Handball

[Boomstick]

I was working tonight so had the game on in the pub. When Stevenson appeared to handball in the box (replay looked like it came off his wrist but no intent IMO) and the referee went over to talk to the 4th official about two minutes later did anyone else get a nervy twinge that the penalty that could have been awarded was going to be awarded?

 

I was raging.

 

Imagine my delight when instead of turning round, halting play and pointing to the spot; he told Neil Lennon to get the **** out!!

[scott_jambo]

I was working tonight so had the game on in the pub. When Stevenson appeared to handball in the box (replay looked like it came off his wrist but no intent IMO) and the referee went over to talk to the 4th official about two minutes later did anyone else get a nervy twinge that the penalty that could have been awarded was going to be awarded?

 

I was raging.

 

Imagine my delight when instead of turning round, halting play and pointing to the spot; he told Neil Lennon to get the **** out!!

 

Stevenson was borderline MJ which makes it all the sweeter.

 

GET IT UP YE'S CONSPIRACY SEEKERS!

 

 

[jambobroch]

I said at the time, as did most of the people round me, that it was a clear handball. Having seen the replay, I have seen worse penalties denied, but it should have been a penalty, and if the shirts were reversed I'd have been annoyed. However, for every time this has happened to us vs one of the old firm, I bet we could find 5-10 going the other way, so I don't care in the slightest. Karma.

[Hereward]

Looks like there was some consideration for dangerous play, the high boot from the Celtic player. And fair enough if so.

[Boomstick]

I said at the time, as did most of the people round me, that it was a clear handball. Having seen the replay, I have seen worse penalties denied, but it should have been a penalty, and if the shirts were reversed I'd have been annoyed. However, for every time this has happened to us vs one of the old firm, I bet we could find 5-10 going the other way, so I don't care in the slightest. Karma.

 

Absolutely, I just think it's telling that I assumed that was going to be a decision made in retrospect of the incident.

 

The fact it wasn't made me smile.

[Harry Palmer]

I said at the time, as did most of the people round me, that it was a clear handball. Having seen the replay, I have seen worse penalties denied, but it should have been a penalty, and if the shirts were reversed I'd have been annoyed. However, for every time this has happened to us vs one of the old firm, I bet we could find 5-10 going the other way, so I don't care in the slightest. Karma.

 

 

Looks like there was some consideration for dangerous play, the high boot from the Celtic player. And fair enough if so.

 

Correct answer.

 

The ref looked to the linesman who signalled nothing therefore play on.

 

Neil 'It's a Conspiracy' Lennon...

[stevie]

I am struggling to remember another instance where the old firm were denied a stonewall penalty against us.If the refs continue in this manner we should be about even in fifty or so years.

[Carl Spackler]

Looks like there was some consideration for dangerous play, the high boot from the Celtic player. And fair enough if so.

Picture from the Scotsman article (http://sport.scotsma...ltic.6621419.jp)

 

 

SHUT IT Lennon!

[Coco]

Picture from the Scotsman article (http://sport.scotsma...ltic.6621419.jp)

 

 

SHUT IT Lennon!

 

Well that should clear that one up too.

 

I thought that Thomson reffed the game very well. Could have given fewer fouls against Kyle. Could have booked Kyle for persistent fouling after the fouls were given. And could have sent off several Celtic players for dirty tackles. But overall a very good game.

[heartsfc_fan]

Tbf is that not a high foot?

[Jam Tarts 1874]

Picture from the Scotsman article (http://sport.scotsma...ltic.6621419.jp)

 

 

SHUT IT Lennon!

 

 

Yes, it is clear why Stevenson had his hands up.

 

Lennon needs to familiarise himself with the rules of the game. On handball the wording is very clear - it has to be, in the opionion of the referee deliberate - end of!

[Jambof3tornado]

Tbf is that not a high foot?

Yes it was a high foot and may be the reason the hand of stevo was up.

