[FT] Celtic 1 - 1 Rangers (Hill 87)

[der Berliner 3,716]

Which number does he hold in the line of refs being targeted by the green-grey baying mob and accompanied papers that gets demoted or chased or has his house bricked?

[craig 5,199]

MADD HOUSE Old Firm referee Bobby Madden taken out of the firing line as he’s handed Dunfermline vs Ayr United Championship clash this weekend.

 

The ref has come under-fire after failing to award Celtic a penalty when Leigh Griffiths was floored by Clint Hill.

 

UNDER-FIRE ref Bobby Madden has been handed a Championship clash this weekend*– a week after his controversial Old Firm debut.

 

The whistler will be the man in the middle at East End Park as Dunfermline take on Ayr United on Saturday.

 

Madden has faced heavy criticism*after snubbing a late penalty claim by Leigh Griffiths when the Celtic striker was brought down in the box by Clint Hill*in Sunday’s 1-1 draw at Parkhead.

 

Rangers*defender Hill, 37, later admitted he was LUCKY not to concede a last gasp spot-kick and said:*“Maybe, yeah.

“It could have gone either way and with it being here at their place, nine times out of ten it is given.“It was a last-ditch attempt to try and get the ball. I don’t know if I got it or not.”

 

Hoops star Griffiths also claimed Madden asked if he should have awarded Celtic a penalty.

 

He added:*“It was a penalty. He didn’t touch the ball and the referee asked ME afterwards: ‘Did he touch the ball’?

“I told him he didn’t, but that was after the incident had passed and he can’t go back and give it then.

 

“He has to either give the penalty or book me for diving. I was about to put the ball in the back of the net and, if you look back, he’s caught me waist high.”

 

Madden was also slammed*for allowing Jason Holt to get away with a scissors challenge on Mikael Lustig.

 

And SFA chiefs have moved*to take the 38-year-old out the firing line by appointing him for Saturday’s fixture in Dunfermline.

 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/725817/old-firm-referee-bobby-madden-taken-out-of-the-firing-line-as-hes-handed-dunfermline-vs-ayr-united-championship-clash-this-weekend/

 

This shows Griffiths complete lack of understanding of the rules. Even if Hill wins the ball and Griffiths goes down that doesn't mean that Griffiths is diving and should be booked. He is at it and even though he is as thick as shit he knows exactly what he is doing here.

 

Hill doesn't say it is a penalty either - he says that it could have gone either way and with it being in front of a baying Celtic crowd the ref could be hounded into giving it. Hardly the same as saying "I fouled him, it was a penalty".

 

It's a shame because, as I said previously, Madden actually seemed to get all the big decisions correct and, even if he didn't, he cant be moaned at because they were incidents which were not clear cut, no matter how much the Tims claim they are.

 

The reality here is that they will be completely relentless until such time as teams enter the field of play where Celtic wear their home shirts, the away team don their away shirts and the officials don Celtic's away or 3rd strip. Only then will they be happy.

 

It is absolutely appalling that the SFA have capitulated in this manner - there really can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Celtic, and Lawell, are running the SFA.

 

I only wish we could escape the cabal which is rotten to the core.

Edited March 15, 2017 by craig

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The BH verdict:

 

Brown deliberately elbows Holt off the ball, it's sneaky and it's violent conduct. He should have been sent off; if the referee didn't see it then the Compliance officer should act.

 

Holt takes out Roberts with his left leg, it was a foul and possibly a booking. He only gets the ball because he has fouled Roberts and the ball runs under his leg.

 

Hill's right leg makes contact with Griffith's body before the back of his heel makes contact with the ball; so it's a penalty and probably also a goal-scoring opportunity with the obvious consequences. The referee was badly positioned too centrally from the kick and slow to get into gear (note that the ball is over his head and bounces just outside the box before he starts to run) with the result that he was behind the play at the incident but he had a clear view and whereas he would normally have been left of the incident his slow start put him to the right, so he should have been able to make the call.

 

Up to those incidents I thought he had a good game, kept the play flowing where possible and booked everyone who merited it.

 

However, he will be marked down on the Holt and Hill incidents which both looked pretty obvious fouls to me.

 

We deserved a draw but were very fortunate with those decisions IMO.

[forlanssister 3,105]

The BH verdict:

 

Brown deliberately elbows Holt off the ball, it's sneaky and it's violent conduct. He should have been sent off; if the referee didn't see it then the Compliance officer should act.

 

Holt takes out Roberts with his left leg, it was a foul and possibly a booking. He only gets the ball because he has fouled Roberts and the ball runs under his leg.

