535 replies to this topic

[dipped flake]

Aye that clip says it all. Two Hearts players immediately throw their arms up to appeal for a penalty when Wanyama handles the ball, but there's nothing in relation to Ledley at all.

Also, if you watch the incident again, the referee points to Wanyama after giving the penalty. So to sum up, the referee got both penalties correct, the linesman got the goal wrong. so the correct score should be celtic 0 Hearts 2.
The only thing that the referee apears to have got wrong is that Black should have probably got a second yellow for the hand ball

[ek_celt]

Also, if you watch the incident again, the referee points to Wanyama after giving the penalty. So to sum up, the referee got both penalties correct, the linesman got the goal wrong. so the correct score should be celtic 0 Hearts 2.
The only thing that the referee apears to have got wrong is that Black should have probably got a second yellow for the hand ball

It wasn't a penalty, it may have hit Wanyama but it wasn't a deliberate act.

I agree about our goal and Ian Black though.

[Bzzzz]

If Celtic didn't get that decision we'd never hear the blinkin end of it. It was a penalty, it should have been a penalty and all the greetin in the world won't change it now. Any Celtic fan here going to tell me they wouldn't expect to get that decision?! flip, they are still greetin about a decision they didn't get when a ball clearly hit Websters hip!!!

[GrantP]

Also, if you watch the incident again, the referee points to Wanyama after giving the penalty. So to sum up, the referee got both penalties correct, the linesman got the goal wrong. so the correct score should be celtic 0 Hearts 2.

Yet as I feared/ thought - no mention of that clip in the press. They still commentated on the Ledley angle. Or had quotes from Kenny Clark and Beattie.

Really don't see how you can say the second handling wasn't a pen. As a neutral it's a stonewaller and the red got it right.

[ek_celt]

Because it wasn't deliberate.

[hannibal smith]

oopps

Edited by hannibal smith, 18 April 2012 - 07:02 AM.

[hannibal smith]

[dipped flake]

Because it wasn't deliberate.

I believe one of the deciding things is; is it ball to hand or hand to ball. In the Wanyama incident, he moved his hand to the ball so penalty.

[wembley67lisbon]

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=thy9tdqGIgI

[Pool Q]

Ball to hand, deliberate, etc., etc. The reality is that in practice it's a judgement call, some would be given, some wouldn't. How you react to the decision the ref made will largely depend on who you support, but I suspect that most neutrals would view it as at least 60/40 in favour of a penalty, I may be wrong in that. But the real point is that, right or wrong, it was not the sort of terrible call by the ref that justifies the hysterical overreaction that there was on Sunday and it in no way shape or form justifies Lennon behaving like a bawbag.

[GrantP]

Ball to hand, deliberate, etc., etc. The reality is that in practice it's a judgement call, some would be given, some wouldn't. How you react to the decision the ref made will largely depend on who you support, but I suspect that most neutrals would view it as at least 60/40 in favour of a penalty, I may be wrong in that. But the real point is that, right or wrong, it was not the sort of terrible call by the ref that justifies the hysterical overreaction that there was on Sunday and it in no way shape or form justifies Lennon behaving like a bawbag.

Absolutely.

The point has been made before but do people really think the ref would have been aplauded if the incident had been at the other end and he'd NOT given a spot kick?