[Drylaw Hearts]

Yes, it is clear why Stevenson had his hands up.

 

Lennon needs to familiarise himself with the rules of the game. On handball the wording is very clear - it has to be, in the opionion of the referee deliberate - end of!

 

St Mirren were awarded a penalty for handball against Steven Davis at the weekend and there is no way it was deliberate.

 

Also...

 

Bouzid was penalised v Dundee Utd for a handball - he didn't mean it he just misjudged the flight of the ball.

 

 

It was a definite handball from Stevenson and if it had happened at the other end we would have been screaming for it.

[Jam Tarts 1874]

St Mirren were awarded a penalty for handball against Steven Davis at the weekend and there is no way it was deliberate.

 

Also...

 

Bouzid was penalised v Dundee Utd for a handball - he didn't mean it he just misjudged the flight of the ball.

 

 

It was a definite handball from Stevenson and if it had happened at the other end we would have been screaming for it.

 

 

Referees should not be giving handball decisions for accidental handball, IT SAYS SO IN THE RULES!

[scottish_chicP]

Picture from the Scotsman article (http://sport.scotsma...ltic.6621419.jp)

 

 

SHUT IT Lennon!

 

 

I thought even from where I sit in section D it should have been a penalty. This picture however proves it was a high foot.

[Amjam]

St Mirren were awarded a penalty for handball against Steven Davis at the weekend and there is no way it was deliberate.

 

Also...

 

Bouzid was penalised v Dundee Utd for a handball - he didn't mean it he just misjudged the flight of the ball.

 

 

It was a definite handball from Stevenson and if it had happened at the other end we would have been screaming for it.

 

I agree, but watching it on telly you could see that both the ref and the linesmen were unsighted so they couldn't give it. Lucky for us.

[NoseLikeMahe]

It was a clear penalty and a poor decision by the refs - tough tho.

[rossthejambo]

St Mirren were awarded a penalty for handball against Steven Davis at the weekend and there is no way it was deliberate.

 

Also...

 

Bouzid was penalised v Dundee Utd for a handball - he didn't mean it he just misjudged the flight of the ball.

 

 

It was a definite handball from Stevenson and if it had happened at the other end we would have been screaming for it.

 

 

It was a clear penalty and a poor decision by the refs - tough tho.

 

 

Both of these

[Hugh Watt]

Picture from the Scotsman article (http://sport.scotsma...ltic.6621419.jp)

 

 

Lets look at all the evidence that the picture shows;

 

1. Hooper has a handful of Bouzids jersey - an offence

2. Hooper's foot is almost at face height - an offence

3. Hooper's boot is studs forward to the player - an offence

4. Stevenson holds his hands up to protect himself from the flying high boot - no offence

5. Stevenson's eyes are shut due to the close proximity of the boot to his face - no offence

6. With his eyes shut he cannot therefore deliberately handle the ball - no offence

7. His hand never went towards the ball, the ball came towards his hand, had his hand not been there it would have hit his shoulder / chest and would have rebounded in the same direction - no offence

 

Two sides to every story Lennon?...

 

And the other key points;

 

All in the TV studio agreed Ledley's challenge was a straight red. And watching MOTD last night and seeing Fabrigas making a tackle for Arsenal v Wolves which was 99% similar to Ledleys - he only got a yellow, but Linekar, Hanson and Dixon ALL AGREED it should have been a straight red.

 

Hoopers yellow card for diving over Kello - have I missed something? has Lennon not complained about that? He surely can't be AGREEING with a refereeing decision here is he?

 

[Miller Jambo 60]

St Mirren were awarded a penalty for handball against Steven Davis at the weekend and there is no way it was deliberate.

 

Also...

 

Bouzid was penalised v Dundee Utd for a handball - he didn't mean it he just misjudged the flight of the ball.

 

 

It was a definite handball from Stevenson and if it had happened at the other end we would have been screaming for it.

