Write & Earn
Notifications

Debatable Decisions SPL – Week 12

Another week and more incorrect refereeing decisions in the SPL. And, between our five judges, yet more bitching about the lack of camera angles provided in the BBC coverage. Dundee v Hearts Dundee penalty shout Dave – I’m not convinced it was a foul, never mind a penalty. Zaliukas had the eyes on the ball [...]

Another week and more incorrect refereeing decisions in the SPL. And, between our five judges, yet more bitching about the lack of camera angles provided in the BBC coverage.

EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND – SEPTEMBER 02: Callum Paterson of Hearts takes on Davide Grassi of Dundee during the Clydesdale Bank Scottish Premier League match between Hearts and Dundee at Tyncastle Stadium on September 2, 2012 in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Dundee v Hearts

Dundee penalty shout

Dave – I’m not convinced it was a foul, never mind a penalty. Zaliukas had the eyes on the ball and I don’t think he even saw the player until he ran into him. Nothing wrong with that challenge.

Robert – It’s not even as if it’s a small margin is it? Zaliukas and Gary Irvine were both a good yard inside the box when the incident happened. The infringement was in the area and Dundee were deserving of a penalty. A wrong decision, but at least it didn’t cost them the game.

Gary – The ref has given the foul and for me when the contact is made, it’s made in the box and the player falls outside the area, so yes it should have been a penalty. – Incorrect decision.

Ryan – The referee got it all wrong. Zaliukas’ challenge and contact with the striker was well inside the box so it should have been a spot-kick. Admittedly, I’m not sure there was all that wrong with Zaliukas being strong in the challenge; but the referee gave it. He should have gave the penalty. Incorrect decision.

Simon – No doubt for me that this should have been a penalty. It’s only due to a superb free kick from Lockwood that this didn’t really cost the home side.

Overall verdict: Incorrect decision

Hibs v St Mirren

Goodwin first yellow card

Dave – A definite booking. I think he makes little contact, but the tackle was reckless and dangerous and deserved the booking for the intent alone. Goodwin has a nasty habit of seeing red mist and here was a prime example.

Robert – Looked worse than it was, Goodwin was hard and no doubt commited a foul, but on balance the referee was right only to issue the yellow.

Gary – Yes, 100% a yellow, I’d, if I could be bothered argue that it ‘may’ have been a red. – Correct decision.

Ryan – Oh yes, clear booking. Poor touch takes the ball away and he lunges in. Just as contact doesn’t always imply, the lack of contact can’t make up for a poor challenge. McGivern tries to get out the way, which he is allowed to do. Correct decision for me.

Simon – This is bordering on a straight red for me, but giving Goodwin the benefit of the doubt, I’ll say a yellow was correct.

Overall verdict: Correct decision

Goodwin second yellow card

Dave – Goodwin did nothing wrong here. The assistant has been fooled by Wotherspoon going down like a lass from Dundee when you buy her a bag of chips. Awful decision, and Wotherspoon wants to have a word with himself for that River City-esque performance.

Robert – It’s hard to tell from the angle, but, does Goodwin flick his elbow out at Wotherspoon? I think he does. The referee was spot on, Goodwin rightly booked again.

Gary – Yes, it’s a yellow card. – Correct decision.

Ryan – In real-time, his challenge on Wotherspoon looks pretty needless. The ball has moved on and all he is doing is causing trouble for himself. The Hibs players don’t help him at all. Wotherspoon’s flailing and the appeals right to the referee; though I think it’s the assistant referee that gets it. They had no option but to give it. Goodwin have been very, very silly. Correct decision.

Simon – For me there’s no suggestion that Goodwin has thrown an elbow or any such, but he has cynically blocked off Wotherspoon’s run as Hibs build a dangerous attack. Worthy of a booking for me.

Overall verdict: Correct decision

Griffiths goal disallowed for offside

Dave – I have absolutely no idea. The camera angles are completely inconclusive for me and Griffiths didn’t seem to disagree with the decision. Have to assume the right call was made here.

Robert – Another one that is really hard to spot. The lack of protest, confidence of the ref and inability to judge on my part means I’ll side with the officials and say the decision was a correct one.

Gary – Tried to look about 20 times, impossible to see from the angle on the BBC website. I’d have to trust the 4th official. – Correct decision.

Ryan – I think he is. The angle isn’t the best from the camera as it’s focused in on Ryan McGivern, the left-back and no-one expects defence-splitting passes to be played from so deep; but I think Griffiths is offside. Just. I’m judging this purely on his pace and I just don’t think he has enough to have built up the lead he had without a little help. I’m reaching a little with my judgement but, correct decision.

Simon – Can someone organise a whip round so we can get some more cameras at SPL games? Impossible to tell from the angle, Griffiths isn’t in shot when the ball is played, so I have to side with the officials.

