mikedafc Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Im pretty sure our goal cameras would be up the other end. Dunfermline obviously had some at that end but didnt include footage of that incident in the highlights We have go Pro cameras behind the goals which will go on Facebook page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
die hard doonhamer Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Im pretty sure our goal cameras would be up the other end. Dunfermline obviously had some at that end but didnt include footage of that incident in the highlights I thought we usually had them at both ends, there was certainly clips from behind both goals on the Dundee United game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 2 minutes ago, die hard doonhamer said: I thought we usually had them at both ends, there was certainly clips from behind both goals on the Dundee United game. So they did. I thought they were swapping them round at half time, maybe they were just checking them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoBNob Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Moffat did hit the ball? It could have been a better ball.So every poster on here has said he was wiped out two footed? QoTS got lucky, we'll hopefully get lucky at times through the season, it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 59 minutes ago, Grant228 said: Moffat did hit the ball? It could have been a better ball. So every poster on here has said he was wiped out two footed?QoTS got lucky, we'll hopefully get lucky at times through the season, it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoBNob Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 The referee missing a stonewaller isn't lucky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socks Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Still looks a pretty clear penalty to me on a second watch. I think it's a foul primarily due to catching the man first, but even though I'd agree that the tackle wasn't two-footed, he clearly dives in with both feet off the ground and is therefore out of control of the tackle. When you do that, winning the ball or not is irrelevant, and it would generally be considered at least as recklessly dangerous play and a booking. To be fair to the referee, there was a lot going on and I can just about understand why he didn't feel certain enough to give it, but it was definitely the wrong decision. I agree with Grant on Moffat's chance and it was what I thought at the time - with where the ball was played, he definitely has to check and shoot from a slightly awkward position. It wasn't an awful ball in, but I don't think it was a horrendous miss either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 It's a decent penalty shout, but that really is all it is. From the stuff on here, I was expecting something far more clear cut. Robinson should deal with the initial shot better and thereafter it's a ball up for grabs. The touch on it sends it goalwards, but not firmly enough to prevent Hamill from rescuing the situation. If it makes you Fife chaps feel better by clinging to notions of a gross injustice though, do please go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fae_the_'briggs Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 I thought I had been watching the game quite closely yesterday so am quite surprised at the claims that Dunfermline were denied a "stonewall penalty" as I honestly can't recall any great claims by the Pars players for a penalty, but obviously I was watching from the far end of the park. If the photograph posted earlier is evidence of a stonewall penalty, and it is not the best angle and not very close up, it looks to me that the Queens' players left foot is on the ground so not a two footed challenge, he is beside the attacking player and not coming in from behind and the attacking player's left leg is behind the Queens player's right leg which suggests that the Queens player got his touch on the ball first. As I said that inconclusive photo is the only one I have seen regarding the "penalty" and my views are judged on that but if any clearer evidence proves that it was a "stonewall" penalty I will be happy to apologise (whilst still celebrating the 3 points won) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 12 minutes ago, Socks said: Still looks a pretty clear penalty to me on a second watch. I think it's a foul primarily due to catching the man first, but even though I'd agree that the tackle wasn't two-footed, he clearly dives in with both feet off the ground and is therefore out of control of the tackle. When you do that, winning the ball or not is irrelevant, and it would generally be considered at least as recklessly dangerous play and a booking. To be fair to the referee, there was a lot going on and I can just about understand why he didn't feel certain enough to give it, but it was definitely the wrong decision. I agree with Grant on Moffat's chance and it was what I thought at the time - with where the ball was played, he definitely has to check and shoot from a slightly awkward position. It wasn't an awful ball in, but I don't think it was a horrendous miss either. You want a penalty because his trailing leg is off the ground for a fraction of a second? "Recklessly dangerous play"? 12 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: It's a decent penalty shout, but that really is all it is. From the stuff on here, I was expecting something far more clear cut. Robinson should deal with the initial shot better and thereafter it's a ball up for grabs. The touch on it sends it goalwards, but not firmly enough to prevent Hamill from rescuing the situation. If it makes you Fife chaps feel better by clinging to notions of a gross injustice though, do please go ahead. You dont really see it on the video but the shot took a huge swerve in the air. If you watch Robinson hes going one way then checks back. You could still argue he could have done better but its not as straightforward as it looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syd Puddefoot Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 It was a stonewall penalty but the Falkirk supporting ref done his job. Good FFC tattoo he has as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke of Argyll Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Nice analysis. But Pars clutching at straws after another defeat. Could be one of best defensive tackles by Tapping and clearance from Hamill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 QOTS got a few lucky decisions like the soft award for the free kick they scored from. The ball was away. Two decent penalty shouts. That said our performance was terrible and error strewn. We deserved to get beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socks Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 10 minutes ago, Mr X said: You want a penalty because his trailing leg is off the ground for a fraction of a second? "Recklessly dangerous play"? Yes (and because it was a foul anyway because I don't think he played the ball) and yes. A fraction of a second can be relatively long, depending how big a fraction it is! The cautionable offence is listed as 'recklessly dangerous play', under unsporting behaviour - it covers a variety of situations. If the referee had given a foul and booked him for it, that's what would have gone on the report sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
die hard doonhamer Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Yes (and because it was a foul anyway because I don't think he played the ball) and yes. A fraction of a second can be relatively long, depending how big a fraction it is! The cautionable offence is listed as 'recklessly dangerous play', under unsporting behaviour - it covers a variety of situations. If the referee had given a foul and booked him for it, that's what would have gone on the report sheet. No it wouldn't, it would have gone down as denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity in the penalty area while making a genuine attempt to play the ball. It was not a reckless challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 25 minutes ago, Socks said: Yes (and because it was a foul anyway because I don't think he played the ball) and yes. A fraction of a second can be relatively long, depending how big a fraction it is! The cautionable offence is listed as 'recklessly dangerous play', under unsporting behaviour - it covers a variety of situations. If the referee had given a foul and booked him for it, that's what would have gone on the report sheet. I was questioning the fact that you thought it was reckless, not the term. It clearly wasnt reckless or even close to being 2 footed ETA - DHD beat me to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 32 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said: QOTS got a few lucky decisions like the soft award for the free kick they scored from. The ball was away. Two decent penalty shouts. That said our performance was terrible and error strewn. We deserved to get beat. Oh, its two penalty shouts now? Better get onto the SPFL and make sure we get deducted 3 points not just the 2 Grant wanted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke of Argyll Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 The post match analysis is usually a bit more skewed from the losing team. You lost. We were better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poet of the Macabre Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 I think the folk who were at the game are going to see it more like they remembered at the time. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been a penalty but it certainly doesn't look like a "stonewaller" from the footage provided. As for the crowd all appealing meaning it was a foul...I remember a game with Aberdeen when all the fans were shouting "Pass back!" every time a defender played the ball back with his shin. The fans are not always right. Anyway, this ignores the most important point; we didn't play well and apparently deserved to lose. Let's stop clutching at straws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socks Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 16 minutes ago, die hard doonhamer said: No it wouldn't, it would have gone down as denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity in the penalty area while making a genuine attempt to play the ball. It was not a reckless challenge. You're probably right about how the offence would be reported actually - my analysis didn't take into account that it prevented a clear goalscoring chance. The point stands though - regardless of where on the park it occurred, and regardless of whether he wins the ball or not, a tackle that makes contact with the opponent at that height and which is made with the player jumping in with both feet off the ground is generally deemed a foul, and usually at least a booking for recklessly dangerous play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.