 

Hill's right leg makes contact with Griffith's body before the back of his heel makes contact with the ball; so it's a penalty and probably also a goal-scoring opportunity with the obvious consequences. The referee was badly positioned too centrally from the kick and slow to get into gear (note that the ball is over his head and bounces just outside the box before he starts to run) with the result that he was behind the play at the incident but he had a clear view and whereas he would normally have been left of the incident his slow start put him to the right, so he should have been able to make the call.

 

Up to those incidents I thought he had a good game, kept the play flowing where possible and booked everyone who merited it.

 

However, he will be marked down on the Holt and Hill incidents which both looked pretty obvious fouls to me.

 

We deserved a draw but were very fortunate with those decisions IMO.

 

...and the Dembele dive?

[craig 5,199]

The BH verdict:

 

Brown deliberately elbows Holt off the ball, it's sneaky and it's violent conduct. He should have been sent off; if the referee didn't see it then the Compliance officer should act.

 

Holt takes out Roberts with his left leg, it was a foul and possibly a booking. He only gets the ball because he has fouled Roberts and the ball runs under his leg.

 

Hill's right leg makes contact with Griffith's body before the back of his heel makes contact with the ball; so it's a penalty and probably also a goal-scoring opportunity with the obvious consequences. The referee was badly positioned too centrally from the kick and slow to get into gear (note that the ball is over his head and bounces just outside the box before he starts to run) with the result that he was behind the play at the incident but he had a clear view and whereas he would normally have been left of the incident his slow start put him to the right, so he should have been able to make the call.

 

Up to those incidents I thought he had a good game, kept the play flowing where possible and booked everyone who merited it.

 

However, he will be marked down on the Holt and Hill incidents which both looked pretty obvious fouls to me.

 

We deserved a draw but were very fortunate with those decisions IMO.

 

Yet could have been playing against 10 men for the majority of the game.... and had that decision went for us then who knows what would have happened.

 

You will be unsurprised to know I disagree with you on most of the above. Holt took ball before any contact with Roberts (though I will watch it again). A yellow would have been harsh. Hill made initial contact with Griffiths outside of the box from what I saw so if anything was to be given it would have been a FK outside the box.

 

I will watch the whole game tonight (though am out for a few beers so probably best I leave it till tomorrow so I can judge without any semblance of beer goggles).

[ian1964 10,720]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwA9YhLLtks

[Bearman 9]

He 'slipped' surely?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

...and the Dembele dive?

 

I agree it's a dive, there is no contact from Tavernier.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Yet could have been playing against 10 men for the majority of the game.... and had that decision went for us then who knows what would have happened.

 

You will be unsurprised to know I disagree with you on most of the above. Holt took ball before any contact with Roberts (though I will watch it again). A yellow would have been harsh. Hill made initial contact with Griffiths outside of the box from what I saw so if anything was to be given it would have been a FK outside the box.

 

I will watch the whole game tonight (though am out for a few beers so probably best I leave it till tomorrow so I can judge without any semblance of beer goggles).

 

I'm sure that if you watch it again you will see quite clearly that Holt trips Roberts with his leg and only wins the ball as a consequence of that foul.

 

I agree that there is contact between Hill and Griffiths outside the box but not all contact is a foul. There was a coming together because Hill was behind Griffiths and trying to get into a position to win the ball. Football is a contact sport and most referees would not give a foul in these circumstances. I'm fairly sure that the referee allowed play to continue because Griffiths was not impeded by Hill outside the box. So an alternative construction would be that the referee played advantage. In any event Griffiths carried on into the box where it is clear from the camera behind the goal that Hill's right leg makes contact with Griffith's body waist high. So it's a foul inside the box, ergo a penalty. TBH looking at it from the first camera angle or from the referees position, it looks a blatant penalty, albeit the camera behind the goal shows it more clearly. To quote Hill, we got away with one there.

Edited March 16, 2017 by BrahimHemdani

[rbr 1,256]

I'm sure that if you watch it again you will see quite clearly that Holt trips Roberts with his leg and only wins the ball as a consequence of that foul.

 

I agree that there is contact between Hill and Griffiths outside the box but not all contact is a foul. There was a coming together because Hill was behind Griffiths and trying to get into a position to win the ball. Football is a contact sport and most referees would not give a foul in these circumstances. I'm fairly sure that the referee allowed play to continue because Griffiths was not impeded by Hill outside the box. So an alternative construction would be that the referee played advantage. In any event Griffiths carried on into the box where it is clear from the camera behind the goal that Hill's right leg makes contact with Griffith's body waist high. So it's a foul inside the box, ergo a penalty. TBH looking at it from the first camera angle or from the referees position, it looks a blatant penalty, albeit the camera behind the goal shows it more clearly. To quote Hill, we got away with one there.

 

Bollocks , never a penalty , clean yer glasses old yin lol