Jump to content

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, ATLIS said:

That makes absolutely zero sense

I disagree.

Boyle dives, gets penalty.
The Injustice-O-Meter is now swinging heavily towards Livingston because they just got f*cked.
Boyle correctly misses and that immediately evens it up (awright, it's still swinging towards Livi very slightly because he should have been booked).
Then Hibs should have been given a penalty later (again assuming it was genuine, have only seen it once), denied.
Injustice-O-Meter now pointing heavily towards Hibs.

The ideal scenario (ie good refereeing) is that Boyle is booked, and Hibs get the penalty later.

If he had scored the penalty, the Injustice-O-Meter would have burst through Martindale's napper, but would have been brought back pretty much to the middle by denying the real one.

That all seems pretty logical and reasonable to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vanquinho. said:

I disagree.

Boyle dives, gets penalty.
The Injustice-O-Meter is now swinging heavily towards Livingston because they just got f*cked.
Boyle correctly misses and that immediately evens it up (awright, it's still swinging towards Livi very slightly because he should have been booked).
Then Hibs should have been given a penalty later (again assuming it was genuine, have only seen it once), denied.
Injustice-O-Meter now pointing heavily towards Hibs.

The ideal scenario (ie good refereeing) is that Boyle is booked, and Hibs get the penalty later.

If he had scored the penalty, the Injustice-O-Meter would have burst through Martindale's napper, but would have been brought back pretty much to the middle by denying the real one.

That all seems pretty logical and reasonable to me.

I do like your train of thought except a missed unjust penalty is neutral.  The calumny has already been committed and can only be cancelled by another egregious offense either being ignored for (in this case) Livi or wrongly awarded (again, in this case) to Livi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Vanquinho. said:

I disagree.

Boyle dives, gets penalty.
The Injustice-O-Meter is now swinging heavily towards Livingston because they just got f*cked.
Boyle correctly misses and that immediately evens it up (awright, it's still swinging towards Livi very slightly because he should have been booked).
Then Hibs should have been given a penalty later (again assuming it was genuine, have only seen it once), denied.
Injustice-O-Meter now pointing heavily towards Hibs.

The ideal scenario (ie good refereeing) is that Boyle is booked, and Hibs get the penalty later.

If he had scored the penalty, the Injustice-O-Meter would have burst through Martindale's napper, but would have been brought back pretty much to the middle by denying the real one.

That all seems pretty logical and reasonable to me.

Always Sunny Reaction GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I do like your train of thought except a missed unjust penalty is neutral.  The calumny has already been committed and can only be cancelled by another egregious offense either being ignored for (in this case) Livi or wrongly awarded (again, in this case) to Livi.

I see why you say that but I think penalties are a special case. There are only two outcomes of a penalty and the lines between them are very clear, goal or no goal. No goal negates the wrong decision. I'd agree with you if it was something like wrongly given corners, ie the ref can just blow for a non-existent foul as soon as it's taken. If we go with your suggestion of wrongly awarding a decision as game-changing as a penalty, that just creates more big wrong decisions and more opportunities for the wrong outcomes to happen. I say penalties are special because as I suggested, you can pretty much completely remove the injustice done to Livingston by missing the penalty. The more referees 'even it up' when it's already evened itself out (IMO), the more games will be skewed.

Here's my favourite example, Hibs v Hearts semi final last season. Hibs cheated for a penalty, missed. In that moment, Hearts were given justice for the bad decision (again, minus the yellow card that should have been given). Later, Hearts cheated for a penalty, scored it. The decision to give Hearts the penalty followed what you suggested, ie wrongly awarding them the penalty after one was wrongly given against them (I don't actually think the ref "evened it up" though, I just think he was shite at catching divers). Had Hibs scored theirs, or Hearts missed theirs, I'd have said "sound, we're all cheating c*nts but at least the cheating never decided the game," and either of those outcomes would have been fine by me (though as a football fan I'd rather they both missed for the sake of true fairness). In my opinion, that game was decided because Hearts cheated better then Hibs cheated (though it was almost worth it because the way they lost the final was absolutely delicious).

As an aside, I'd want wee p***ks like Martin Boyle sent off for dives that are as clear as that. Awful stuff, ruins games and sullies the reputation of the entire sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Vanquinho. said:

I see why you say that but I think penalties are a special case. There are only two outcomes of a penalty and the lines between them are very clear, goal or no goal. No goal negates the wrong decision.

Nah.  'No goal' belongs in a special category and doesn't reset the pointer.  I agree with your OP that lack of a yellow pushes the pointer further towards the aggrieved side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Nah.  'No goal' belongs in a special category and doesn't reset the pointer.  I agree with your OP that lack of a yellow pushes the pointer further towards the aggrieved side.

add the fact a Livi player was booked for rightly protesting the penalty 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

Nah.  'No goal' belongs in a special category and doesn't reset the pointer.  I agree with your OP that lack of a yellow pushes the pointer further towards the aggrieved side.

