Aluko Incident

[deleteduser1 169]

Aluko got clipped in the box but kept his feet only to shoot wide.

I thought it was a stonewaller but does anyone else think this was a penalty and if so did Aluko do the right thing by staying on his feet?

Reckon it crossed his mind to go over but he was possibly nervous at the idea of going down with such little contact after his recent 2 match ban.

Personally , I can understand why he didn't go over but I felt at the time he should have gone down. Your thoughts guys.

[Bad Robot 21,513]

he was clipped and due to the recent stuff he decided to stay on his feet which was the wrong decision for me, having said that the ref should have giving the penalty for the contact, i just cant understand why he never started. baffling and a very very poor decision ny ally

[King Jela 20,714]

I'm happy he stayed on his feet.

[rossDas 1,071]

It was my fear that this sort of thing would happen; haven't seen the game however, so I'll reserve judgment.

[Jocky Broon 207]

Probably the only thought on his mind was to keep his feet and get a shot off.I dont think Aluko is a diver and I doubt he had sufficient time to even think about the Dunfermline incident.

[jafrfc 614]

I thought it was a penalty and he should of gone down. But I understand why he didn't considering all that's gone on.

[RangersMedia 35,961]

I didn't think it was a penalty, glad he stayed on his feet and almost scored.

[kirkiebear 1,013]

If he went down there was no chance he would of got it. Not after whats happened and the way the referee was handling the game. Sad but true.

[deleteduser1 169]

I didn't think it was a penalty, glad he stayed on his feet and almost scored.

It would have been a big moment for us if it had been given and I reckon the ref should have given it regardless. Poor decision by the ref in my opinion.

Would really like the chance to have another look at the incident. Does anyone have a clip they can upload?

[deleteduser1 169]

If he went down there was no chance he would of got it. Not after whats happened and the way the referee was handling the game. Sad but true.

You could well be right and would probably have picked up a yellow card for diving - which would have been the wrong decision IMO.

Does this mean he is a marked man and can't go over in the box when genuine contact is made in future games?

What if he gets clipped in the OF game this Wednesday?

If he gets clipped like he did today I hope to fuck he goes down.

[Gaz52 11,837]

The guy will be scared to go down again due to the fucking joke of an organisation, full of beggars and anti-Rangers filth

[Papa Sasac 164]

Thought it would have been very soft if he did go down.

[OneDavidCooper 2,505]

It should definitely have been a penalty.

Makes a mockery of his 2 game ban in my view. Why be honest if it gets no reward? Next time he feels the slightest touch he should go down.

[Jimbo. 952]

Shows exactly why players go down with minimal contact.

That was a penalty, and because he tried to stay on his feet it wasn't given.

I wonder if the ref'll be given a two match ban for incompetence?

[Sicknote 26]

He stayed on his feet. If he went down, it would have been seen as a dive.

[terrybutcher 23]

Who cares he stayed on his feet shot at goal no penalty move on!

[Jimbo. 952]

He stayed on his feet. If he went down, it would have been seen as a dive.

If he went down it should've been seen as a foul and a penalty.

[OneDavidCooper 2,505]

He stayed on his feet. If he went down, it would have been seen as a dive.

Doesn't matter. If there is contact then the worst you can be accused of is embellishment. Its certainly not cheating.

Stevie Me (Gerrard) was once awarded a penalty for Skiverpool v Sheff United because the defender tried (and failed) to bring him down but still put him off. In that context, Aluko's should have been nailed on.

[deleteduser1 169]

Who cares he stayed on his feet shot at goal no penalty move on!

I for one certainly care when my teams players don't get justice in any given situation and the decision was not only debatable but worthy of discussion , especially in light of Alukos ban for going down in a similar incident only recently.

If you don't care then fair enough but why did you bother posting if you care so little?

[TheLawMan 6,240]

It was a penalty. He stayed on his feet because of his ban.

[norgerpd 280]

It was my fear that this sort of thing would happen; haven't seen the game however, so I'll reserve judgment.

What...You FEAR that players might try to stay on their feet instead of cheating?

Yeah,that will ruin the game ffs

[TheLawMan 6,240]

What...You FEAR that players might try to stay on their feet instead of cheating?

Yeah,that will ruin the game ffs

I would say he fears players trying to stay on their feet when its a clear penalty and advantage to the defense due to the fear of being retrospectively punished.

[norgerpd 280]

I would say he fears players trying to stay on their feet when its a clear penalty and advantage to the defense due to the fear of being retrospectively punished.

Wasnt a penalty.

I would much rather see players stay on their feet and attempt to score legitimately

I think this fast-track punishment system is a breath of fresh air(as long as it continues to be applied consistently)

[rossDas 1,071]

I would say he fears players trying to stay on their feet when its a clear penalty and advantage to the defense due to the fear of being retrospectively punished.

Spot on. Being cynically tugged back by a player who isn't even going for the ball is the sort of incident I have in mind, so long as the foul is definitely worth a penalty of course - anything else is just plain cheating.

[devref 201]

contact was made although it was minimal advantage played as he stayed up on his feet.however as no advantage was gained the ref should have then awarded the penalty exactly as they award free kicks in any other area of the field.granted it takes a wee bit more balls to award the penalty but hey thats what refs get paid for making the big calls.