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

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

You aren't quoting Hill, you are quoting Rodgers !!!

 

Hill's actual statement was not what you state above. He actually said that he didn't know if he got the ball or player - he then goes on to state that given it was an away game against our fiercest rivals he would expect it to be given 9 times out of 10 - but at no point does he say he got lucky.

 

You are, quite simply, drinking from Brendan Rodgers and Celtic's fans glasses.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You aren't quoting Hill, you are quoting Rodgers !!!

 

Hill's actual statement was not what you state above. He actually said that he didn't know if he got the ball or player - he then goes on to state that given it was an away game against our fiercest rivals he would expect it to be given 9 times out of 10 - but at no point does he say he got lucky.

 

You are, quite simply, drinking from Brendan Rodgers and Celtic's fans glasses.

 

Thanks for the correction.

 

Then to quote BH: we got away with one there.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You aren't quoting Hill, you are quoting Rodgers !!!

 

Hill's actual statement was not what you state above. He actually said that he didn't know if he got the ball or player - he then goes on to state that given it was an away game against our fiercest rivals he would expect it to be given 9 times out of 10 - but at no point does he say he got lucky.

 

You are, quite simply, drinking from Brendan Rodgers and Celtic's fans glasses.

 

Just to be clear, was Rogers not alleging what Hill said as he was leaving the pitch; but the comments you attribute to Hill were said later (perhaps because he knows that he shouldn't have made the admission and more to the point perhaps that Rogers was out of order to quote him, like giving away dressing room questions)?

 

Please don't jump all over me, i'm just asking the question.

[boabie 230]

Just to be clear, was Rogers not alleging what Hill said as he was leaving the pitch; but the comments you attribute to Hill were said later (perhaps because he knows that he shouldn't have made the admission and more to the point perhaps that Rogers was out of order to quote him, like giving away dressing room questions)?

 

Please don't jump all over me, i'm just asking the question.

 

Coming off the pitch Hill said to Rodgers, " I got away with that one." That is no admission of guilt.

A Rangers defender not being accused guilty of a penalty at the scumdome is imo certainly "getting away with it".

99 times out of a hundred a ref would have [wrongly] awarded a penalty for the tackle.

Any referee from that position saying he saw a penalty would quite simply be lying.

[craig 5,199]

Just to be clear, was Rogers not alleging what Hill said as he was leaving the pitch; but the comments you attribute to Hill were said later (perhaps because he knows that he shouldn't have made the admission and more to the point perhaps that Rogers was out of order to quote him, like giving away dressing room questions)?

 

Please don't jump all over me, i'm just asking the question.

 

Yes, that was what Rodgers was alleging - however, at no point did Hill actually say that, at least not publicly.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Coming off the pitch Hill said to Rodgers, " I got away with that one." That is no admission of guilt.

 

99 times out of a hundred a ref would have [wrongly] awarded a penalty for the tackle.

.

 

I got away with that (or got away with that one) (if he said that) is not an admission of guilt?

 

I agree that 99 or well 95 times out of 100 most referees would have given a penalty and I think he bottled it because it was last minute. Earlier in the game it would have been given.

Edited March 16, 2017 by BrahimHemdani

[craig 5,199]

I got away with that (or got away with that one) (if he said that) is not an admission of guilt?

 

I agree that 99 or well 95 times out of 100 most referees would have given a penalty and I think he bottled it because it was last minute. Earlier in the game it would have been given.

 

Again, you are quoting what RODGERS told the Press - there is no saying that this is what Hill actually said between the two of them.

 

Secondly, there is absolutely no way that you can say it WOULD have been given earlier in the game. It is impossible to say. Even now with the benefit of multiple angles, slow motion and it having been watched millions of times there is still lots of debate over whether it was a penalty or not - so to be so categorical that it would have been given had it been earlier in the game is silly IMHO.

 

Sometimes I think you are actually peddling pro-Celtic propaganda BH

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Again, you are quoting what RODGERS told the Press - there is no saying that this is what Hill actually said between the two of them.

 

Secondly, there is absolutely no way that you can say it WOULD have been given earlier in the game. It is impossible to say. Even now with the benefit of multiple angles, slow motion and it having been watched millions of times there is still lots of debate over whether it was a penalty or not - so to be so categorical that it would have been given had it been earlier in the game is silly IMHO.

 

Sometimes I think you are actually peddling pro-Celtic propaganda BH

 

Not guilty on all three counts, your lordship.

 

1. I was quoting what Boabie said Hill said.
   
2. I am giving you my opinion with the benefit of my experience as a referee; IMO it was a penalty and it was an easier decision to make earlier in the game.
   
3. I try to give fair opinions on match incidents from a refereeing perspective; you'll recall I said categorically that Brown should have been sent off. I doubt many Celtic fans would agree with that.
   

Edited March 16, 2017 by BrahimHemdani

[craig 5,199]

Not guilty on all three counts, your lordship.

 

1. I was quoting what Boabie said Hill said.
   
2. I am giving you my opinion with the benefit of my experience as a referee; IMO it was a penalty and it was an easier decision to make earlier in the game.
   
3. I try to give fair opinions on match incidents from a refereeing perspective; you'll recall I said categorically that Brown should have been sent off. I doubt many Celtic fans would agree with that.
   

 

1. What boabie posted is, I believe, what Rodgers told the Press. Not what Hill had said. Did Hill say this to Rodgers ? Who knows. But then Hill says he doesn't know whether he made contact with the ball or not and we now know he did.

2. This is my issue with officialdom - the decision should never, ever be determined by the timing of the event. To say it was an easier decision earlier in the game is to say that the official is afraid to do his job. No, if the ref is doing his job properly he would make the same decision whether it was in the 1st 10 seconds or the last 10 seconds.

3. As do I. I have never been a "blue tinted specs" kind of person - I give my opinion based on what I see and as objectively as possible.

[Bluedell 5,354]

[*]I am giving you my opinion with the benefit of my experience as a referee; IMO it was a penalty and it was an easier decision to make earlier in the game.

 

There's been ex-refs who say it wasn't a penalty as well.

 

It seems to one of these incidents that divides opinions and there isn't a definitive answer. I've looked at it and it seems to me that he gets the ball before the man whereas you, BH, see it differently. Despite that, I'm still not 100% sure it wasn't a penalty.

 

However, it's good to get an ex-ref's view.