Jump to content

Hearts v Hibernian


Recommended Posts

Guest JTS98
1 minute ago, Lebowski said:
4 minutes ago, JTS98 said:
I'd suggest you take a look at the laws of the game. It could quite easily be interpreted as a foul.
Winning the ball does not legitimise all that follows it.
The referee could easily have interpreted it as 'playing in a dangerous manner' (indirect free kick) or as a 'careless, reckless or excessively forceful' tackle (direct free kick). Either of these could easily have seen a penalty given and the referee would probably not have been widely criticised had he done s. Could have gone either way.
Like I said, things went for Hibs yesterday. On another day they might not have. That's where games are won. Not mince about 'wanting it more'.

Gtf. Claire thought he'd been fouled because Stevenson knocked the ball off him. The wrong decision there was that Hearts got a throw in that should have went to Hibs.

I'm not saying it was a foul. I'm saying it could easily have been given as one.

Like I said, on such decisions games turn. On another day, with another ref, it might be a penalty.

Not much to be done about it now anyway. These things happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 479
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

I'd suggest you take a look at the laws of the game. It could quite easily be interpreted as a foul.

Winning the ball does not legitimise all that follows it.

The referee could easily have interpreted it as 'playing in a dangerous manner' (indirect free kick) or as a 'careless, reckless or excessively forceful' tackle (direct free kick). Either of these could easily have seen a penalty given and the referee would probably not have been widely criticised had he done so, Could have gone either way.

Like I said, things went for Hibs yesterday. On another day they might not have. That's where games are won. Not mince about 'wanting it more'.

Quite a few "excessive force" tackles flying in from men in maroon jersey's yesterday. They took the ball before the man though, so no action was taken or necessary. Exactly the same with the Stevenson situation. Being inside the box, doesn't turn it into a penalizable offence.

Hibs wanted it more yesterday. They took their chances when they came. Hearts were wasteful and their players panicked in the heat of the moment. They were more concerned about not losing, than winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JTS98 said:

Like I said, on such decisions games turn. On another day, with another ref, it might be a penalty.

On another day with another ref. 6 red cards could have been dished out with 4 penalities awarded to each side.

He would have had an absolute shitemare though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JTS98
Just now, BawWatchin said:

1) Quite a few "excessive force" tackles flying in from men in maroon jersey's yesterday. They took the ball before the man though, so no action was taken or necessary. Exactly the same with the Stevenson situation. Being inside the box, doesn't turn it into a penalizable offence.

Hibs wanted it more yesterday. They took their chances when they came. Hearts were wasteful and their players panicked in the heat of the moment. They were more concerned about not losing, than winning.

1) I'm sorry that you seem to be of the (entirely wrong) opinion that winning the ball automatically means the challenge is not a foul. On that count you are simply wrong. There's a reasonable argument to be made either way for whether it was a foul or not, but your argument based on winning the ball is wrong. You don't know the rules.

2) Cliched nonsense. And ignores the fact that Hearts spent large portions of the first half, when the score was level, on the front foot. Not the actions of a side mostly concerned with avoiding defeat. Daily Record level of analysis of a game. 'Wanted it more'... Give us peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

1) I'm sorry that you seem to be of the (entirely wrong) opinion that winning the ball automatically means the challenge is not a foul. On that count you are simply wrong. There's a reasonable argument to be made either way for whether it was a foul or not, but your argument based on winning the ball is wrong. You don't know the rules.

2) Cliched nonsense. And ignores the fact that Hearts spent large portions of the first half, when the score was level, on the front foot. Not the actions of a side mostly concerned with avoiding defeat. Daily Record level of analysis of a game. 'Wanted it more'... Give us peace.

Hearts stopped playing after they scored. Within minutes of equalizing, we nearly scored again. Hearts thought they could hold on and grind out a 1-0 (a Levein master tactic) and it backfired. As soon as we equalized, Hearts didn't know what to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JTS98
Just now, BawWatchin said:

Hearts stopped playing after they scored. Within minutes of equalizing, we nearly scored again. Hearts thought they could hold on and grind out a 1-0 (a Levein master tactic) and it backfired. As soon as we equalized, Hearts didn't know what to do.

Again, that's a scoreboard analysis of the game.

Hibs equalised very quickly after going behind, so it's impossible to make the assertion that Hearts 'stopped playing' based on being ahead, since that scenario existed for far too short a period of time for a pattern of play to emerge. You're basing your opinion on the outcome rather than the process.

After Hibs equalised, Hearts steadied the ship and went on the front foot again, and could have been back in front by half time. The people I was watching with, as I mentioned before, supporters of neither Hearts nor Hibs, were of the opinion at half time that Hearts looked the only likely winner. Hardly the actions of a side not interested in winning.