 

 

But it never happened at the other end, but to Celtic, nae luck

[The Wrinkly Ninja]

I agree, but watching it on telly you could see that both the ref and the linesmen were unsighted so they couldn't give it. Lucky for us.

 

 

I agree that the ball was handled, his arm should not have been there. If either the linesman or referee were able to see the incident clearly though, then an indirect free kick to Heart of Midlothian would have been the correct decision. The fact that a free kick wasn't given is clear evidence of a SFA plot to bring us down. I demand a media frenzy outing the conspiracy.

[japanjambo]

Was sitting in Wheatfield. I crapped myself as I thought it was a stonewaller. Immediately looked at the ref, who straight away looked at the linesman, and waved play on. By looking at that photo in scotsman, that looked like dangerous play against Hooper. I'm just assuming they gave us the advantage!

 

Lynn

[Vlad-Stupid]

I think we can all agree that had Celtic been awarded the pen, Kello would have saved it!

[Only a Game]

Referees should not be giving handball decisions for accidental handball, IT SAYS SO IN THE RULES!

 

The modern interpretation of the rule is that if a player raises his arms from a "normal position" and the ball strikes his arm/hand then that is a "deliberate handball". To me that interpretation is wrong but its there and you see penalties for it on a weekly basis

 

In todays game last night was a penalty. No question about it IMO. I can only assume that neither of the officials saw it or they made allowance for the fact that Hooper had his feet up almost level with Stevenson's face.

[Francis Albert]

The modern interpretation of the rule is that if a player raises his arms from a "normal position" and the ball strikes his arm/hand then that is a "deliberate handball". To me that interpretation is wrong but its there and you see penalties for it on a weekly basis

 

In todays game last night was a penalty. No question about it IMO. I can only assume that neither of the officials saw it or they made allowance for the fact that Hooper had his feet up almost level with Stevenson's face.

 

 

If a boot is heading for your face I can't think of a more normal position for your hands/arms than the one shown in the Scotsman picture.As with the sending off I was surprised by the decision at the game but seing the picture and remembering Jose's red for raising his foot to a similar position and of course the foul given against CT v Rangers for raising his foot to waist height, you could argue we were hard done by not to get a free kick here.

[leginten]

Lets look at all the evidence that the picture shows;

 

1. Hooper has a handful of Bouzids jersey - an offence

2. Hooper's foot is almost at face height - an offence

3. Hooper's boot is studs forward to the player - an offence

 

...

 

 

Correct. Free kick to Hearts, 2nd yellow to Hooper, filth down to nine men.

 

I think Hearts should ask for clarification.

 

[Hackney Hearts]

 

It was a definite handball from Stevenson and if it had happened at the other end we would have been screaming for it.

 

Yes, but not a definite penalty.

 

From replays and the still photo it's clear Stevenson's hands are only up to protect himself from the the high boot - whether or not this was the reason the officials waved play on I guess we'll never know. Probably more likely than they just didn't get a clear view.

 

To be honest, it wouldn't have surprised me if a penalty had been given, but with the benefit of hindsight, justice has been done.

[fc1874]

Yes, but not a definite penalty.

 

From replays and the still photo it's clear Stevenson's hands are only up to protect himself from the the high boot - whether or not this was the reason the officials waved play on I guess we'll never know. Probably more likely than they just didn't get a clear view.

 

To be honest, it wouldn't have surprised me if a penalty had been given, but with the benefit of hindsight, justice has been done.

It was dangerous play, if anything it was a free kick to Hearts, however it's rare to see dangerous play given in the box.

[maroonshrew]

my instict was that it was a handball. The problem with the rules is the definition of the word deliberate. I dont believe it means just intent. It also refers to the position of your arms. For instance if you are jumping with your arms out by your side or above your head and the ball accidentally hits your arm then it should still be a penalty. Much like our claim against Killie, that was also a handball to me.

