Jump to content

The Penalty Incident Today


thebiglemon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Got to say I thought it was a pen and would have been raging had we been

denied it at the other end.

Both players went shoulder to shoulder outside the box in a fair challenge.

Conrad then loses his balance whilst the St Mirren player continues his run and Conrad then falls onto the legs

of the the attacking player inside the box. Did Conrad mean to fall and bring down the player knowing he was clean through?

Only he knows; but regardless of intention or momentum (which isn't a defence) in my book that was

a pen

Anyway, best team on the day won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chic Young on Sportsound today compared it to the semi final incident, basically congratulating St Mirren for the fact that they weren't writing to the SFA about it. Doesn't matter how little respect I have for him, he still winds me up finds ways of making you have even less.

Edited by Mr Bunny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a pointless argument. I recorded it. No-one other than Teale claims it's a penalty. Not the commentator. Not the presenter. Not the pundits.

 

Hmm. Arguable. They certainly didn't say it wasn't one. And McDonald says it should have been a red card "as well". Pedantic semantic I suppose. It's still crap.

Edited by allyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Arguable. They certainly didn't say it wasn't one. And McDonald says it should have been a red card "as well". Pedantic semantic I suppose. It's still crap.

 

Absolutely baffling comment. They didn't say it wasn't raining either. Should we assume that they were implying it was raining?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched it back again. I'm genuinely surprised at reaction to what I've said. I'm not one for unfair criticism.

 

Agree that commentator said it was outside the box, fair enough.

 

But, Teale comes on and claims it was an obvious penalty and a red card. If the guys in the studio disagree with this then they should say so. It's not just "implied", they should address what Teale has said. And they do. They say he has a right to feel hard done by, that they don't understand why the referee hasn't seen it and that it's a red card "as well". They don't definitively say it should have been a penalty, but if they felt that it wasn't then surely it's their role to say that. And they don't.

 

Anyway, 3-0, I don't suppose I should care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gary teale should get his crayons out and write to sfa, spfl, police scotland, g4s, fifa, referees body, court of human rights, bbc, united nations, specsavers, uefa, the imperial senate and chick dung, and demand an explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Teale he is making his comments almost immediately after the game perhaps without the benefit of seeing the incident again on TV.

 

I thought it was a penalty at the time but the contact clearly comes outside the box and I actually think it is a tough call as to whether it is even a foul. The momentum of the contact takes Naismith into the box.

 

It's these kind of incidents that underline how difficult decisions can be for match officials. A couple of says down the line with the benefit surrounding the decision, ale it not no about whether it was a penalty or not, yet the referee has to make his call instantaneously.

Edited by Tom Hosie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that Tom, but it was beyond me why both pundits on Sportscene gave the impression it was a stonewaller after they have probably watched it several times. Always difficult to give an opinion when you are up the opposite end of the ground, but from the NS it looked a stonewaller to me as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Absolutely baffling comment. They didn't say it wasn't raining either. Should we assume that they were implying it was raining?

 

Gary Teale: It was definitely raining, no question. I got soaked out there.

Jonathan Sutherland: What do you think guys?

Scott McDonald: I can see where Gary's coming from. I certainly think he's got a decent case. How everyone can't see that astounds me.

 

If that coversation had happened I'd have got the impression that Scott McDonald was implying it was raining.

Edited by allyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm certain for every 100 Jags fans saying it was never a penalty, there are 100 St Mirren fans saying it was! The referee's opinion at the time is the only one that counts though. I'd love to hear what he thought of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm certain for every 100 Jags fans saying it was never a penalty, there are 100 St Mirren fans saying it was! The referee's opinion at the time is the only one that counts though. I'd love to hear what he thought of the situation.

 

Strangely not, over on Black n White Army there's less than a handful suggesting it was a penalty. The vast majority are telling them to stop being ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...