[StoneColdSaysSo]

Jeez o some of the last pages on here have been hilarious. Please someone just call Thompson a liar!
I'm pretty sure he would have seen the goal again. He didn't see it a la Arsene Wenger not seeing any incidents.
To be fair it did look like it struck both Ledley and Wanyama's hands. It was ball to hand though so no penalty imo

[bhoy07]

Originally Posted by CELT1987

I wont say what is rumoured to have been put on the banner, but whoever decided to take it in to the match is a nasty piece of work.

If it's the one I seen from an iphone photo then there is some doubt as to whether it got into the ground.

[bhoy07]

Originally Posted by Mark.

No, but then I wouldn't suggest it was personal either.

Lennon has the right to air his opinions.

He will no doubt be able to elaborate on them in from of the beaks at Hampden in the next few weeks.

[ItHasPotential]

Originally Posted by CELT1987

I wont say what is rumoured to have been put on the banner, but whoever decided to take it in to the match is a nasty piece of work.

agreed, there's no need for it.

[bunk_medal]

Originally Posted by pedrok

Having watched it a few times it did hit his hand.

I don't think you get half penalties, it is either a penalty or it isn't. If the Ledley handball is a penalty, and his arm is not in the air, it is being pulled down to his side, then so is the Webster one.

As I said, both would have been harsh penalties.

Some infringements in the box are more obvious penalties than others. Sometimes you get a decision which is borderline and might get given 50% of the time and ignored the other 50%. That's what happens when human beings referee the games and they have to use their interpretation to make a decision.

On the Ledley incident it's a borderline decision. I can completely understand why the referee gave it even if I think it was a bit harsh. The Webster incident, on the other hand, would almost never be given as a penalty. We're comparing one 50-50 decision going against you with a non-incident and then trying to say that because Celtic ended up on the wrong side of it there's some sort of deep rooted inconsistency in officiating. Realistically, I don't think anybody is going to buy that as an argument.

[Caltonfan]

Originally Posted by bhoy07

He also feels it's becoming personal.

typical nonsense from Lennon

[pedrok]

Originally Posted by Mark.

No, but then I wouldn't suggest it was personal either.

And, again, have I used the word "liar" in my posts (other than to reference the word itself)?

I'll let other say if they see it as obvious. I'm not explaining it for one person.

Pretty pathetic, and cowardly, response to be honest.

If you are claiming Thompson did see it, and is lying, be man enough to say that. You have claimed it is 'funny' that he replied as he did, but you will not, or cannot, explain why it is funny.

As I say, pathetic and cowardly.

[ItHasPotential]

Tony Bhoy ‏ @Tonybhoy78
@OfficialNeil is it the refs fault that our players hide in big games? Their fault that you've blown 5/7 trophies in 2 years?

Neil Lennon ‏ @OfficialNeil
@Tonybhoy78 they don't hide in big games at all

[Mark.]

Originally Posted by pedrok

Pretty pathetic, and cowardly, response to be honest.

If you are claiming Thompson did see it, and is lying, be man enough to say that. You have claimed it is 'funny' that he replied as he did, but you will not, or cannot, explain why it is funny.

As I say, pathetic and cowardly.

If I wished to claim that Thompson had lied, I would have claimed that Thompson had lied. The fact you won't answer my question about my using (or lack thereof) "liar" speaks volumes.

Anyway, Neil Lennon now trying to claim that Hooper wasn't offside. He's also retweeted the following:

One of Heart's banners today. Somes them up completely. Disgusting lot. [picture link]

I've removed the link to the picture, because I'm not sharing it here. But my point is that it's a bit irresponsible for him to endorse this because:

1) There's no proof that it's real
2) Even if it is, it doesn't "sum them up completely"

And of course, if it is real, it's absolutely disgusting and the people responsible have no place in society.

[big bro geek]

I'm failing to see Lennon's problem here.

They equalised with an offside goal, it was a fifty fifty penalty decision which could have gone either way and the ball didn't even touch Websters hand

[bhoy07]

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...reenshot_1.jpg

Easy mistake to confuse the two, in a zoomed out image there is some doubt as to whether Euan Norris could even see through the Hearts player directly in front of him.