[number16]

I thought it was a penalty at the time too but on seeing the picture can see why it wasn't given.

 

On a similar note I was shouting for a penalty for high feet at 0-0 too after Eliott had the ball nicked off his forehead by a high foot. I also remember a couple incidents with Kyle being dragged to the ground at set-pieces before he had a chance to get anywhere near the ball.

[iain_hmfc]

barry anderson deemed fit to mention the hand ball seven times in his match report in tonights een

[Gambo]

It was dangerous play, if anything it was a free kick to Hearts, however it's rare to see dangerous play given in the box.

the only issue here should be why hearts were not given a free kick for high and dangerous feet, yet unsurprisingly the ref imo looked to his assistant to see if he could award a penalty. Stevenson would not have had the bal touch his aarm if it was not high feet. The refs only failing was not punish the celtic player

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Dinger]

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!! IT'S A CONSPIRACY!! IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!! IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!

 

 

that's all I gotta say. Lol.

[Amjam]

Thought it was a stick on penalty at the time, but having seen the photo from the Scotsman, it's a definite free kick to Hearts. Hooper's contrived to foul two Hearts players at once.

Hand full of Bouzid's shirt and a high boot, studs showing, at head height on Stevenson.

 

I wouldn't be cheeky enough to say it should've been a second booking for Hooper, but I would've enjoyed watching Lennon's head explode if Hooper had been sent off.

[Snake Plissken]

It looked a penalty at the time (I was in G and had a good view) and the highlights haven't done anything to change my mind.

 

Kello would have saved it anyway and launched a counter attack from which we would have scored a third goal.

 

Easy.

[linkin- hearts]

I said at the time, as did most of the people round me, that it was a clear handball. Having seen the replay, I have seen worse penalties denied, but it should have been a penalty, and if the shirts were reversed I'd have been annoyed. However, for every time this has happened to us vs one of the old firm, I bet we could find 5-10 going the other way, so I don't care in the slightest. Karma.

 

Agreed

[Hackney Hearts]

the highlights haven't done anything to change my mind.

 

Are you not aware of the high feet rule?

[Grainger]

I can't believe this thread is still going on. After seeing the highlights and the still photo, it's plainly clear that we should have been awarded a free kick due to Hooper's boot being at head height with studs showing. (Not to mention the shirt holding...)

 

I'm shocked, nay, flabbergasted, that Hearts fans are agreeing with Neil Lennon (!) that it was a stick on penalty.

[rossthejambo]

I can't believe this thread is still going on. After seeing the highlights and the still photo, it's plainly clear that we should have been awarded a free kick due to Hooper's boot being at head height with studs showing. (Not to mention the shirt holding...)

 

I'm shocked, nay, flabbergasted, that Hearts fans are agreeing with Neil Lennon (!) that it was a stick on penalty.

 

 

If it was the other way round, I'd be raging that we never got a penalty. And I guarantee that the majority of people on here would be too and wouldn't even register the high boot as an excuse.

[grumpyjambo]

I agree, but watching it on telly you could see that both the ref and the linesmen were unsighted so they couldn't give it. Lucky for us.

 

 

As I was sitting behind the stand side assistant I know that the assistant did see the incident because I could see it as well but rightly his flag was held down.

[Ben Dover]

As has been said already. The hand ball has to be seen to be deliberate.................although what exactly Hugh Dallas is telling his troops to regard as deliberate is another story !

I actually don't see how Bouzid's hand ball ( vs DUFC ) was deemed a penalty going by that ruling.

Personally I would hope that refs would be looking for a CLEAR DISADVANTAGE towards the opposing team to occurr before giving one?

 

 

[Dinger]

Feck it. If it was a pen or no a pen Celtic deserved nout fi the game we could've and prob should've scored more. I don't think they were bad at all I think we were just awesome. It looked easy at times. And Kello was never really troubled. (point blank save and down well at the boys feet aside)

 

 

Never a pen though!