The disallowed goal

[Lord Lockin 3,941]

Why on earth are we still clinging to this disallowed goal, does it really matter, the bottom line is we're red rotten and have been all season and to be honest can't see things improving.

[RDB14 2,809]

Just now, Jimbeamjunior said:

So he's impeding the tarrier from playing the ball, having not touched the ball and never in control of the ball, id say that's a foul

 

Their player clearly wasn't in control of the ball anymore given he had to kick our player to try and regain control of it.

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,715]

Just now, Lord Lockin said:

Why on earth are we still clinging to this disallowed goal, does it really matter, the bottom line is we're red rotten and have been all season and to be honest can't see things improving.

Just about covers it.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,982]

1 minute ago, RDB14 said:

Agree.  And in this scenario our player had clearly nicked in front of him before being kicked.  If our player had gone down then he 100% gets the free kick here.  He shouldn't be penalised for staying on his feet.

The st mirren boy went down when it happened with sands, he didn't get the foul 

[kelvd1873 7,398]

1 minute ago, Lord Lockin said:

Why on earth are we still clinging to this disallowed goal, does it really matter, the bottom line is we're red rotten and have been all season and to be honest can't see things improving.

No one is debating we were rotten mate but I’m still to see celtic on the end of a potential game changing decision that has went against them recently. We’ve had 2 in 3 games. 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,982]

1 minute ago, RDB14 said:

Their player clearly wasn't in control of the ball anymore given he had to kick our player to try and regain control of it.

He clearly was given it was a foot away from him and he was attempting to pass the ball ffs

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Just now, kelvd1873 said:

No one is debating we were rotten mate but I’m still to see celtic on the end of a potential game changing decision that has went against them recently. We’ve had 2 in 3 games. 

There were numerous calls with Goldson handball where the VAR check went in our favour.

Some of them were contentious as well, but by the modern rules, we were correctly saved.

[Helicopter Sundae 6,197]

All I can add is this. If that is a foul and the challenge on Cantwell in the box is not, then fuck me.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,982]

Just now, kelvd1873 said:

No one is debating we were rotten mate but I’m still to see celtic on the end of a potential game changing decision that has went against them recently. We’ve had 2 in 3 games. 

They didnt get a penalty in injury time against killie, that was only a couple weeks ago, could also argue the goalscorer for killie that game got lucky not to be red carded for elbowing taylor in the coupon

And both they decisions we slaughter the pales for their moonhowling, and yet here we are

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,292]

12 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Where does it differentiate it in the rules? Can you post the part of the rule that mentions the player moving at pace past a stationary defender?

I thought we were all just making up "what if" scenarios...

[B1872 21,086]

That tarrier ref on Sky said the goal should’ve stood as did the two pundits. The pressure put on refs up here is ridiculous by the scum. Let’s be honest the Alfie goal and Roofe goal are scored by the scum then they are given. Anyway doesn’t hide the fact we aren’t good enough and our manager should be sacked.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

I thought we were all just making up "what if" scenarios...

No, im now asking for the specific rule that states about the attacker moving with pace against the static defender.

You know, just exactly what you were demanding?

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,982]

3 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

No, im now asking for the specific rule that states about the attacker moving with pace against the static defender.

You know, just exactly what you were demanding?

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Helicopter Sundae 6,197]

5 minutes ago, Lord Lockin said:

Why on earth are we still clinging to this disallowed goal, does it really matter, the bottom line is we're red rotten and have been all season and to be honest can't see things improving.

Because had that decision gone the other way then it would be the Cunts arguing like fuck all over their forums and not us. Those small things make all the difference at the end of the season. Think they'd have accepted that if it had been the other way at their ground? Both managers were under massive pressure going into this game, and ours comes out looking like a cunt, even though his players hade already put the ball in the net twice. Then Kyogo, who had about 5 touches all match does his spectacular and suddenly we're utter shite!!?? 

We may have been poor, but seeing that challenge again and the uproar...matches are often decided by one goal. And our goal was was even celebrated twice by the fans until it was knocked off.  That is some blow to recover from. especially after Wednesday's crusher.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Can anyone get the search function on this site to fucking work?

If so, can you find a link to the match thread about the Rangers v Dortmund match?

I can find the away match thread, but no the home one.

I cant remember who actually mentioned it, but there was a specific case with a foul similar to the one we are discussing that introduced this scenario into the game. I think it involved Messi kicking a defender and either him or the defender getting a bad injury.

