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

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

It is that uncertainty, even days after the event, that convinces me that Madden made the right call. If he isn't 100% convinced it is a penalty then he cant give it. The fact we continue to debate it suggests to me that he made the right call.

Edited March 16, 2017 by craig

[Darthter 542]

Clint Hill says he "might have got a bit lucky with the challenge at the end"

 

@ Approx 1.45

[boabie 230]

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.

 

Correct. It is not an admission of guilt for the reasons I gave. Against the scum at the scumhut - and for no other reason - the penalty would normally be given.

The referee in no way "bottled it". Quite simply, he couldn't see it. And as you should know fine well, you can't give a decision for something you didn't [couldn't possibly] see.

[JFK-1 1,677]

Hill made a legitimate challenge and his further comment making mention of getting away with it doesn't in any way deligitimise the challenge. He's saying that though the challenge was perfectly legitimate referees don't always make the correct decisions. Think back to the Tavernier challenge at Pittodrie when he was booked and we lost a last minute goal due to a referee not getting it right.

 

This time the referee did get it right and that's all. Hill didn't 'get away' with an illegitimate challenge he got away with a potentially incorrect refereeing decision and to be fair to refs some things can be hard to call.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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.

 

1) OK. Agreed, Boabie posted what Rogers told the press that Hill said.

2) I am not saying that's right at all; what I'm saying is that psychologically it's easier to give a penalty at 0-0 in the 30th minute say than at 1-1 in the last minute. Because earlier in the game it's not necessarily a game or result changing decision; whereas in the last minute almost certainly it is, or at least it gives one team a good chance of winning. Can you imagine the furore from Rangers fans if he HAD given it and Celtic scored to win the game. As I said, I think it was penalty and I think he bottled it.

3) I think you disagreed that Brown should have been sent off; or was that Pete?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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.

 

Almost all Rangers fans except me will say it was not a penalty and almost all Celtic fans will say it was a penalty.

 

It would be interesting to hear the opinions of non old firm fans.

Edited March 16, 2017 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

It is that uncertainty, even days after the event, that convinces me that Madden made the right call. If he isn't 100% convinced it is a penalty then he cant give it. The fact we continue to debate it suggests to me that he made the right call.

 

I don't think the fact that we are still debating it says anything about whether the decision was right or wrong; what it says is that it was a difficult decision.

[craig 5,199]

1) OK. Agreed, Boabie posted what Rogers told the press that Hill said.

2) I am not saying that's right at all; what I'm saying is that psychologically it's easier to give a penalty at 0-0 in the 30th minute say than at 1-1 in the last minute. Because earlier in the game it's not necessarily a game or result changing decision; whereas in the last minute almost certainly it is, or at least it gives one team a good chance of winning. Can you imagine the furore from Rangers fans if he HAD given it and Celtic scored to win the game. As I said, I think it was penalty and I think he bottled it.

3) I think you disagreed that Brown should have been sent off; or was that Pete?

 

1. Glad we agree on that now

2. I don't doubt what you are saying and I agree. What I am saying is that it is wrong. And it undoubtedly IS wrong. Whether an incident happens in the 1st minute or last shouldn't determine whether a penalty is given or not. Just the exact same as we regularly hear that "if that challenge had taken place in the middle of the pitch rather than in the box the ref would have given a free kick". It shouldn't matter where on the pitch or when in the game - the refs job is to make decisions, right or wrong - and NONE of those decisions should be determined by location on the pitch or the timing of the incident.

3. I did disagree on Brown - I still do. I am not nearly as convinced as you are that it was violent conduct.

[craig 5,199]

I don't think the fact that we are still debating it says anything about whether the decision was right or wrong; what it says is that it was a difficult decision.

 

Which ultimately means that there is uncertainty around whether it was a penalty or not. If there is uncertainty then the ref shouldn't give it. Ergo, I think it DOES speak to whether the decision was right or wrong.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Correct. It is not an admission of guilt for the reasons I gave. Against the scum at the scumhut - and for no other reason - the penalty would normally be given.

The referee in no way "bottled it". Quite simply, he couldn't see it. And as you should know fine well, you can't give a decision for something you didn't [couldn't possibly] see.

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here; but if you look at the video again, you will see that the referee is approx 20-25 yards away and has a clear line of sight to the incident. There is no player between him and the incident. So whatever the reason he didn't award a penalty it was not because he didn't see the incident.