puts a leg round him tripping him whilst pushing with his body weight from behind causing wallace to go down and lose the ball in the box. It is a penalty all day long.

[Firefox]

I've watched the slow mo replays over & over on BBC highlights and for me it was a stonewaller. Hinckel makes cotact with Wallace's leg, and none with the ball..Wallace goes over..Penalty

 

Other end..McGinn goes past wallace..wallace sides in..makes no contact with either the man or the ball....Mcginn goes down like he's shot by a sniper....no Penalty...McGinn should have been booked for simulation

[jambojim52]

I've watched the slow mo replays over & over on BBC highlights and for me it was a stonewaller. Hinckel makes cotact with Wallace's leg, and none with the ball..Wallace goes over..Penalty

 

Other end..McGinn goes past wallace..wallace sides in..makes no contact with either the man or the ball....Mcginn goes down like he's shot by a sniper....no Penalty...McGinn should have been booked for simulation

 

Just ran throught it again and again and have to agree. As good a shout for a booking as I've seen in a while. Nade was booked when everyone claims it was a clear penalty( including the commentators IIRC) But is booked. Why then was this not a booking? Could it be Dougie mc cheat was told to be careful what be does from now on?

[Thunderstruck]

Hinkel's immediate reaction was one of a guilty or worried man.

 

I think it was a pen and have seen much "softer" penalties given against us.

[Carl Spackler]

Definite penalty.

 

Was the one Dundee United got against us when Jonsonn stuck his leg out anything more or less?

 

It wasn't the reason we lost the game though so there's no point dwelling on it.

[jumpship]

Sorry but that was a stonewaller for me. How anyone can say it wasn't.

 

 

3:31

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/default.stm

[jambos are go!]

Just watched the highlights and thought it was a definite penalty denied again.

[Gods a Jambo]

I've watched the slow mo replays over & over on BBC highlights and for me it was a stonewaller. Hinckel makes cotact with Wallace's leg, and none with the ball..Wallace goes over..Penalty

 

Other end..McGinn goes past wallace..wallace sides in..makes no contact with either the man or the ball....Mcginn goes down like he's shot by a sniper....no Penalty...McGinn should have been booked for simulation

 

I think you may be right.

[jambojim52]

Definite penalty.

 

Was the one Dundee United got against us when Jonsonn stuck his leg out anything more or less?

 

It wasn't the reason we lost the game though so there's no point dwelling on it.

 

I have to disagree. With a penalty kick the chances of scoring are high. Therefore going 2-1 up at that time makes winning ( or at least drawing) a much better proposition.

There ARE other reasons why we lost, but to me going ahead with a penalty greatly increases your chances of a win.

[Carl Spackler]

[/size]

 

I have to disagree. With a penalty kick the chances of scoring are high. Therefore going 2-1 up at that time makes winning ( or at least drawing) a much better proposition.

There ARE other reasons why we lost, but to me going ahead with a penalty greatly increases your chances of a win.

 

Sure it's a factor but the fact is our defence went to sleep for Celtic's first and Wallace should have adopted a safety first attitude as the ball definitely came off him for the corner. You can NEVER rely on the referee and must always play the whistle. If at all possible take matters into your own hands. For the first goal we spent more time claiming for a foul than we did in closing down the play thus we were caught out.

 

To balance my criticism of Wallace he was excellent otherwise and his tackle, the one that Celtic claimed was a penalty, was superb.

 

The fact is we need to improve confidence, maintain concentration, forget the ref and close out games. The capability and effort is definitely there. For all Celtic's attacking we caused them a few scares too.

[jambojim52]

Sure it's a factor but the fact is our defence went to sleep for Celtic's first and Wallace should have adopted a safety first attitude as the ball definitely came off him for the corner. You can NEVER rely on the referee and must always play the whistle. If at all possible take matters into your own hands. For the first goal we spent more time claiming for a foul than we did in closing down the play thus we were caught out.

