Celtic manager Neil Lennon upset by cup final penalty denial

[Bears 0]

http://i43.tinypic.com/2vm8pzb.gif no contact

[ian1964 10,416]

http://i43.tinypic.com/2vm8pzb.gif

 

Was just about to post that

[ian1964 10,416]

Neil Lennon fumes over ‘shocking’ penalty decision

 

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/celtic/300995-neil-lennon-fumes-over-shocking-penalty-decision/

 

Hurting bad,zero class and a liar. Killie deserved the win and it was NEVER a penalty. I would hope he will face punishment for calling the refs integrity into question.

[calscot 0]

That's more conclusively a dive than Aluko. Will he be getting a two game ban? The worst bit is that he dragged his left foot to look like he'd been tripped, it's something that doesn't look normal for either a foul on his right foot or an innocent stumble. It looks like he was trying to catch the defender with it to manufacture a trip.

[GovanAllan 0]

Bacause he got booked there will be no further action I think, which is a pity got a few ideas for further punishment if Lunny the Looney is interested.

[craig 5,198]

http://i43.tinypic.com/2vm8pzb.gif no contact

 

Thanks for that Frank.

 

Here is how I would categorise that.

 

I thought it WAS a penalty. When the Killie player slides in, look at Stokes' trailing leg, it gets caught under the Killie player's leg. The outstretched leg of the Killie player may not have made contact but his trailing leg did - and for me it was enough to make it a penalty.

 

However..... one other thing I will add to this discussion....

 

If the Tims are livid that they were not awarded a penalty then they are hypocrites. Why ? Because the level of contact was no more than the contact made on Aluko against Dunfermline....... and they absolutely hounded the SPL into giving him a retrospective ban.

 

So for me they were either BOTH penalties or they both were diving, no difference between the two - so we should see a retrospective ban for Stokes.

 

Only MHO of course.

[metlika 0]

Stokes can't be banned because he was already punished. I wish Cammy Bell didn't get in his way as he was looking like he was going to hit the ref.

[Guest Dutchy]

He can't be banned, because he's just following septic's training ground orders!

 

Hit the dirt at every opportunity.

[Gers4Life 0]

One word describes Stokes............. CHEAT!!!!

[calscot 0]

Thanks for that Frank.

 

Here is how I would categorise that.

 

I thought it WAS a penalty. When the Killie player slides in, look at Stokes' trailing leg, it gets caught under the Killie player's leg. The outstretched leg of the Killie player may not have made contact but his trailing leg did - and for me it was enough to make it a penalty.

 

However..... one other thing I will add to this discussion....

 

If the Tims are livid that they were not awarded a penalty then they are hypocrites. Why ? Because the level of contact was no more than the contact made on Aluko against Dunfermline....... and they absolutely hounded the SPL into giving him a retrospective ban.

 

So for me they were either BOTH penalties or they both were diving, no difference between the two - so we should see a retrospective ban for Stokes.

 

Only MHO of course.

 

You could be right but for me there was more compelling evidence of contact on Aluko, I've yet to be convinced there was any on Stokes and I also think the latter convinced me more that he was being theatrical.

 

I've never really argued that Aluko should have had a penalty, but in my opinion there wasn't enough evidence to conclude that it was definitely a dive. To me it should have been play on. Perhaps it should have been for Stokes too.

 

I don't subscribe to the view that is must be a penalty OR a dive. There are plenty of shades of grey in between which are obfuscated further by the burden of proof.