Jump to content

Hibs v St Mirren


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Lyle Lanley said:

This was the song played pre-match and after the first goal. 

I stand corrected. Wasn't a huge fan, but then again I quite rate Scooter so I'll probably be getting nowhere near making the musical calls at ER or anywhere else anytime soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should have won that - barring a daft 15 minute spell after half time where was lost the ability to attack and Scott Allan running the game, we were comfortable. Sportscene doesn't seem to have shown it but McAllister more often than not would score the chance he had. He did the hard part as Doig let him waltz inside, instead of lashing it towards goal and ending up scuffing it he could've passed it in to the keepers right side. Hibs' keeper by the way is hopeless. That attempt at the Brophy shot was what we became used to seeing with Samson against Leigh Griffiths. 

The penalty incident was crazy considering the ref had wasted 5 mins lecturing everyone at the penalty spot. Joe Shaughnessy for the goal was tremendous, I think he is the best headerer of the ball Scotland has even seen. Definitely should've been our first win of the season but a lot to be positive about. We look a much better team with the 2 up front as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what Goodwin is moaning about, was a clear penalty for us. Boy was basically rugby tackling him. Only serves to try and mark out Porteous to referees in the future when he was quite clearly fouled.

Was a good game, we were shite for large spells. Josh Doig still completely unable to defend that ball to the back post so next weekend against St Johnstone will be good fun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zing. said:

Not sure what Goodwin is moaning about, was a clear penalty for us. Boy was basically rugby tackling him. Only serves to try and mark out Porteous to referees in the future when he was quite clearly fouled.

Was a good game, we were shite for large spells. Josh Doig still completely unable to defend that ball to the back post so next weekend against St Johnstone will be good fun. 

To be fair Porteous starts with his arm around Millar's neck, but after the ref's warning Millar was stupid to even give the ref a decision to make. No arguments really with the decision, but sometimes they're given and sometimes they're not.

Doig was sleeping for our second goal.

Good to see Tanser with yet another assist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FTOF said:

To be fair Porteous starts with his arm around Millar's neck, but after the ref's warning Millar was stupid to even give the ref a decision to make. No arguments really with the decision, but sometimes they're given and sometimes they're not.

Doig was sleeping for our second goal.

Good to see Tanser with yet another assist.

I couldnt go yesterday, but your assessment of the pen seems fair based on highlights.

Allan and Doig  both sleeping at your 2nd goal  but fair play to Joe S in making the space for himself - from what I saw (and, as i said, only the BBC highlights) it looked like 2 teams not quite in top gear and a draw seemed about right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

It was a definite pen yesterday but the reaction of the Hibs defender at the award speaks volumes.

 

It a far softer penalty that some people are making out here, Millar was stupid as from the replay it's clear his arms were around him however Porteous takes advantage and throws himself to the ground. Anyone thinking there is nothing more than a cynical attempt to cheat is blinkered here. There was no push from the arms, there was no tug, there was Porteous pushing against Millar, Millar moving to match Porteous and Porteous falling over.

You can see this from the replay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt41rKFVE0I

I realise static screen shots are open to interpretation, but I feel two still are important from the incident, the first shows Porteous with his hands all over Millar, fouling him...

2OTUpAl.png

If you spot Porteous' right hand it is pulling at Millar's jersey, Millar's right hand was at the time not in contact with Porteous.

The second interesting image shows when Porteous throws himself to the ground...

bKjMOuZ.png

Millar's hand, the one hidden from Clancy (you can see the angle the ref has from the pretty poor quality screens in the background), is not grabbing or holding

From the actual evidence it's questionable whether there was a foul at all, there may have been if Porteous had stayed on his feet but he decided to cheat instead. Ultimately the whole point is moot, Hibs got the penalty, we got the draw, they look rotten despite being top of the table and we looks bad but getting better. 

Anyway, I'm sure some Hibs fans will no doubt be as angry at this being pointed out today as it was yesterday, but really I don't see why they are complaining, they got the penalty and they scored.

Just to confirm, my opinion of this is "meh", we've lost goals from far worse defending, a draw away to the team at the top is no bad result and I'm neither angry at Porteous' actions nor do I wish any sort of retrospective viewing by whatever panel the SPLFL use.