 

To balance my criticism of Wallace he was excellent otherwise and his tackle, the one that Celtic claimed was a penalty, was superb.

 

The fact is we need to improve confidence, maintain concentration, forget the ref and close out games. The capability and effort is definitely there. For all Celtic's attacking we caused them a few scares too.

 

 

Can't argue as I have been saying so in other threads. However I still disagree that the penalty claim is irrelevant to the outcome.

[Neil R]

Stonewaller.

 

Not surprised it wasn't given though. After Bednar being cut in half and play being waved on a couple of years ago, it looks like you have to have a limb torn off for a pen at parkhead.......

[Cut The Crap]

Wallace went down in instalments. No penalty for me.

[Guest jambomickey]

looked a penalty live at the game but i've not seen television replays yet.

[sandyseymour]

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.

 

bet if the "foul" / tackle had occurred at the half way line it would have been given

[hmfc_steve]

penalty ?

[sandyseymour]

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!!!

 

 

 

 

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

 

that's correct 'cos it was a trip.....different from a "contact" when, for example, a striker falls down ( dives) when he feels the slightest hand on his back ....

[colinmaroon]

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

 

Nit picking!!!

 

Okay -

 

Now ask one of your workmates to run past you at 75% 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!!!

 

 

 

 

 

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

[Currahee!]

It was a penalty. Soft doesn't come into it. Wallace was fouled. Is there any surprise though? It was Celtic @ darkheid ffs! And a hobo in the middle.

[colinmaroon]

penalty ?

 

I think these stills are very telling -

 

The defender's impetus carries him forward which indicates that when Wallace went down, and thus removed the mass that kept him upright, he goes down himself.

 

If he wasn't leaning into Wallace's back he would still have been upright.

 

 

 

.........

[Musemic]

If we accept that the trip on LW wasn't a penalty how can we, on the other hand, accept that the penalty Rangers got against us a few weeks ago was?

These things are meant to even themselves out but, by my reckoning, that's 2 to zero against us....no wait, they do even themselves out Rangers 1 Celtic 1

[DETTY29]

Now watched both incidents.

 

Not sure whether it was niave or excellent defending from both Hinkel and Wallace at the incidents. Both put enough pressure (in Wallace's case, no contact on McGinn) on the forward player to make them go to ground under the absolute minimum of contact.

 

The game would be all better for it if every refs said no penalty every time in these circumstances.

[Malinga the Swinga]

Stonewall penalty at any other ground, other than Ibrox, for any other team other than Hearts. MacDonald had the clearest view he could have and yet he gave nothing. He is an oxygen thief and cheat.

For their claim, why did ref and linesman need to discuss. No contact with ball or player, yet McGlynn dived like a submarine. He should have been booked, as should K Miller and Fleck of Rangers when they dived against us. In fact, only player booked for diving has been Nade, and he was fouled for penalty.

PS, don't really think Suso was fouled by Maloney, but in any other league, or had it been the other way round, a foul would have been given for barge in back.

[dietcoke]

if the penalty against jonsson on the first day of the season was a pen, then so was wallace's

[DETTY29]

if the penalty against jonsson on the first day of the season was a pen, then so was wallace's

 

Neither should have been given.

 

Swanson threw himself at Jonnson's leg. There was contact between Hinkel and Wallace, but there is a double movement from Wallace when he twigged that Hinkel had minorly touched him.

 

As people have said anywhere else in the pitch we might have been given a free kick, but I reckon anywhere else on the pitch, Wallace would have kept going and not hit the deck. He's an attacking full back who likes to take players on. I'm sure he gets caught all the time, but how often do we see him hitting the deck.

 

Who would be a referee?

 

And I blame Andy Walker for all this.

[The Broo]

Am quite suprised some people don't think it was a penalty. When i saw it on the BBC Highlights i was quite suprised how blatant it was as i was expecting it be be debatable. Looked a stonewaller to me and makes it worse given the two pens that have been given against us this season.....