Do you base your view on tactics, motivation and performance in every game simply on whether it was won or lost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JTS98 said:

Again, that's a scoreboard analysis of the game.

Hibs equalised very quickly after going behind, so it's impossible to make the assertion that Hearts 'stopped playing' based on being ahead, since that scenario existed for far too short a period of time for a pattern of play to emerge. You're basing your opinion on the outcome rather than the process.

After Hibs equalised, Hearts steadied the ship and went on the front foot again, and could have been back in front by half time. The people I was watching with, as I mentioned before, supporters of neither Hearts nor Hibs, were of the opinion at half time that Hearts looked the only likely winner. Hardly the actions of a side not interested in winning.

Do you base your view on tactics, motivation and performance in every game simply on whether it was won or lost?

Which part of "we nearly scored again" did you not understand? We could have gone in at HT 2-1 up. That's not ignoring the  process. It was a very real possibility.

I don't care what the humble opinion of the people you were watching it with were. What i'm stating is simply a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JTS98
Just now, BawWatchin said:

Which part of "we nearly scored again" did you not understand? We could have gone in at HT 2-1 up. That's not ignoring the  process. It was a very real possibility.

I don't care what the humble opinion of the people you were watching it with were. What i'm stating is simply a fact.

Hearts also could have scored again, so what's your point? You're not making any kind of coherent argument, probably because your overall point isn't really defensible.

Hibs got the breaks when they needed them yesterday. An offside call went their way, they could have had a penalty given against them but they didn't, Djoum missed a chance that he'd score more often than miss.

Such things win and lose games. And that's fine. Football is massively over-analysed. A lot of what happens is simply down to the break of the ball or a split-second decision from a referee.

But talk of 'wanting it more' or of one team not trying to win is simply childish garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JTS98 said:

Hearts also could have scored again, so what's your point? You're not making any kind of coherent argument, probably because your overall point isn't really defensible.

Hibs got the breaks when they needed them yesterday. An offside call went their way, they could have had a penalty given against them but they didn't, Djoum missed a chance that he'd score more often than miss.

Such things win and lose games. And that's fine. Football is massively over-analysed. A lot of what happens is simply down to the break of the ball or a split-second decision from a referee.

But talk of 'wanting it more' or of one team not trying to win is simply childish garbage.

Hibs set up to win, Hearts set up not to lose. Your personal take on the game isn't really relevant though. It's how history will remember it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JTS98
Just now, BawWatchin said:

Hibs set up to win, Hearts set up not to lose. Your personal take on the game isn't really relevant though. It's how history will remember it.

Absolute nonsense. No matter how many times you say it.

The game yesterday actually reminded me of the derby we lost at home towards the end of the 2008-09 season. Hearts were the better side that night too, but didn't take their chances and ended up losing to a penalty awarded for a foul that took place outside the box but Riordan kept on his feet till he got into the box then went down like a sack of spuds.

These things happen. Games are won and lost in wee moments.

Yesterday was a similar result. We didn't play nearly as badly as some of the reaction would have you believe, and we've been pretty unlucky to lose. That's football. It's happened before and it'll happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JTS98
6 minutes ago, Principal Flutie said:

Have to wonder how long it's going to take JTS to realise BawWatchin isn't interested in actually having a serious discussion here.

Aye.

I don't really engage much with the Hibbies on here, so I'm not sure who the sensible ones are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Absolute nonsense. No matter how many times you say it.

The game yesterday actually reminded me of the derby we lost at home towards the end of the 2008-09 season. Hearts were the better side that night too, but didn't take their chances and ended up losing to a penalty awarded for a foul that took place outside the box but Riordan kept on his feet till he got into the box then went down like a sack of spuds.

These things happen. Games are won and lost in wee moments.

Yesterday was a similar result. We didn't play nearly as badly as some of the reaction would have you believe, and we've been pretty unlucky to lose. That's football. It's happened before and it'll happen again.

Hearts were poor yesterday. We were also poor. It just came down to the desire to win in the end and Hibs were more hungry for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Aye.

I don't really engage much with the Hibbies on here, so I'm not sure who the sensible ones are.

I mean if the theory that we're one person on multiple accounts is true...

edit: bollocks, this was meant to be posted on my BawWatchin account :(

Edited by Dave1875
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:
1 hour ago, BawWatchin said:
How about the arguement that there wasn't even any contact whatsoever? There was only one angle that made it look like there was, because it didn't show the gap between the foot of the Hibs player and the leg of the Hearts player. Every other angle showed this quite clearly.

Id need to see the replays again re what you are saying but id have bet my house that the reverse angle shows clear contact.

Aye, but its an ex council house in Falkirk m9 - I could gamble a tenner and not worry either.......................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...