Sportscene

[Roy Hobbs 2,165]

51 minutes ago, LegendofCoop said:

VAR will be used to question EVERY goal we score. 

We had better get used to that.

Fact  

It gets used to question every goal. 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

There was a game in England not long ago, cant remember which one but an opposition player hit it off an attacking teams player and it went to his team mate who was offside but the goal stood. Matondo won the ball off an opponents touch and hence it was in the same bracket as it resulted in an unintended pass to a Rangers player. I honestly think this could be argued as an onside goal. 

Whats a certainty is that if the scum had scored it this argument would be unequivocally correct by the sportscene pundits.

[rabc10000 5,061]

2 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

There was a game in England not long ago, cant remember which one but an opposition player hit it off an attacking teams player and it went to his team mate who was offside but the goal stood. Matondo won the ball off an opponents touch and hence it was in the same bracket as it resulted in an unintended pass to a Rangers player. I honestly think this could be argued as an onside goal. 

Whats a certainty is that if the scum had scored it this argument would be unequivocally correct by the sportscene pundits.

Not read last few pages properly, but are we arguing that colak goal shouldn't have stood?? If so u have no faith in our fanbase whatsoever

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

1 minute ago, rabc10000 said:

Not read last few pages properly, but are we arguing that colak goal shouldn't have stood?? If so u have no faith in our fanbase whatsoever

I'm actually trying to argue the opposite. The goal should of stood as Matondo didn't make a direct pass to Colak.

[LegendofCoop 17,273]

10 minutes ago, Roy Hobbs said:

It gets used to question every goal. 

But they don't stop play every goal. They don't announce VAR check after EVERY goal. That's my point. 

Stop dissecting my joke...... 

[ianferguson 2,619]

10 hours ago, Leftpegcoopz11 said:

It's a difficult one, Colak came back from an offside position when the ball was played, which usually means offside.

Maybe there is a rule change I'm missing, but like I said before, I think Colak had a perfectly "online" header disallowed in a previous game, so it evens itself out. 

Edit: when Matondo slid in the ball went straight across or "slightly" back so that could maybe be a factor why he wasn't off, as it wasn't a forward pass. 

That's the point m8, the direction of the pass is irrelevant,  if you receive the ball from a team mate and you're in an offside position then you are offside, colak goal should not have stood.

[.Williamson. 82,172]

5 minutes ago, rabc10000 said:

Not read last few pages properly, but are we arguing that colak goal shouldn't have stood?? If so u have no faith in our fanbase whatsoever

I have no faith in fans that pretend they aren’t Rangers supporters, especially ones that post photoshopped pictures of minors being shagged 

[Rangers_no1 32,461]

Can we please end this deliberate or direct pass nonsense, it's completely irrelevant.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.co.uk/football/uefa-champions-league/story/4677421/why-karim-benzemas-goal-was-offside-for-real-madrid-in-the-champions-league-final%3fplatform=amp

[rabc10000 5,061]

1 minute ago, .Williamson. said:

I have no faith in fans that pretend they aren’t Rangers supporters, especially ones that post photoshopped pictures of minors being shagged 

😂😂😂 Fuck off and try get some original banter instead of jumping on other folks posts you tit

[.Williamson. 82,172]

Just now, rabc10000 said:

😂😂😂 Fuck off and try get some original banter instead of jumping on other folks posts you tit

It’s not banter it’s all factual. You should be banned already, you’re a fucking weirdo 

[rabc10000 5,061]

Just now, .Williamson. said:

It’s not banter it’s all factual. You should be banned already, you’re a fucking weirdo 

Well, I had my warning and my time out, apologised as well numerous times. 

However funny it wasn't a problem for u until another poster decided to come the cunt the other night pretending to be admin from the forum. 

[.Williamson. 82,172]

5 minutes ago, rabc10000 said:

Well, I had my warning and my time out, apologised as well numerous times. 

However funny it wasn't a problem for u until another poster decided to come the cunt the other night pretending to be admin from the forum. 

Doesn’t matter if you apologised you should be banned. 

[rabc10000 5,061]

1 minute ago, .Williamson. said:

Doesn’t matter if you apologised you should be banned. 

Well u do know their is a report function, use it and go for the ban. I'm sure their is a couple of your friends would join in as well

[RFC55 108,839]

26 minutes ago, rabc10000 said:

Well, I had my warning and my time out, apologised as well numerous times. 

However funny it wasn't a problem for u until another poster decided to come the cunt the other night pretending to be admin from the forum. 

Who was that

[rabc10000 5,061]

1 minute ago, RFC55 said:

Who was that

Does it even matter as I have no idea. Guess I could always post the WhatsApp messages 

 

[Rangers_no1 32,461]

2 minutes ago, RFC55 said:

Who was that

@born a blue nose

[RFC55 108,839]

Just now, rabc10000 said:

Does it even matter as I have no idea. Guess I could always post the WhatsApp messages 

 

Admin whatsapped you? 

[Big Al 55 9,248]

People thinking that refs and linesmen have the intelligence to interpret Mattondo’s pass as unintentional 👍😂

Its far more likely they’re so incompetent they didn’t even see the offside.

[born a blue nose 90,759]

Just now, Rangers_no1 said:

@born a blue nose

No me 😂

[Rangers_no1 32,461]

Just now, born a blue nose said:

No me 😂

I have no idea what hes on about... 

🤣

[LochendBilly 8,413]

Every fucking thread man 

[Negri's lovechild 13,988]

20 minutes ago, Big Al 55 said:

People thinking that refs and linesmen have the intelligence to interpret Mattondo’s pass as unintentional 👍😂

Its far more likely they’re so incompetent they didn’t even see the offside.

That's exactly what i think has happened. Linesman has had difficulty deciding and just gone with him being onside. 

It's bizarre how many people want to argue the toss. We got a goal chopped off against Livi that should have stood, and this one was offside imo. It's football.

[rabc10000 5,061]

5 minutes ago, LochendBilly said:

Every fucking thread man 

Think u need to have a look at other posters rather than myself nowadays. 

[.Williamson. 82,172]

48 minutes ago, LochendBilly said:

Every fucking thread man 

Not a bit of wonder mate, he shouldn’t be here 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715]

7 hours ago, Howsitgoing said:

That's maybe what I'm trying to get to. If Matondo did make an intended pass to Colak he is offside. I see it more as a tackle and as such Colak only came into play when he actually touched the ball. It could be argued that the touch by Matondo falls into the non deliberate category as it comes off the opponent and onto him where he didn't have full control of the ball.

No mate. It was a touch from Matondo that was then touched by a player who had at the point of Matondos touch been in an offside position.

If Colak hadn't gained benefit then he could have remained in an offside position without it being a foul. As soon as he played the ball, gaining advantage, he should have been called offside.

Whether Matondo meant it or not is irrelevant. He touched it, colak was offside and then played the ball. Its offside.