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

[BrahimHemdani 1]

How on earth was the ref supposed to see the challenge ? The challenge took place on the opposite side - the ref was behind the play watching it - but the tackle took place on the ref's blind side.

 

Of course he didn't see it properly.

 

If you look at the video from the angle behind the goal you can see quite clearly that the referee is looking straight at the incident (obviously from behind) and has an unobstructed view.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

If his angle is right to left then he still doesn't see it - because Hill's leg comes from right to left - he is blindsided regarding ball and challenge.

 

Again, sorry to disagree. He can see the challenge with the right leg because his is right of the incident. What he may not have seen is the slight touch on the ball. But as I have argued that is irrlevant because Hill's leg came in contact with Griffiths body first, so it's a foul.

Edited March 16, 2017 by BrahimHemdani

[craig 5,199]

We will agree to disagree BH.

 

I'm confused that you can say the ref had an unobstructed view of it. I will watch again tonight though.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I would also disagree when you say, BH, that Madden "bottled it". If anything he showed tremendous courage by not giving the penalty seeing as he was going to be subjected to 50,000+ baying hordes of Tims. That is far from bottling it. Bottling it would have seen him give the penalty, not the reverse.

 

I can see why you say that but it's the aftermath he would be worried about. He would have you to contend with for starters.

 

Again from my experience, albeit not at that level; the referee will be concentrating as hard as humanly possible in the dying minutes to avoid GIVING a controversial decision. The fact the game ended 1-1 makes it less controversial not to give it then if he had given it and it had ended 2-1 for Celtic.

[craig 5,199]

Fair enough but I disagree with them. Having viewed the video numerous times I remain of the opinion that the referee is approx 20-25 yards away and has a clear line of sight on an angle form right to left to the incident. If I had the technology I could freeze frame and draw a straight line from the referee to to the incident because there is no player between him and the incident.

 

Just as well you don't ref any Rangers games then

[BrahimHemdani 1]

We will agree to disagree BH.

 

I'm confused that you can say the ref had an unobstructed view of it. I will watch again tonight though.

 

Yes thanks; case adjourned.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Just as well you don't ref any Rangers games then

 

I did referee a couple of reserve games at Ibrox and once at Morton (where I'll concede I had a nightmare) and ran the line at a few including John Greig's Testimonial, as I think is fairly well known. I couldn't have lived with the pace of the modern game.

[craig 5,199]

I can see why you say that but it's the aftermath he would be worried about. He would have you to contend with for starters.

 

Again from my experience, albeit not at that level; the referee will be concentrating as hard as humanly possible in the dying minutes to avoid GIVING a controversial decision. The fact the game ended 1-1 makes it less controversial not to give it then if he had given it and it had ended 2-1 for Celtic.

 

The aftermath would be far worse for him by not giving the penalty - Rangers fans are nowhere near as violent as Celtic fans when it comes to officials - just ask Hugh Dallas or a multitude of other officials who have had their houses bricked for the audacity of not giving Celtic a decision they wanted. Jeez, in Dallas's case all he did was ref a game which we won 3-1 with very little incident (aside from a Tim throwing himself from the top deck - and Dallas getting coined and a pitch intruder trying to get to him).

 

Could it not be said that the ref would be concentrating as hard as possible to avoid making the WRONG decision ? I don't think a ref is trying to not give a controversial decision - he is trying to best place himself to make it non-controversial. Regardless, his job is to concentrate for the full 90 minutes so that he gets the decisions correct - it still goes back to the irrelevance of the timing of the event.

 

I disagree that the 1-1 result makes the decision less controversial. What makes the decision so controversial is that it went against Celtic - that about sums it up.

[craig 5,199]

I did referee a couple of reserve games at Ibrox and once at Morton (where I'll concede I had a nightmare) and ran the line at a few including John Greig's Testimonial, as I think is fairly well known. I couldn't have lived with the pace of the modern game.

 

I don't envy any official their job these days. The speed of the game plus the multitude of instantaneous camera angles on every decision they make would have most people running for cover.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The aftermath would be far worse for him by not giving the penalty - Rangers fans are nowhere near as violent as Celtic fans when it comes to officials - just ask Hugh Dallas or a multitude of other officials who have had their houses bricked for the audacity of not giving Celtic a decision they wanted. Jeez, in Dallas's case all he did was ref a game which we won 3-1 with very little incident (aside from a Tim throwing himself from the top deck - and Dallas getting coined and a pitch intruder trying to get to him).

 

Could it not be said that the ref would be concentrating as hard as possible to avoid making the WRONG decision ? I don't think a ref is trying to not give a controversial decision - he is trying to best place himself to make it non-controversial. Regardless, his job is to concentrate for the full 90 minutes so that he gets the decisions correct - it still goes back to the irrelevance of the timing of the event.

 

I disagree that the 1-1 result makes the decision less controversial. What makes the decision so controversial is that it went against Celtic - that about sums it up.

 

Good points, of course a decision will be more controversial if it can manifestly be shown to wrong; but in the case it's all about opinions.