 

Edited by Ric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ric said:

 

It a far softer penalty that some people are making out here, Millar was stupid as from the replay it's clear his arms were around him however Porteous takes advantage and throws himself to the ground. Anyone thinking there is nothing more than a cynical attempt to cheat is blinkered here. There was no push from the arms, there was no tug, there was Porteous pushing against Millar, Millar moving to match Porteous and Porteous falling over.

You can see this from the replay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt41rKFVE0I

I realise static screen shots are open to interpretation, but I feel two still are important from the incident, the first shows Porteous with his hands all over Millar, fouling him...

2OTUpAl.png

If you spot Porteous' right hand it is pulling at Millar's jersey, Millar's right hand was at the time not in contact with Porteous.

The second interesting image shows when Porteous throws himself to the ground...

bKjMOuZ.png

Millar's hand, the one hidden from Clancy (you can see the angle the ref has from the pretty poor quality screens in the background), is not grabbing or holding

From the actual evidence it's questionable whether there was a foul at all, there may have been if Porteous had stayed on his feet but he decided to cheat instead. Ultimately the whole point is moot, Hibs got the penalty, we got the draw, they look rotten despite being top of the table and we looks bad but getting better. 

Anyway, I'm sure some Hibs fans will no doubt be as angry at this being pointed out today as it was yesterday, but really I don't see why they are complaining, they got the penalty and they scored.

Just to confirm, my opinion of this is "meh", we've lost goals from far worse defending, a draw away to the team at the top is no bad result and I'm neither angry at Porteous' actions nor do I wish any sort of retrospective viewing by whatever panel the SPLFL use.

 

What a pile of shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

Thank you for your in depth evaluation.

He/she isn’t wrong tbf.  It was as obvious a penalty as you will ever see.  Sure Porteous played for it but that doesn’t excuse Millar from falling into his trap. 
Goodwin generally talks a good game but his post-match comments about the penalty were embarrassing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doonhame Buddie said:

He/she isn’t wrong tbf.  It was as obvious a penalty as you will ever see.  Sure Porteous played for it but that doesn’t excuse Millar from falling into his trap. 
Goodwin generally talks a good game but his post-match comments about the penalty were embarrassing. 

It's all opinions, but I'd say their complete dismissal of everything I wrote is "wrong". Also, I'd counter the "as obvious a penalty you'll ever see" claim too, as not only have we seen far worse given against us, the evidence on video shows it wasn't quite as obvious. As for Goodwin's comments, I've not bothered listening to them, they had no bearing on how I see the incident. He's backed himself into a corner with his diving claims some time ago. I like Goodwin's interactions with the press normally, but he's not perfect - which manager is?

Nobody is defending (ha! pun!) Millar here, he is at fault, but he is at fault for being an idiot. Clancy is at fault for swallowing it so easily, and Porteous is at fault for falling to the ground too easily.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ric said:

 

It a far softer penalty that some people are making out here, Millar was stupid as from the replay it's clear his arms were around him however Porteous takes advantage and throws himself to the ground. Anyone thinking there is nothing more than a cynical attempt to cheat is blinkered here. There was no push from the arms, there was no tug, there was Porteous pushing against Millar, Millar moving to match Porteous and Porteous falling over.

You can see this from the replay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt41rKFVE0I

I realise static screen shots are open to interpretation, but I feel two still are important from the incident, the first shows Porteous with his hands all over Millar, fouling him...

2OTUpAl.png

If you spot Porteous' right hand it is pulling at Millar's jersey, Millar's right hand was at the time not in contact with Porteous.

The second interesting image shows when Porteous throws himself to the ground...

bKjMOuZ.png

Millar's hand, the one hidden from Clancy (you can see the angle the ref has from the pretty poor quality screens in the background), is not grabbing or holding

From the actual evidence it's questionable whether there was a foul at all, there may have been if Porteous had stayed on his feet but he decided to cheat instead. Ultimately the whole point is moot, Hibs got the penalty, we got the draw, they look rotten despite being top of the table and we looks bad but getting better. 

