AJF

Can’t recall if it was the same incident, but yeah, I think I remember it being explaining that due to issues with accurately measuring offside due to limited frames per second, they make the lines thicker and if the attackers line and the defenders line overlap, then it is deemed onside.

“Oh wouldn’t it just be hilarious if we absolutely gubbed you, Dundee. But no, seriously, great season you’re having, lads”

Like I said, from seeing it in real time perhaps as he never claimed for a foul is what led me to think it wasn’t an attempt to con the referee. If it genuinely was, it would be ridiculous in the extreme considering nobody was near him.

Fair enough. If so, it’s a ridiculous decision considering there didn’t appear to be anyone near him to anticipate a touch from.

I’ve not watched it back though. I was basing it on seeing it at the game. It looked as though the ball was played at him rather than in front for him to take it in his stride and It didn’t seem like Silva was claiming for anything. He just seemed to lie on the deck after it with his hands on his head as if he’d fucked up a sitter.

This will either provide us the opportunity to seal a cup double and put a little bit of shine on what may ultimately be a disappointing season should we lose out on the league title, or it will give us the opportunity to complete a domestic treble. Fine margins on how a win here will be viewed.

Was it not just a case of him failing to sort his feet out as the pass from Dessers was kind of straight at him instead of in front of him to take in his stride rather than a dive looking for a penalty? At the match he didn’t seem to be appealing for anything, he just had his head in his hands for presumably spurning a great opportunity to score.

Aye that was Diomande. He played well, just felt he faded a little in the second half and was blowing a bit before he was subbed.

Eh, I think Bennett covered it well earlier in the thread. Nothing more I can say really or that is worth repeating other than condemning it.

Thought Balogun was excellent today. Best player on the park after a big call from Clement to drop Goldson. Cantwell, Diomande and Sterling also pretty decent and Butland makes two great saves when called upon. Really need to be more clinical though, particularly late on where we created a good two or three opportunities to get a third but we lack a real killer instinct. Relatively even game, I just felt we turned the screw a bit more in the periods we were on top than Hearts could manage in the periods they were. Sima going off so early is a concern and I hope it’s not a recurrence of his previous thigh injury.

If he believes it was a foul on Johnston he was 100% correct to award that foul rather than award the penalty.

The ref has done the correct thing here. I remember a cup tie earlier in the season we had against Morton. I think Dessers tackled a defender to win the ball then proceeded to round the keeper and score, however the ref had already blown his whistle before he put it in. Given that the foul seemed soft I was pretty annoyed he never let it run for a few seconds, as he should have, to at least allow the option of the foul to be reviewed. In this instance, the ref has done just that. The debate as to whether it was a foul on Johnston can be had, but it was simply good refereeing in my opinion.

My sentiments exactly

In fairness, just because it hasn’t been mentioned on TV or replays of it shown, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been reviewed. In all likelihood it would’ve been reviewed while play was ongoing and deemed not a clear and obvious error.

Excellent game of football to be fair. Had a lot of action packed in. Defensive catastrophes, 6 goals, a penalty shootout and some talking points.

If we want consistency, would we not expect an earlier almost identical foul to be considered in subsequent instances of pretty much the exact same foul?

But criticising one doesn’t equate to criticising the other

Sorry, but it’s clearly a dig at Celtic fans rather than Irish folk.

Celtic got a pretty similar penalty awarded for them against Hearts when Kyogo threw his leg across the front of the defender without trying to play the ball and initiated contact. So there is precedent there for that type of challenge being a penalty. I’d even go as far as saying the one today is more of a penalty as Hoilett actually plays the ball by the looks of it You can see it at around the 1:20 mark in the video below

That’s up to the clubs to vote on. The SPFL is made up of the clubs and if there is enough that want it then it can get voted through.

I think you’ve misunderstood my point. I didn’t say Rangers tackling sectarianism was outwith their control. I was explaining why clubs in general are reluctant to vote for strict liability as a whole. The strict liability bill that was previously debated wasn’t solely aimed at tackling sectarianism. It was aimed at tackling all offensive or criminal behaviour. This would include things like pyro, offensive language, missiles being thrown, pitch encroachments etc. all things that many clubs have issues with and largely cannot prevent despite what measures they may put in place. And this isn’t just my own opinion, it was considered by the Law Society of Scotland who said just as much: https://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/uq4l50jd/obl_response-to-jd-consultation-on-football-strict-liability-scotland-bill-march-2017.pdf

Christ, I was just responding to what was actually said, mate.

This is what I was responding to, which only made reference to geography as regarding it not being neutral. I was simply responding to the point that was actually made with my opinion, which is just because the national stadium is in Glasgow does not mean it isn’t neutral. Hence my example of Queens Park and Partick.

I get that other fanbases are inconvenienced by it being in Glasgow, but being there does not make it any less neutral just because Rangers and Celtic are also based in Glasgow. That was the original claim I was responding to.

But my point being, Hampden is still a neutral venue. That doesn't change just because Celtic and Rangers happen to be in the same city. A team's proximity to a stadium doesn't make it any less neutral for them nor does who is refereeing it nor does what section the fans sit in. Nobody would be crying it's a scandal if Queens Park and Partick Thistle were playing in place of Celtic and Rangers this weekend.