Overall verdict: Correct decision

Kilmarnock v Inverness CT

Kilmarnock penalty shout

Dave – Yet again Rory MacKenzie has fell on his arse and claimed for a penalty when there was no contact. I actually believe that was a clear dive and he should have been booked. He’s starting to develop a bad reputation. Correct call.

Robert – I’m actually not sure what happened…..If anything McKenzie maybe slightly impeded by his marker but I can’t see anything worth giving a penalty for. Correct decision.

Gary – Nope to me it just looks like he slips. – Correct decision.

Ryan – Oh dear, oh dear. What is McKenzie thinking about? Racing through towards goal, having shrugged off his marker and he goes down far too easily. Never a penalty for me. I hope Kenny Shiels has a word with him for messing up such a prime attacking situation so spectacularly. Spot on decision.

Simon – As Dave said, McKenzie is beginning to build himself a reputation for this. A promising attacking situation thrown away by his determination to win a penalty, even if it means diving. If I were Kenny Shiels I’d have found some fun and inventive punishments for him.

Overall verdict: Correct decision

Inverness penalty #1

Dave – If this was ice hockey, the defender would have got two minutes for roughing. Clear body-check, clear penalty.

Robert – Clumsy defending. Nothing malicious or dnagerous, just good old clumsy defending. Euan Norris got the call right.

Gary – Yes, he’s nudged him whilst he’s running into the box. – Correct decision.

Ryan – Oh yes. Clear penalty. McKenzie should have done what Shinnie did. Keep running and the defence will panic; which they did. Correct decision.

Simon – Without a shadow of a doubt a penalty.

Overall verdict: Correct decision

Inverness penalty #2/Cammy Bell red card

Dave – Ooooft. Draper dives over Bell without the goalie making contact, and the red card has been rightly rescinded. First thought was it wasn’t a foul, and the more I watch it, the more convinced I am the referee made a bad call here.

Robert – The penalty, firstly, another well made decision from the referee. I don’t think this one is all too debatable. The red card however, well that was all wrong. Draper was already heading towards the corner flag when Bell caught him. referees are all to quick to wave a red when the ‘keeper makes a foul. Norris has already been proven wrong as Cammy Bell’s appeal against his red card was won and the red rescinded. Sadly for Kilmarnock, the Scotland ‘keeper was dismissed and never got the chance to face the penalty. Norris getting it all wrong – potentially at Killie’s expense.

Gary – Nope, not having that. Watched it a couple of times and he’s not touched the striker. – Incorrect decision on both accounts.

Ryan – Draper is clean through and if he keeps running, Cammy Bell will take his ankles away so he is right to take the evasive action that he does. Admittedly, I’m not entirely sure how “evasive” he wants to be as he does try to keep his feet as close to the goalkeeper as possible. But that is more of a gripe with modern football than anything else. Do I think Draper would have scored given how heavy his touch into the corner of the box was? No. Is it a penalty? Yeah. Red card? Unfortunately, so. Correct decision from the referee.

Simon – Another example of contact not being necessary for a foul. If a player has to take evasive action to avoid being clattered, it’s still a foul, so I think the penalty was the right decision. However, given how far wide of goal Draper has pushed the ball, I don’t believe it constitutes a clear goalscoring opportunity, so I would have said that a yellow card would have been the right decision.

Overall verdict: Penalty – Correct decision. Red Card – Incorrect decision.

Glasgow, SCOTLAND – APRIL 16: Steven Hammell of Motherwell competes with Danny Invincibile (L) of St Johnstone during the Scottish Cup semi-final between Motherwell and St Johnstone at Hampden Park on April 16, 2011 in Glasgow, Scotland.

St Johnstone v Motherwell

St Johnstone penalty claim

Dave – Hateley pushes Craig slightly, and makes enough contact for Liam to warrant going down. I would have gave the penalty here.

Robert – I’ve seen these given – but I really wish I hadn’t. Stand up and play the game. Not a foul, not a penalty. Well done referee – correct decision.

Gary – Nope, he’s felt may a brush of a hand on his back and went down like a ton of bricks. – Correct decision.

Ryan – I struggled to see the penalty claim in this the first time around. The St Johnstone player goes far too easily; though I suspect that’s because he saw the ball flying way over his head and didn’t realise his pal was behind him. The Motherwell defender is silly to stick his hands up as he does but it’d have been very harsh to give it. Referee got it right.

Simon – Very similar to the Ross County penalty against Hearts the other week, and I wouldn’t have given it in that situation here. The tiniest brush of contact does not give an attacker the excuse to go down, and the referee got this one right.

Overall verdict: Correct decision

Fetching more content...