Anyway, I'm sure some Hibs fans will no doubt be as angry at this being pointed out today as it was yesterday, but really I don't see why they are complaining, they got the penalty and they scored.

Just to confirm, my opinion of this is "meh", we've lost goals from far worse defending, a draw away to the team at the top is no bad result and I'm neither angry at Porteous' actions nor do I wish any sort of retrospective viewing by whatever panel the SPLFL use.

 

It's pretty clear from your forensic analysis that Millar had both of his arms wrapped around Porteous while a) the referee was clearly keeping a close eye on the pair of them and b) while Porteous was in the penalty area. What possible footballing reason would there be for his arms to be where they were, if it wasn't for the purpose of hauling Porteous down at some point? How on earth would any referee be able to tell the difference between that and the blatant foul that it looked like from my vantage point in the Famous Five stand?

If Millar wants to pretend to rugby-tackle Ryan Porteous while in his own penalty area, I think we can all agree that the principle of play stupid games, win stupid prizes applies. What was his expected game plan here - untangle himself from Ryan Porteous, stand up and plead 'Ha ha ref, I was only play-acting at blatantly fouling Porteous, the jokes on you!'.

At the very least, if your analysis is correct, and the referee was able to see absolutely everything, Millar would fully deserve a booking for simulation, though of the opposite kind of simulation to the ones we normally get.

 

Edited by Aim Here
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

It's pretty clear from your forensic analysis that Millar had both of his arms wrapped around Porteous while a) the referee was clearly keeping a close eye on the pair of them and b) while Porteous was in the penalty area. What possible footballing reason would there be for his arms to be where they were, if it wasn't for the purpose of hauling Porteous down at some point? How on earth would any referee be able to tell the difference between that and the blatant foul that it looked like from my vantage point in the Famous Five stand?

If Millar wants to pretend to rugby-tackle Ryan Porteous while in his own penalty area, I think we can all agree that the principle of play stupid games, win stupid prizes applies. What was his expected game plan here - untangle himself from Ryan Porteous, stand up and plead 'Ha ha ref, I was only play-acting at blatantly fouling Porteous, the jokes on you!'.

At the very least, if your analysis is correct, and the referee was able to see absolutely everything, Millar would fully deserve a booking for simulation, though of the opposite kind of simulation to the ones we normally get.

 

I don't think anyone is excluding Millar from being at fault here. He was done up like a kipper, and really should know better, especially as he spent some time playing in England. He shouldn't have had his arms around Porteous, although that in itself is in no way unusual, every single corner and set piece sent into the box had players on both sides doing exactly the same, with games up and down the country also having players doing the same.

My main issue really is Clancy, he really should have been aware that there was simulation in Porteous' dive to the ground. As I've said a couple of times, the result and/or the fact you got a penalty doesn't really phase me. We've all seen these types of things given and not given and there is the usual post mortem surrounding each incident.

What I will say is that on the flip side I think you had a very good penalty shout in the first half. Can't remember who, but your player had their shirt clearly tugged back in the penalty box. Had a quick scan of the highlights link and didn't spot it (although it might be there) but I'm sure others will remember it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

My main issue really is Clancy, he really should have been aware that there was simulation in Porteous' dive to the ground.

If there was simulation, how exactly could Clancy have seen that? What he could see was one defender with arms where no defender's arms should be ostensibly preventing Porteous from being able to move within the penalty area. The points of contact (or not) was occluded by the bodies of both players. Clancy has 20 other players and a ball to keep track of, the relevant lino is over at the half way line, so if a player chooses to make life harder for the match officials by pretending to rugby tackle people - it's not really fair to expect the referee to come up with a novel theory of sporting simulation on the spot to cope with what he's just seen. The more plausible series of events - Porteous was pulled to the ground by some irked defender - makes more sense on pretty much every level other than perhaps annoyed Saints fans with after-the-event 'I've seen the video replay from an angle that the referee couldn't see and I don't think there's any contact between frames 23 and 27' forensic analysis.