[123kid]

Whistle would have went if it was in the centre of the field.

[Jammy T]

It doesnt take much of a clip on the ankles to go over.

 

Soft or not Hinkel caused Wallace to fall over in the box without getting the ball

 

Penalty

 

Not the reason we lost though, but it was a penalty. Not spewing about it because it wasnt that obvious in real time

[NoseLikeMahe]

Now watched both incidents.

 

Not sure whether it was niave or excellent defending from both Hinkel and Wallace at the incidents. Both put enough pressure (in Wallace's case, no contact on McGinn) on the forward player to make them go to ground under the absolute minimum of contact.

 

The game would be all better for it if every refs said no penalty every time in these circumstances.

 

Exactly

[Seymour M Hersh]

Not a penalty IMO.

 

A foul had it been outside the box?

[NoseLikeMahe]

A foul had it been outside the box?

 

Wouldnt have happened outside the box. Wallace would have kept running, rather than waiting for the challenge.

 

The more of these that aren't given, the better the game will be for it.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Wouldnt have happened outside the box. Wallace would have kept running, rather than waiting for the challenge.

 

The more of these that aren't given, the better the game will be for it.

 

If that incident happened outside the box the hobo would have given a foul to Hearts, especially had it been in our half. You know it and I know it. Ergo it is a penalty.

 

As for your last sentence, do mean the more not given against the OF the better for football?

[rossthejambo]

Wouldnt have happened outside the box. Wallace would have kept running, rather than waiting for the challenge.

 

The more of these that aren't given, the better the game will be for it.

 

Having watched the highlights I can't see where Wallace could have ran too in the box.

 

It was, IMO, a stonewall penalty. Hinkel clipped his foot and caused him to go down.

 

The Celtic one wasn't a penalty as I think McGinn dived.

[vilenin]

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

 

the ref had to give it

 

Yeah, 100% a penalty.

 

Absolute stonewaller - which makes the Scotland on Sunday's reporting yesterday where they never even mentioned the Wallace incident but did call Lee's perfectly good tackle on MCGinn a stonwewaller all the more disappointing.

 

Still, it wasn't that which cost us the game - it was generally bad decision-making, including specific instances by Suso and then Wallace to gift Celtic free crosses into the box.

[DETTY29]

Yeah, 100% a penalty.

 

Absolute stonewaller - which makes the Scotland on Sunday's reporting yesterday where they never even mentioned the Wallace incident but did call Lee's perfectly good tackle on MCGinn a stonwewaller all the more disappointing.

 

Still, it wasn't that which cost us the game - it was generally bad decision-making, including specific instances by Suso and then Wallace to gift Celtic free crosses into the box.

 

Depends what you interpet as a good challenge. Is a good tackle only to be based purely on playing the ball first or contact or not on the player for example.

 

I'll need to watch it again, but I'm pretty sure Wallace made zero contact with the ball. Even if there was minimal contact, it was a good tackle though because it put McGinn under pressure and he went to ground very easily putting enough doubt in the ref's mind not to give it.

 

Just as Wallace's secondary motion to fall instead of keeping going under the Hinkel challenge put enough doubt in the refs mind not to give it. And that's the way it should be, in every game and for every team.

[rossthejambo]

Depends what you interpet as a good challenge. Is a good tackle only to be based purely on playing the ball first or contact or not on the player for example.

 

I'll need to watch it again, but I'm pretty sure Wallace made zero contact with the ball. Even if there was minimal contact, it was a good tackle though because it put McGinn under pressure and he went to ground very easily putting enough doubt in the ref's mind not to give it.

 

Just as Wallace's secondary motion to fall instead of keeping going under the Hinkel challenge put enough doubt in the refs mind not to give it. And that's the way it should be, in every game and for every team.

 

Have to agree, Wallace didn't touch the ball IMO when tackling McGinn but I'm not convinced that he made contact with the player either.

 

There was no way that was a penalty but I do think that the one up the other end of the park was.