Celtic manager Neil Lennon upset by cup final penalty denial

[juffery 0]

 

I don't subscribe to the view that is must be a penalty OR a dive. There are plenty of shades of grey in between which are obfuscated further by the burden of proof.

 

And there is the crux of the matter - the ref can only give a penalty if he sees the proof of a foul. He can't give it because he thinks that a player won't go down in a situation. That's speculation and you can guarantee that the first time a ref does that and admits to it against septic, lennon will be all over him. I've looked closely several times and can't see definitive contact and I'm trying to objective when looking, so how much more difficult must it be for the ref.

[Guest Dutchy]

And due to Liam Kelly's dads death, this rant from lemon is not being reported, whereas, on any other occasion, it would be headline news. A manager criticising a ref so publicly, and a few days after one resigns to boot???

[craig 5,199]

You could be right but for me there was more compelling evidence of contact on Aluko, I've yet to be convinced there was any on Stokes and I also think the latter convinced me more that he was being theatrical.

 

I've never really argued that Aluko should have had a penalty, but in my opinion there wasn't enough evidence to conclude that it was definitely a dive. To me it should have been play on. Perhaps it should have been for Stokes too.

 

I don't subscribe to the view that is must be a penalty OR a dive. There are plenty of shades of grey in between which are obfuscated further by the burden of proof.

 

But the powers that be determined Aluko dived, given the retro ban for simulation.

 

My point is not whether Aluko OR Stokes dived but that they need to be treated in the same manner - and given the SPL/SFA determined Aluko dived then Stokes too deserves a retrospective ban for simulation.

 

I agree with you that I didnt think Aluko dived - but that isnt what is in question - what is in question is whether or not the Stokes incident was different - and in my opinion it wasnt any different - so we should be seeing a retro ban for Stokes for simulation....

[ian1964 10,720]

FORMER Fifa referee Stuart Dougal today backed Willie Collum over the decision that Neil Lennon claimed cost Celtic the Treble.

 

The Hoops boss was incensed when Collum refused to award his side a penalty at the end of the Scottish Communities Cup Final at Hampden on Sunday.

 

But ex-official Dougal reckons the whistler was spot on to book Anthony Stokes for diving after the tackle by Michael Nelson of Kilmarnock.

 

He said: “It was excellent refereeing. It was a very good decision. The referee doesn’t just have to ascertain whether there has been contact, he has to work out if there has been illegal contact, enough contact to take the players’ legs away.

 

“The fact that Anthony Stokes takes another step with his right foot after the challenge suggests that was not the case.

 

“Was there contact on the back of his leg? Possibly. But I didn’t see enough contact to trip Stokes.

 

“He took another step after it. I would say he threw himself down to try and win a penalty.”

 

Dougal added: “The reaction of Victor Wanyama was interesting. He wasn’t too impressed with Stokes afterwards. He went up and nudged him as if to say: ‘Why didn’t you shoot?’

 

“If he thought it was a penalty he would have gone into the penalty to claim for it.

 

“The referee’s position was excellent and he showed great strength of character to call it. Giving the penalty would have been the easiest thing for him do. He is a very, very strong referee.

 

“I will be interested to see what the SFA think of Mr Lennon’s comments. It wasn’t the referee who stopped Celtic winning the Treble, it was Cammy Bell, or Joe Ledley and Gary Hooper who missed sitters.

 

“It is disrespectful to the referee to blame him. It also assumes that the penalty will actually be scored.”

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/former-referee-stuart-dougal-says-willie-collum-made-the-right-call-on-stokes-incident-1.1154075

[craig 5,199]

Good for Stuart Dougal calling it as he sees it.

[BlueMazza 0]

“I will be interested to see what the SFA think of Mr Lennon’s comments. It wasn’t the referee who stopped Celtic winning the Treble, it was Cammy Bell, or Joe Ledley and Gary Hooper who missed sitters.

 

“It is disrespectful to the referee to blame him. It also assumes that the penalty will actually be scored.”

 

Great comments there.

[Juancornetto 1]

I hope Stuart Dougal has a good glazier on standby!

[Gers4Life 0]

I hope Stuart Dougal has a good glazier on standby!

 

Yip he would more than likely need it after that statement

[Guest Dutchy]

Even if they were awarded a penalty, who's to say they would have scored. If they had scored, it would then only then be a draw and extra time, who's to say Killie woundn't have scored a second?

 

The authorities need to look into this type of behaviour from managers, and this one in particular.

 

It's such a good point, that's why I mentioned it in post 18.

 

I don't think like a ref though. Well I hope I don't.

[calscot 0]

But the powers that be determined Aluko dived, given the retro ban for simulation.

 

My point is not whether Aluko OR Stokes dived but that they need to be treated in the same manner - and given the SPL/SFA determined Aluko dived then Stokes too deserves a retrospective ban for simulation.

 

I agree with you that I didnt think Aluko dived - but that isnt what is in question - what is in question is whether or not the Stokes incident was different - and in my opinion it wasnt any different - so we should be seeing a retro ban for Stokes for simulation....

 

I agree with you but for a technicality. Stokes was booked and so was given a punishment at the time. Aluko wasn't booked but given a penalty instead which was scored. The two game ban was therefore at best, a petty and ill-conceived attempt at evening things up somewhat. That's not necessary for Stokes.