Even if it was the wrong decision, the  ref isn't to blame for something that he couldn't reasonably be expected to see in a world of Sundays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an identical penalty in the Wolves v Brentford game. Clear penalty and no discussion of grey areas from commentary team or analysis afterwards. Rugby League was mentioned. Porteous shouldn't need to go to ground to get a penalty but if he hadn't no penalty would be given despite him being manhandled and obstructed. Correct call by referee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

If there was simulation, how exactly could Clancy have seen that?

This is Clancy we are talking about here. Trying to work out what he sees, let alone how he interprets that, is a task beyond most. Presumably beyond Clancy himself given some of the decisions he's given over the years.

32 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

Even if it was the wrong decision, the  ref isn't to blame for something that he couldn't reasonably be expected to see in a world of Sundays.

Except that really isn't the case. This happens at every single corner and set piece, in every game. So I'd say it's exactly what he'd expect to see, and it's exactly what his considerable experience should tell him. I'd also question the " it's not really fair to expect the referee to come up with a novel theory of sporting simulation on the spot to cope with what he's just seen" claim. As this is bread and butter stuff for any referee. It's not a "novel" theory, it's a footballing constant, not some utterly outrageous chain of events leading up to a very common outcome.

The idea that somehow I have done a CSI job here is simply not the case. I posted a link to the video, and posted two screenshots. It doesn't need a "deep dive" as it's plainly clear what is happening. Millar was fooled, Clancy was naive, and Porteous benefited from a lack of gravitational control.

I am sure this sort of discussion will continue, ad infinitum, as we discuss where the line between "football being a contact sport" and the "you can't do that in the penalty box". This incident shows the difficulties in identifying exactly where that line is.

Edited by Ric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Joe Terrapin said:

There was an identical penalty in the Wolves v Brentford game. Clear penalty and no discussion of grey areas from commentary team or analysis afterwards. Rugby League was mentioned. Porteous shouldn't need to go to ground to get a penalty but if he hadn't no penalty would be given despite him being manhandled and obstructed. Correct call by referee.

Similar certainly, but not identical. The first part is indeed similar, where the Wolves defender has his arms around the Brentford player, it's the second half of that incident where the Wolves lad literally drags back the body of the Brentford forward that the penalty is awarded for, that is not at all similar here. Millar had his arms around him but there was not the clear dragging back of the player that we see in the English game. It's also pretty obvious Toney didn't dive.

Obviously this is football, so you'll never get absolutely identical situations, and that's the problem when using other examples, and I do take your point, it's not like the two situations were completely opposite.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ric said:

 

It a far softer penalty that some people are making out here, Millar was stupid as from the replay it's clear his arms were around him however Porteous takes advantage and throws himself to the ground. Anyone thinking there is nothing more than a cynical attempt to cheat is blinkered here. There was no push from the arms, there was no tug, there was Porteous pushing against Millar, Millar moving to match Porteous and Porteous falling over.

You can see this from the replay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt41rKFVE0I

I realise static screen shots are open to interpretation, but I feel two still are important from the incident, the first shows Porteous with his hands all over Millar, fouling him...

2OTUpAl.png

If you spot Porteous' right hand it is pulling at Millar's jersey, Millar's right hand was at the time not in contact with Porteous.

The second interesting image shows when Porteous throws himself to the ground...

bKjMOuZ.png

Millar's hand, the one hidden from Clancy (you can see the angle the ref has from the pretty poor quality screens in the background), is not grabbing or holding

From the actual evidence it's questionable whether there was a foul at all, there may have been if Porteous had stayed on his feet but he decided to cheat instead. Ultimately the whole point is moot, Hibs got the penalty, we got the draw, they look rotten despite being top of the table and we looks bad but getting better. 

Anyway, I'm sure some Hibs fans will no doubt be as angry at this being pointed out today as it was yesterday, but really I don't see why they are complaining, they got the penalty and they scored.

Just to confirm, my opinion of this is "meh", we've lost goals from far worse defending, a draw away to the team at the top is no bad result and I'm neither angry at Porteous' actions nor do I wish any sort of retrospective viewing by whatever panel the SPLFL use.

 

TLDR

531120841_Portosmug.png.fa310c1223b5e3cf7aca9d755090daf4.png

 

 

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...