Tony Wonder Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Shankland was in no way shape or form interfering with the goalies eyeline. He runs away from it before it's hit and the goalie is focused on Kingsley's actions. The booking for Shankland was also a joke. It's not a penalty, but he's not even claiming for it. Sometimes there is a coming together. We made enough clear chances to win, never mind draw, however if you defend like we did at the goals you simply don't deserve to win. If Forrest could attempt to lift his head now and again it'd be great. Anyway been in a pretty good place, no point moaning too much about a defeat. Hopefully have McKay, Nieuwenhof and Kent back after the international break. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyX Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 4 minutes ago, Tony Wonder said: Shankland was in no way shape or form interfering with the goalies eyeline. He runs away from it before it's hit and the goalie is focused on Kingsley's actions. Shankland clearly checks to see where Wickens is. He's trying to influence the game from an offside position. If he wasn't, what the hell is he doing there? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wonder Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 1 minute ago, AndyX said: Shankland clearly checks to see where Wickens is. He's trying to influence the game from an offside position. If he wasn't, what the hell is he doing there? It's the same as forwards trying to confuse the line at free kicks by going off and on. Its still not interference. The ball is coming from the left side of the goal, Shankland is on the right of the Goalie. It doesn't come across his path, it's a pathetic decision. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyX Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 1 minute ago, Tony Wonder said: It's the same as forwards trying to confuse the line at free kicks by going off and on. Its still not interference. The ball is coming from the left side of the goal, Shankland is on the right of the Goalie. It doesn't come across his path, it's a pathetic decision. Why is he checking where the keeper is if he isn't trying to influence the play? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wonder Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 12 minutes ago, AndyX said: Why is he checking where the keeper is if he isn't trying to influence the play? Probably to ensure he's not falling foul of the offside rule. Is he in his eyeline in relation to the position of the ball? No Does he impede his view? No, because its behind a wall. Does he move across his vision as it's struck? No. It's not interference. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyX Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 26 minutes ago, Tony Wonder said: Probably to ensure he's not falling foul of the offside rule. Is he in his eyeline in relation to the position of the ball? No Does he impede his view? No, because its behind a wall. Does he move across his vision as it's struck? No. It's not interference. Why is he there? If Kingsley can hit the free kicks we know he can, and you say Shankland being there makes no difference, then why the hell would you put Shankland there? He didn't end up in that position by accident - it was clearly a plan. And that clear intent makes it easy for the officials to say he was interfering with play. The 'behind a wall' defence is nonsense - he's in the way *after* the ball goes past the wall. We all know that's why he's there in the first place. Tried to get clever, got caught. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) Shankland's positioning and movement is clearly designed to distract the goalkeeper and he's definitely standing between him and the ball. The only question is really whether his actions prevented Wickens from being able to play the ball. I think it's touch and go, but the free-kick is definitely in a saveable part of the goal, and at the time the ball is struck Wickens is having to try to look round Shankland which probably does affect his reaction times. Therefore I can understand why that is ruled out. What is absolutely certain for me is that the rules should be rewritten to make it absolutely certain that incidents like this are offside. There is one reason and one reason only for Shankland to stand there, and that is to try to deceive the keeper. Edited March 17 by craigkillie 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 14 hours ago, woolf said: In keeping with Hibs and Celtic levels of paranoia,I’d like to know why Shankland was booked when it was a fkn clear penalty and why Kingsley goal was binned.Hearts won’t scream and howl though,we’ll leave that to hibs &celtic. Hearts were fkn shite,County weren’t much better but congrats and all the best in your fight with Aberdoon. 10 hours ago, kingjoey said: Here’s my take on it. Shankland was booked because it wasn’t “a fkn clear penalty” and the referee judged him to have dived. And the “Kingsley goal was binned” because Shankland was miles offside blocking the keeper’s view of the ball. Because of these two reasons, Hearts certainly won’t “scream and howl”. Unlike you. Naismith doesn't do complaining........but hes absolutely clear that thr goal should have stood. VAR 'cost us a point' - Naismith - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/68588892 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Jakey Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 4 minutes ago, Leith Green said: Naismith doesn't do complaining........but hes absolutely clear that thr goal should have stood. VAR 'cost us a point' - Naismith - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/68588892 That suggests it may have been Naismith's idea to put Shankland there, which makes him just as thick as Shankland. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 2 minutes ago, Pete the Jakey said: That suggests it may have been Naismith's idea to put Shankland there, which makes him just as thick as Shankland. As mentioned above, it's a wee bit of a grey area at the moment and if you are not influencing the free kick or the eyeline of the keeper it would stand. But if Shankland HAS been told to stand in the keepers way then it's a complete whopper from Hearts coaching team. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyzer0 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 9 hours ago, AndyX said: Shankland clearly checks to see where Wickens is. He's trying to influence the game from an offside position. If he wasn't, what the hell is he doing there? Yeah, I have to admit that I'd have wanted that ruled out at the other end, and for the exact same reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyzer0 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 15 hours ago, MarkPockets said: Penalty is also a player absolutely looking for it. Maybe harsh to be a yellow but definitely not a penalty Spot on - never a penalty (which Shankland doesn't claim for), and never a yellow either. I make that two very dubious yellows for Shankland in the past month - if there is no statement from the Hearts board by end of play today about biased refereeing, it will be a bloody disgrace and cause for sending season tickets back. Edited March 17 by lennyzer0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkPockets Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 2 minutes ago, lennyzer0 said: Spot on - never a penalty (which Shankland doesn't claim for), and never a yellow either. It's a problem that feels like it's getting worse and worse since VAR, but people seem to forget there is times that there is contact between defender and attacker that isn't a dive or a penalty. It's a contact sport after all. Feels like any incident in the box now has to be black or white. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 11 minutes ago, lennyzer0 said: Yeah, I have to admit that I'd have wanted that ruled out at the other end, and for the exact same reason. 6 minutes ago, lennyzer0 said: Spot on - never a penalty (which Shankland doesn't claim for), and never a yellow either. I make that two very dubious yellows for Shankland in the past month - if there is no statement for the Hearts board by end of play today about biased refereeing, it will be a bloody disgrace and cause for sending season tickets back. It’s a bit of a cliche, but if he’s not interfering with Wickens’ view, why’s he there? I don’t think there’s much argument at all. Interfering with play is such a meaningless phrase sometimes. I think it is a “simulation” by way of exaggeration, but he immediately regrets it. He doesn’t appeal for a penalty and I wonder what he’d have done had it been given. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 7 minutes ago, MarkPockets said: It's a problem that feels like it's getting worse and worse since VAR, but people seem to forget there is times that there is contact between defender and attacker that isn't a dive or a penalty. It's a contact sport after all. Feels like any incident in the box now has to be black or white. Here’s the thing, though. Does VAR overturn that if it’s given? I’m not convinced it does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itzel Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 14 hours ago, Steve Carrella said: Does Shankland actually train during the week? He looks remarkably out of shape. I thought that as well. He obviously is a great goal scorer. Yet if he was to train properly and take his fitness seriously there would be better teams than Rangers looking to sign him. Is he good enough for the English Premiership? No chance! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insert Amusing Pseudonym Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Looking back on it, I'm less annoyed by the free kick being disallowed than i was yesterday though i still think it should count. Shankland is in there trying to exploit the rules and i think he just about gets it right. Ultimately we had plenty chances and played ok but you deserve to lose if you sell such bad goals. If Sibbick just knocks it out for a corner we probably win the game. Break is coming at the right time for us, shoukd hopefully have a decent number of players back from injury for the Killie game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrie Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Just now, Itzel said: I thought that as well. He obviously is a great goal scorer. Yet if he was to train properly and take his fitness seriously there would be better teams than Rangers looking to sign him. Is he good enough for the English Premiership? No chance! You can maybe get away being a clinical goal scorer in Scotland who doesn't work as hard as he should but it's very unlikely you would in the English top flight unless you've got an elite level talent like Ronaldo or Haaland and while Shankland is good, he's not that good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountyFan Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Any Hearts fan who wouldn't be absolutely howling about that free kick if the shoe had been on the other foot is at it. It's the clearest example of the "offside-interfering-with-play" phenomenon I've ever seen and I'm baffled there are people trying to argue with a straight face that the goal should have stood. You've more of an argument with the penalty but I agree with Mark that contact doesn't automatically mean foul. It was never a booking though. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Staggie Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Having seen it several times now, no pen and no booking. Goal rightly disallowed, Shanklands movement just as the ball is about to be struck is clearly made to unbalance the keeper. After all that however cracking strike from Kingsley. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.