| Scant consolation to Hearts 20:43 - May 22 with 2533 views | GlasgowBlue |
That decision cost Hearts the title. [Post edited 22 May 20:44]
|  |
| |  |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 21:20 - May 22 with 2234 views | NthQldITFC |
First time I've looked at this...
...but am I the only one who thinks it is a penalty? Arm above head, OK 'trapped' by the attacker's shoulder, but the defender has put it there in the first place. I mean, I wish it hadn't been given because Chris Stutton, but it is a pen, innit?
I missed the chatter about this when it happened - what's the consensus? |  |
| |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 21:24 - May 22 with 2205 views | MattinLondon |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 21:20 - May 22 by NthQldITFC |
First time I've looked at this...
...but am I the only one who thinks it is a penalty? Arm above head, OK 'trapped' by the attacker's shoulder, but the defender has put it there in the first place. I mean, I wish it hadn't been given because Chris Stutton, but it is a pen, innit?
I missed the chatter about this when it happened - what's the consensus? |
I thought that it was a definite penalty but think I’m in the minority. |  | | |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 21:31 - May 22 with 2162 views | Linners |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 21:20 - May 22 by NthQldITFC |
First time I've looked at this...
...but am I the only one who thinks it is a penalty? Arm above head, OK 'trapped' by the attacker's shoulder, but the defender has put it there in the first place. I mean, I wish it hadn't been given because Chris Stutton, but it is a pen, innit?
I missed the chatter about this when it happened - what's the consensus? |
I think the issue was that it wasn't given on the pitch, so it had to meet the 'clear and obvious error' threshold to be overturned. And when you see that the 'header' went 20-odd yards you're left wondering how much contact there was with the hand at all.
Basically think Leif Davis' hair-pull, but in penalty form. |  | | |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 22:26 - May 22 with 1878 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 21:20 - May 22 by NthQldITFC |
First time I've looked at this...
...but am I the only one who thinks it is a penalty? Arm above head, OK 'trapped' by the attacker's shoulder, but the defender has put it there in the first place. I mean, I wish it hadn't been given because Chris Stutton, but it is a pen, innit?
I missed the chatter about this when it happened - what's the consensus? |
I think the laws of the game allow for a reason for the arm/hand being in a particular position like this, which is very clear in this case (leverage to get above the defender, arm then trapped). Ignoring the laws, there’s no advantage from that either. His clearance went miles and was obviously mainly off his head. L
So as far as laws go, I can see why it shouldn’t be given but you do see them given (as we did). In terms of sense, it’s the correct decision to criticise the award imo (no advantage, no intention to handle it, didn’t make his body bigger or affect the clearance). [Post edited 22 May 22:39]
|  |
| |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 22:31 - May 22 with 1833 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 21:20 - May 22 by NthQldITFC |
First time I've looked at this...
...but am I the only one who thinks it is a penalty? Arm above head, OK 'trapped' by the attacker's shoulder, but the defender has put it there in the first place. I mean, I wish it hadn't been given because Chris Stutton, but it is a pen, innit?
I missed the chatter about this when it happened - what's the consensus? |
Nah, accidental and no advantage gained, no pen. |  |
| |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 22:43 - May 22 with 1746 views | skinnybob72 |
Dodgy decision goes way of one of the OF and a few days later - long after points / trophy are safely tucked away - you get the “sorry chaps, that was a wrong decision” from the SFA / SFL. See also last minute penalty for Celtic at Kilmarnock earlier in the season.
See also the many iffy calls that went Rangers way in an effort to get them into the title race earlier in the season. A couple of stonewall penalties that should have been given against them right at the end of games when they were only 1-0 up.
The game up here stinks. |  | | |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 06:38 - May 23 with 1319 views | Blue_Heath |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 21:20 - May 22 by NthQldITFC |
First time I've looked at this...
...but am I the only one who thinks it is a penalty? Arm above head, OK 'trapped' by the attacker's shoulder, but the defender has put it there in the first place. I mean, I wish it hadn't been given because Chris Stutton, but it is a pen, innit?
I missed the chatter about this when it happened - what's the consensus? |
That photo shows so clearly the ball is on his hand, not a natural position, under the laws of the game a penalty. It's cast iron. | |
| |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 06:53 - May 23 with 1293 views | TractorWood |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 06:38 - May 23 by Blue_Heath |
That photo shows so clearly the ball is on his hand, not a natural position, under the laws of the game a penalty. It's cast iron. |
Even more stonewall when VAR looks at it 2,000 times.
Id be expecting that to be given to Towen in the Prem. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 06:54 - May 23 with 1293 views | NthQldITFC |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 22:31 - May 22 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Nah, accidental and no advantage gained, no pen. |
I totally agree with accidental and no advantage and in how I'd like the game to be refereed, but I think we've painted ourselves into a corner with VAR and sh!t like this. | |
| |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 08:01 - May 23 with 1123 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 06:38 - May 23 by Blue_Heath |
That photo shows so clearly the ball is on his hand, not a natural position, under the laws of the game a penalty. It's cast iron. |
No way the flight of the ball goes the way it did if it hits his hand. He clearly heads it out fur a throw in with power. That hits his hand it would bounce about a foot in front of him.