Referees should not be guessing what happened particually in high pressure games like a cup semi final.

A team of Scottish refs are off to the Euros this summer, if Craig Thomson gave that decision against say a Spain that put them out of the competition, you wouldn't see Thomson referee another tournament.

[bhoy07]

Originally Posted by big bro geek

I'm failing to see Lennon's problem here.

Erm... referee mistaking a Black Kenyan for a White Welshman might be a clue as to what the problem is.

[Mark.]

Originally Posted by bhoy07

Erm... referee mistaking a Black Kenyan for a White Welshman might be a clue as to what the problem is.

We've only got Lennon's word that's what the referee told the players.

And since he's trying to claim that Hooper was onside, I don't think it's unreasonable to wait for confirmation from other sources.

[ItHasPotential]

Originally Posted by bhoy07

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...reenshot_1.jpg

Easy mistake to confuse the two, in a zoomed out image there is some doubt as to whether Euan Norris could even see through the Hearts player directly in front of him.

Referees should not be guessing what happened particually in high pressure games like a cup semi final.

A team of Scottish refs are off to the Euros this summer, if Craig Thomson gave that decision against say a Spain that put them out of the competition, you wouldn't see Thomson referee another tournament.

linesman gave it, apperntly

[bhoy07]

Originally Posted by Mark.

We've only got Lennon's word that's what the referee told the players.

And since he's trying to claim that Hooper was onside, I don't think it's unreasonable to wait for confirmation from other sources.

We've also got Joe Ledley's word for it as well.

Hooper's planted foot was onside, his body shape make it look like he is off.


Next time we face a team with Ian Black in it - Ledley may need better shin pads.

https://p.twimg.com/AqiFhw9CIAAl8co.jpg

[getzls]

Lennon wants them bullets back off the police. He needs them to post to the Ref.

[Mark.]

Originally Posted by bhoy07

We've also got Joe Ledley's word for it as well.

Hooper's planted foot was onside, his body shape make it look like he is off.

He was offside.

https://twitter.com/#!/Togsyboy/stat...962112/photo/1

[bhoy07]

Originally Posted by Mark.

He was offside.

https://twitter.com/#!/Togsyboy/stat...962112/photo/1

As I say his planted foot on the ground is level with the defender. His body shape makes him look to be ahead.

[bhoy07]

Despite the reactions to Norris' decisions, nothing will beat the reaction to referee Kevin Blom this season.

[Mark.]

Originally Posted by bhoy07

As I say his planted foot on the ground is level with the defender. His body shape makes him look to be ahead.

It doesn't matter. You're offside if any part of your body with which you can legal play the ball is in an offside position.

At the very least, his right knee is offside.

[ItHasPotential]

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't alan hansen give us a big lecture on the offside call during a england game at the world cup, think it was either some ***** nose or his shoulder, can't recall which

[pedrok]

Originally Posted by Mark.

If I wished to claim that Thompson had lied, I would have claimed that Thompson had lied. The fact you won't answer my question about my using (or lack thereof) "liar" speaks volumes.

Anyway, Neil Lennon now trying to claim that Hooper wasn't offside. He's also retweeted the following:

One of Heart's banners today. Somes them up completely. Disgusting lot. [picture link]

I've removed the link to the picture, because I'm not sharing it here. But my point is that it's a bit irresponsible for him to endorse this because:

1) There's no proof that it's real
2) Even if it is, it doesn't "sum them up completely"

And of course, if it is real, it's absolutely disgusting and the people responsible have no place in society.

I never claimed you did use the word, in fact I did reply earlier when I answered that you never did, thus my question to you, which you wouldn't answer.

Where has Lennon claimed Hooper wasn't offside?

[crofter]

Originally Posted by bhoy07

As I say his planted foot on the ground is level with the defender. His body shape makes him look to be ahead.

Oh dear ...

body shape.

I am officially loving this thread at the moment.

[Mark.]

Originally Posted by pedrok

Where has Lennon claimed Hooper wasn't offside?

Twitter.

[pedrok]

Originally Posted by Mark.

Twitter.

I am hopless at this Twitter nonsense, but I use it and follow Lennon, but cannot see where he is claiming that it was not offside, perhaps you would provide a link.