The Chris Jack pages on the inside of the Gherald. To the untrained eye ( mine ) it looks like his match report is just as long as the article about Jack Ross' analysis.
Saw Ross' interview on Sportscene last night. he commented that "if the penalty incident had happened in rhe Rangers box Hibs would be claiming for it, but that doesn't mean it was a penalty."
So if it happened in the Rangers box and he thinks Hibs would have claimed for it does that mean he would happily accept the (non) penalty, which he says was 50-50, if say Martin Boyle went down ?
I think we know the answer to that one. As other posters have mentioned Hibs seem to be encouraged by Ross' management to dive when in the box, or anywhere else on the park for that matter.
Then he admits that there was contact and now Porteous admits he clipped Kent, but it wan't enough for a penalty. FFS
I can understand Ross trying to defend his player but he should be on Fighting Talk on the BBC where one round of the quiz is titled "Defend the Indefensible".
From what I seen, John Beaton had a closer view than Ross, an unobstructed view at that, and applied the Laws of the Game correctly.
As an aside, talking about the Laws of the Game, , looking back to Sunday's game, if Sakala hadn't scored would the ref have awarded Rangers a "controversial" penalty for Holt grabbing his shirt, which would also have resulted in a red card for Holt.