Anyway, the SFA said it shouldn’t have been awarded. The penalty was awarded in the seventh minute of five minutes injury time and Celtic would have needed to beat Hearts 5-0 on the final day.
Hearts were cheated out of a once of a lifetime chance to win the title. [Post edited 23 May 8:04]
| |
| |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 08:03 - May 23 with 1114 views | mikeybloo88 |
Definitely no pen...defenders don’t jump for headers with their arms by their sides. The arms have to come up to get leverage but usually they can drop below head height by the time the ball is headed. In this instance the attacker backing in forced the arm up so there may have been some accidental contact but that’s still not definite so clearly no way it can be given. |  | | |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 09:27 - May 23 with 848 views | Herbivore |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 06:38 - May 23 by Blue_Heath |
That photo shows so clearly the ball is on his hand, not a natural position, under the laws of the game a penalty. It's cast iron. |
A single still is not much use, it's a 2D image so you can't tell conclusively from that still whether it's hitting his hand or his hand is behind the ball as the camera looks at it. There's lots of examples of the way still images flatten things out and distort depth perception. I've watched the replays of it and I can't see how VAR overturns it. It's possible it hits his hand but it's not conclusive, the way the ball travels it looks very much as though he heads it cleanly. Ridiculous decision for me and it seems the authorities agree. |  |
| |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 09:28 - May 23 with 837 views | MattinLondon |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 08:01 - May 23 by GlasgowBlue |
No way the flight of the ball goes the way it did if it hits his hand. He clearly heads it out fur a throw in with power. That hits his hand it would bounce about a foot in front of him.
Anyway, the SFA said it shouldn’t have been awarded. The penalty was awarded in the seventh minute of five minutes injury time and Celtic would have needed to beat Hearts 5-0 on the final day.
Hearts were cheated out of a once of a lifetime chance to win the title. [Post edited 23 May 8:04]
|
‘Cheated’ is quite a strong word to use. It might well have been incompetence or it might well have been the wrong judgement call. But to use ‘cheated’ suggests that there was a deliberate intention on part of the referee or SPL to favour Celtic. | | | |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 11:23 - May 23 with 646 views | Nutkins_Return |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 21:20 - May 22 by NthQldITFC |
First time I've looked at this...
...but am I the only one who thinks it is a penalty? Arm above head, OK 'trapped' by the attacker's shoulder, but the defender has put it there in the first place. I mean, I wish it hadn't been given because Chris Stutton, but it is a pen, innit?
I missed the chatter about this when it happened - what's the consensus? |
Not in a million years was it ever a penalty. Ever! It was disgraceful. No a single Celtic player was claiming a pen for Handball. They were claiming he elbowed Trusty which he didn't.
It certainly wasn't conclusive it his hand at the time. And even if it hit his hand it wasn't his fault his hand was there at that point it was as they both jumped and the ball flight was exactly as a header. His hand didn't move to the ball and hit it away. He essentially headed it out as he would have. The hand made exactly zero impact on the entire situation.
Why would anyone go looking to find a penalty from that situation is beyond me. The only way you give a penalty is if you are desperate to find something wrong. That is everything VAR should NOT be used. I felt sick for hearts. They were cheated the title. | |
| |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 11:38 - May 23 with 620 views | wkj |
Even though he was jumping his hand isn't exactly in a natural position, even before the contact was being made. I can see how its harsh, but I would have wanted it if I saw it at a Town match [Post edited 23 May 11:45]
|  |
| |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 12:10 - May 23 with 572 views | mellowblue |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 22:26 - May 22 by Swansea_Blue |
I think the laws of the game allow for a reason for the arm/hand being in a particular position like this, which is very clear in this case (leverage to get above the defender, arm then trapped). Ignoring the laws, there’s no advantage from that either. His clearance went miles and was obviously mainly off his head. L
So as far as laws go, I can see why it shouldn’t be given but you do see them given (as we did). In terms of sense, it’s the correct decision to criticise the award imo (no advantage, no intention to handle it, didn’t make his body bigger or affect the clearance). [Post edited 22 May 22:39]
|
Handball laws below.
If you go by the current lawset there is little discretion in the decision making nowadays e.g accidental handball. I think by the laws it a handball every day of the week. They have tried to make the law black and white to make it VAR-friendly and take the ambiguity and interpretation out of it. Sometimes the result is a harsh decision. Definitely would not be given 10 years ago. I would like to see the reasoning from the SFA. My son-in-law is a ref at a decent pro level so I have had these kinds of debates before.
Handball law
It is an offence if a player:
deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
scores in the opponents' goal:
directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental | | | |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 12:33 - May 23 with 550 views | Trequartista |
As much as I am in agreement that it wasn't a penalty, this idea that an incident panel is 100% correct is nonsensical. It's a subjective decision in which people who had watched the clip numerous times disagreed to such an extent that many thought it was clear and obvious it was a penalty and many thought it was clear and obvious that it wasn't.
Same applies to the count of VAR "wrong decisions" per season. |  |
| |
| Scant consolation to Hearts on 13:11 - May 23 with 478 views | EastTownBlue |
My concern is that VAR thought that there was conclusive evidence (what was available at the time) to refer the ref to the screen and for him to decide in a matter of 20 seconds or so that it was a clear handball. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