[kelvd1873 7,398]

6 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

There were numerous calls with Goldson handball where the VAR check went in our favour.

Some of them were contentious as well, but by the modern rules, we were correctly saved.

 

10 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

They didnt get a penalty in injury time against killie, that was only a couple weeks ago, could also argue the goalscorer for killie that game got lucky not to be red carded for elbowing taylor in the coupon

And both they decisions we slaughter the pales for their moonhowling, and yet here we are

When was the last time celtic scored against us and it was chopped off like yesterday and it’s cost them points? We’ve had 2 in 3 games. No one can say that the Morelos goal was a foul. 

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Just now, kelvd1873 said:

 

When was the last time celtic scored against us and it was chopped off like yesterday and it’s cost them points? We’ve had 2 in 3 games. No one can say that the Morelos goal was a foul. 

The Morelos one was fucking shite.

The one yesterday was fair enough though.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,982]

3 minutes ago, kelvd1873 said:

 

When was the last time celtic scored against us and it was chopped off like yesterday and it’s cost them points? We’ve had 2 in 3 games. No one can say that the Morelos goal was a foul. 

So you've changed from game changing decisions going against the tarriers to them having goals chopped off against us? 

[Lord Lockin 3,941]

6 minutes ago, Helicopter Sundae said:

Because had that decision gone the other way then it would be the Cunts arguing like fuck all over their forums and not us. Those small things make all the difference at the end of the season. Think they'd have accepted that if it had been the other way at their ground? Both managers were under massive pressure going into this game, and ours comes out looking like a cunt, even though his players hade already put the ball in the net twice. Then Kyogo, who had about 5 touches all match does his spectacular and suddenly we're utter shite!!?? 

We may have been poor, but seeing that challenge again and the uproar...matches are often decided by one goal. And our goal was was even celebrated twice by the fans until it was knocked off.  That is some blow to recover from. especially after Wednesday's crusher.

No suddenly - all season

[crazy bob swollenbaws 1,916]

Hate to say it but if it was incorrectly chopped off I would expect Rangers to complain like we did with clancy. 

We are not so was probably in line with rules but it is a fucking stupid rule. We need to get much cleverer at this stuff ourself tho. Challenge every dotted I and crossed t.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,292]

11 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

No, im now asking for the specific rule that states about the attacker moving with pace against the static defender.

You know, just exactly what you were demanding?

No that was a made up scenario.. in relation to Jim's scenarios.

The rule which Robertson may or may  not have applied was thr one that a player commits a foul if they impede a player with contact. The Dude has posted it a couple of pages back.

Dessers would have to have impeded the CH with contact. He simply didn't.

If the rule said resulting in contact then fair enough. But I read it as the actions of the player who is penalised ie Dessers, and in no way does he impede with contact, ie by making contact.

[Malkytfp1 18,770]

"All I can think when he goes to the screen is he thinks he pushes him. But if VAR hadn't intervened, no-one would have complained. I've no idea (why he overturned it). It's certainly not a foul. 100 per cent (the wrong decision)."

[kelvd1873 7,398]

10 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

So you've changed from game changing decisions going against the tarriers to them having goals chopped off against us? 

Tbh mate that’s what I meant in the first place, actual situations when they have scored but then been chalked off for shite reasons. So when was the last time that happened against us? Cadete?

[GOAT 30,449]

43 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Of course.

For me not to be, I would have to assume that there is a global conspiracy against us both domestically and in Europe where refs are making up rules against us and adhering them only to us.

The only stranger thing is that there is an even more devious anti St Mirren conspiracy out there protecting James Sands.

I think it's more likely that than these being true, refs who have been retired for at least a decade are less up to date with the rules than those who are still reffing or just retired.

🤣🤣🤣

it’s not a foul and the goal should have stood ffs.  Makes no difference anyway, we’d still have found a way to fuck it fae there anyway.

[OrangeRab 3,038]

The very fact that not just Dermott (ex spl referees) have come out and said it wasn’t a foul. Tells you it wasn’t clear and obvious.

So whether it was technically a foul or not doesn’t matter. It has to be clear and obvious for Var to intervene.

The bar is deliberately set like that so we don’t intervene on every single possible infringement and allow the referee to ref as he sees it in real time.

As soon as Var told him to take a look, the referee is always changing his mind.