Yer Motherwell v Glorious Hearts

[kingjoey]

The first penalty claim that Naismith talks shite about, is certainly not a penalty. Boyce is half way down to the ground when he gets brushed on the chest by a boot. And more embarrassment by a player, with Boyce clutching his face after absolutely no facial contact. Disappointing that the guys on Sportscene didn’t have a real go at the cheating by Boyce.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

12 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

The first penalty claim that Naismith talks shite about, is certainly not a penalty. Boyce is half way down to the ground when he gets brushed on the chest by a boot. And more embarrassment by a player, with Boyce clutching his face after absolutely no facial contact. Disappointing that the guys on Sportscene didn’t have a real go at the cheating by Boyce.

f**k up man, that's a penalty every day.

[Tony Wonder]

14 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

The first penalty claim that Naismith talks shite about, is certainly not a penalty. Boyce is half way down to the ground when he gets brushed on the chest by a boot. And more embarrassment by a player, with Boyce clutching his face after absolutely no facial contact. Disappointing that the guys on Sportscene didn’t have a real go at the cheating by Boyce.

He gets hit on the chest because it's a high foot.  Even the Motherwell fans on here think they got away with it. It's a penalty every day of the week. 

If the foot is at chest height, and it makes contact, it's a foul anywhere on the park. It was clumsy as f**k.

[Tony Wonder]

Very aware that stills can be misleading, but that's clear contact, and clearly high even with Boyce being a bit lower.

[kingjoey]

1 minute ago, Tony Wonder said:

He gets hit on the chest because it's a high foot.  Even the Motherwell fans on here think they got away with it. It's a penalty every day of the week. 

If the foot is at chest height, and it makes contact, it's a foul anywhere on the park. It was clumsy as f**k.

He fell over about a second before the foot went anywhere near his chest. No penalty for me. Should have been booked for simulating a face injury.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

Part of the reason he goes to ground is he's trying no to take a full force boot in the ribs.

No a penalty, gies peace man

[Tony Wonder]

1 minute ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

Part of the reason he goes to ground is he's trying no to take a full force boot in the ribs.

No a penalty, gies peace man

He's also been pulled by Butcher as he turns.

[Jacky1990]

Boyce was on his way down trying to con his way to a penalty/free kick from the little pull from the other Motherwell defender.

It was stupid of the defender to have his foot that high, but not enough for a penalty imo.

[Tony Wonder]

Kicking a player in the chest at an unnatural height isn't enough for a penalty

Doesn't really matter anyway now, but as I said earlier if the Shankland one is deemed a foul there's literally no way that's not.

[ropy]

At the game I thought Boyce went down and got kicked in the face at a height of 18 inches.  It looked different on the telly.

I felt the ref had a good look at what happened and didn’t see anything via VAR to change his mind.

The second claim I thought was a foul for a push on a Motherwell player before the challenge, on TV the push looked soft.

 

[Tony Wonder]

Was quite concerned with facing Biereth but even though I knew Motherwell were toiling I was surprised at how little they got him involved. At home you expect at least a bit of pressure but it seemed to literally just be expecting him to chase aimless punts.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Tony Wonder

[ropy]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wonder said:

Kicking a player in the chest at an unnatural height isn't enough for a penalty

Doesn't really matter anyway now, but as I said earlier if the Shankland one is deemed a foul there's literally no way that's not.

Did Shankland not kick at face height?  Not sure if he contacted.

[Tony Wonder]

Just now, ropy said:

Did Shankland not kick at face height?  Not sure if he contacted.

It was a bit higher aye, but not mentally so. And no contact.

[fat_tony]

19 minutes ago, Tony Wonder said:

Was quite concerned with facing Biereth but even though I knew Motherwell were toiling I was surprised at how little they got him involved. At home you expect at least a bit of pressure but it seemed to literally just be expecting him to chase aimless punts.

Yeah we seem intent on shelling the ball either at his face or in behind and expecting him to chase it while followed by 3 defenders.

He's already shown what he's capable of with a little service yet we're determined to keep him living off scraps. Baffling.

I hadn't realised how rapid Kent is. There was a point in the second half where he and Biereth were in a race to a long ball and I was surprised to see Kent get there first.

[kingjoey]

28 minutes ago, Tony Wonder said:

Kicking a player in the chest at an unnatural height isn't enough for a penalty

Doesn't really matter anyway now, but as I said earlier if the Shankland one is deemed a foul there's literally no way that's not.

He didn’t get kicked in the chest. His chest was brushed by a boot, brushed. And you haven’t really commented on his cheating by feigning a face injury.

[lennyzer0]

A few unexpectedly wild claims that the Boyce one wasn't a penalty (admittedly almost all from folk who support neither Motherwell or Hearts), with the main In some cases, sole) supporting evidence seeming to be that Boyce held his face instead of the chest/shoulder he was actually kicked in.

I mean, there's no doubt Boyce made a bit of a c**t of himself holding his face - but no amount of whataboutery makes that not a penalty.

[Tony Wonder]

15 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

He didn’t get kicked in the chest. His chest was brushed by a boot, brushed. And you haven’t really commented on his cheating by feigning a face injury.

Brushed by a boot is still contact and the foot was high. Its a "kick" because he has swung a leg clumsily and hit him. Absolutely mental you're trying to claim that's not a foul tbh.

I don't particularly care about the face holding tbh, he was trying to exaggerate contact. It's a bit shite, but the key thing was there was contact and it was a high foot, that doesnt change because of Boyce.

[kingjoey]

38 minutes ago, Tony Wonder said:

Brushed by a boot is still contact and the foot was high. Its a "kick" because he has swung a leg clumsily and hit him. Absolutely mental you're trying to claim that's not a foul tbh.

I don't particularly care about the face holding tbh, he was trying to exaggerate contact. It's a bit shite, but the key thing was there was contact and it was a high foot, that doesnt change because of Boyce.

By what you’re saying in your first sentence, you feel that that contact=foul. I don’t agree. Not a penalty, as was proved by the referee having loads of looks at the incident again and not giving one.

[Tony Wonder]

3 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

By what you’re saying in your first sentence, you feel that that contact=foul. I don’t agree. Not a penalty, as was proved by the referee having loads of looks at the incident again and not giving one.

I'm not saying contact alone is a foul. But it's a high foot that's reckless and made contact. It's a foul anywhere else.

The ref not giving it isn't proof of it being the correct decision, it's proof he thinks it was right. Like refs don't get it wrong. Obviously Clancy in the booth disagreed or wouldn't have referred it.

Anyway,  let's agree to disagree.  It never defined the game and it's not going to change.

 

[kingjoey]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wonder said:

I'm not saying contact alone is a foul. But it's a high foot that's reckless and made contact. It's a foul anywhere else.

The ref not giving it isn't proof of it being the correct decision, it's proof he thinks it was right. Like refs don't get it wrong. Obviously Clancy in the booth disagreed or wouldn't have referred it.

Anyway,  let's agree to disagree.  It never defined the game and it's not going to change.

 

Let’s shake on it.