I've softened my view in this particular situation because it involves diving, so I can sympathise with your point of view in this case due to that fact, as there is definitely some moral justice in Hibs having been denied the second penalty. Livingston never did any of that sh*te, so I don't think what actually happened is really that bad in the grand scheme. It still resulted in two wrong decisions, which could have been avoided entirely if we had VAR.

Question is, did the referee deny the second because he realised Boyle dived and he was duped, or because he thought he himself made the wrong call? If the latter, he's in the wrong, as his own mistake never hurt Livingston. If the former, morally correct enough, even more so if Boyle scored.

Perhaps there is a different acceptable course of action to be taken if the attacker simply slips and the referee makes an honest, but bad, call. If the situation involves no cheating, I would stick with my earlier suggested course. Do you think that's fair?

Ideally we could just get Boyle sent off and banned for 20 games. That would clear this nonsense up.

In my Hibs Hearts semi example though, where both teams cheated, I firmly believe Hibs were fleeced and that's indisputable as far as I'm concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Cptn Hooch said:

add the fact a Livi player was booked for rightly protesting the penalty 

Maybe slapping that boy with the Injustice-O-Meter will give it the tweaks I need.

But aye, shiter for him as he obviously knew it was a shocker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vanquinho. said:

I disagree.

Boyle dives, gets penalty.
The Injustice-O-Meter is now swinging heavily towards Livingston because they just got f*cked.
Boyle correctly misses and that immediately evens it up (awright, it's still swinging towards Livi very slightly because he should have been booked).
Then Hibs should have been given a penalty later (again assuming it was genuine, have only seen it once), denied.
Injustice-O-Meter now pointing heavily towards Hibs.

The ideal scenario (ie good refereeing) is that Boyle is booked, and Hibs get the penalty later.

If he had scored the penalty, the Injustice-O-Meter would have burst through Martindale's napper, but would have been brought back pretty much to the middle by denying the real one.

That all seems pretty logical and reasonable to me.

Penalties aren't 50/50 though, I think they're about 0.75/0.80 for xG so there's a 75/80% chance of scoring it. I would say being given that big a chance and missing it isn't going back to neutral but then again maybe the ref has doubted the legitimacy of the later penalty claim due to Boyle's diving. 

I think Boyle had about 4 or 5 instances of clear dives throughout the game, yet the ref did nothing about it aside from just ignoring him whenever he went down foul or not unless it was obviously clear. 

That probably would be the ideal scenario. If we didn't end up winning I think there could've been a conversation about Hibs possibly being due more than their 2 reds :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW I'm sure there are loads of referees who would choose not to give a genuine penalty if they've looked back and thought they shouldn't have given a previous one, to "even it up"

 

I don't think Robertson done that though, he's just a moron.

Edited by LiviLion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Vanquinho. said:

If he'd scored the cheated penalty, then denying the genuine one (if it was indeed a foul) would have been correct.

 

10 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

I do like your train of thought except a missed unjust penalty is neutral.  The calumny has already been committed and can only be cancelled by another egregious offense either being ignored for (in this case) Livi or wrongly awarded (again, in this case) to Livi.

Yeah the outcome of the penalty has no bearing on the awarding of it, the key point is incorrectly awarding a penalty, which is then cancelled out by not awarding a stonewaller later. It's up to Boyle to score, him missing has no bearing on a wrong decision by the referee. Boyle has no divine right to score from the spot, and giving him a 2nd chance doesn't even out the wrong decision in the first place.

Anyway, he's a diving chunt, does it all the time, puts his legs together and falls down, sometimes it's difficult to tell if he got clipped, or had been bumped, of even if the speed he was going just made him lose his balance (not in this case though, def dived), in which case no booking or awarding of a foul/pen is the right decision, but he'll gratefully take the pen as a bonus if the ref gets it wrong. He's crafted the art of getting fouls/pens though, and no doubt also gets fouled a lot, so Hibs fans love him and everyone else despises him as a cheat.

Edited by LIVIFOREVER
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Durnford said:

In case anyone hasn't seen it; its on about 50 seconds in:

 

 

Beautiful pass by Omeonga to Shinnie on the edge of the box when he got fouled, nice wee reverse pass by Pittman putting Forrest through too, and what a run by Montano later on. McMillan's goal showed some composure too, got bumped in the back but kept his composure and took the ball down on his thigh before slotting it home, fantastic. He hadn't scored for a longggggg time, but playing in midfield brings him more opportunity to do so, and he has a good shot on him. Shinnie laid it off nicely for him as well, playing left of the front 3, or in a mid 3 behind a striker is where he plays best imo, hate seeing him as the central player in a front 3, or as a No9, that just isn't his position. 

More of the same against Utd and we'll get something from that game too.

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...