The disallowed goal

[SK Rfc 557]

27 minutes ago, Straight-Edge-Loyal said:

That doesn't mean that rule is right though it is a ridiculous rule.

Don’t think any such rule exists 

[Inigo 32,676]

25 minutes ago, SK Rfc said:

Don’t think any such rule exists 

It's not a rule. It's referees being given new instructions on how to interpret the existing rules for that specific situation.

[SK Rfc 557]

31 minutes ago, Inigo said:

It's not a rule. It's referees being given new instructions on how to interpret the existing rules for that specific situation.

Any articles from when this came in? Do not remember anything changing along these lines. Only changes to the handball rule etc 

[Inigo 32,676]

4 minutes ago, SK Rfc said:

Any articles from when this came in? Do not remember anything changing along these lines. Only changes to the handball rule etc 

No idea mate.

[theiconicman 3,013]

I think the point we've established is that referees can decide for themselves whether its a foul or not - each ref will decide on their own as there is no specific rule covering that case. What we know about the filth and refs in this country is patently clear, if they want windows they'll make sure nothing is decided that can be said to go against them.

[kelvd1873 7,398]

8 hours ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

😀😀. Aye okay MM, so dermot the tim amongst other refs and majority of supporters must also be clutching then. 

[RealWorldRich 799]

10 hours ago, SK RFC said:

Don’t think any such rule exists 

It doesn't, the rules themselves are actually rather vague, each year the ref's i believe get different directives - such as dealing with handballs... the rule's never changed but FIFA or even individual FAs will direct refs on how to rule on them based on silhouttes etc.

 

I don't think any such directive exists for the Dessers situation we seen on Sunday.

 

I see even Andy Walker is in the news claiming it was never a foul and terrible use of VAR to get involved in a decision that is very subjective rather than "clear and obvious".  

 

Anyone who does think it's a foul has lost sight of the fact that football is still a contact sport.  The reason it's still a contact sport is exactly because of situations like the Dessers one, sometimes 2 players will try to run into the same space in pursuit of the ball.  Dessers simply got his foot there first.

[kelvd1873 7,398]

 

[Benidormbear 19]

1 hour ago, RealWorldRich said:

It doesn't, the rules themselves are actually rather vague, each year the ref's i believe get different directives - such as dealing with handballs... the rule's never changed but FIFA or even individual FAs will direct refs on how to rule on them based on silhouttes etc.

 

I don't think any such directive exists for the Dessers situation we seen on Sunday.

 

I see even Andy Walker is in the news claiming it was never a foul and terrible use of VAR to get involved in a decision that is very subjective rather than "clear and obvious".  

 

Anyone who does think it's a foul has lost sight of the fact that football is still a contact sport.  The reason it's still a contact sport is exactly because of situations like the Dessers one, sometimes 2 players will try to run into the same space in pursuit of the ball.  Dessers simply got his foot there first.

Strange how the refs, including the one on Sunday, continue to ignore the diving when an opposition player goes near a scum player. Also, how did he miss all the fouls from their jap player? It has been going on for years after they stacked the SFA with their own people.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,292]

2 hours ago, RealWorldRich said:

It doesn't, the rules themselves are actually rather vague, each year the ref's i believe get different directives - such as dealing with handballs... the rule's never changed but FIFA or even individual FAs will direct refs on how to rule on them based on silhouttes etc.

 

I don't think any such directive exists for the Dessers situation we seen on Sunday.

 

I see even Andy Walker is in the news claiming it was never a foul and terrible use of VAR to get involved in a decision that is very subjective rather than "clear and obvious".  

 

Anyone who does think it's a foul has lost sight of the fact that football is still a contact sport.  The reason it's still a contact sport is exactly because of situations like the Dessers one, sometimes 2 players will try to run into the same space in pursuit of the ball.  Dessers simply got his foot there first.

The Cantwell penalty versus Servette is one where he nipped his leg in front of the defender, got kicked by a player continuing his attempt to play the ball, didnt touch the ball and we got the penalty.  I don't think any of us argued or thought it wasn't a penalty.  It seems us and refs do have ambiguity in terms of the rules and this apparent guidance.

The rule I've seen is about impeding with contact and clearly to me infers it's contact by the person making the challenge, not them being kicked.

I'm reading here of guidance and am happy to consider it as something all refs are working with but if we can't find evidence of what it then how are we meant to assess incidents against rules/guidance which surely is objectively what we want to do.

Notwithstanding how fucking absurd that you can apparently commit a foul by being kicked.

 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,982]

1 hour ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

The Cantwell penalty versus Servette is one where he nipped his leg in front of the defender, got kicked by a player continuing his attempt to play the ball, didnt touch the ball and we got the penalty.  I don't think any of us argued or thought it wasn't a penalty.  It seems us and refs do have ambiguity in terms of the rules and this apparent guidance.

The rule I've seen is about impeding with contact and clearly to me infers it's contact by the person making the challenge, not them being kicked.

I'm reading here of guidance and am happy to consider it as something all refs are working with but if we can't find evidence of what it then how are we meant to assess incidents against rules/guidance which surely is objectively what we want to do.

Notwithstanding how fucking absurd that you can apparently commit a foul by being kicked.

 

You know you can commit a foul by someone running into you and you not having moved at all

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,292]

12 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

You know you can commit a foul by someone running into you and you not having moved at all

Yep.

 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,982]

2 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Yep.

 

Do you think that's absurd as well? 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,292]

1 hour ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Do you think that's absurd as well? 

Sometines yes. Sonetimea no. By and large for me it depends if the defender / attacker knew what they were doing and played for it.  Hate the simulation when defender is booked for it, but sometimes defender deserves it if they knew exactly what they were doing.

Depends on the scenario.

[Colin Traive 23,231]

17 hours ago, SK RFC said:

Any articles from when this came in?

Introduced lunchtime Sunday.

[DMax399 3,865]

It was a legitimate goal.

[GersInCanada 7,775]

If a defender dawdles on the ball he risks getting robbed. Happens every week. There is nothing more to it than that.

[Helicopter Sundae 6,197]

Just watched the incident again on the "highlights" and it looks even more fucked up than before. Seriously that VAR and ref must be fucking embarrassed. They should both quit the game. Simple as that. In a proper professional league setup they would.  Yet they will be seen again this next round of matches no doubt. 

 

I actually watched the "highlights" from the Cuntic TV feed, and at no point did they call for a foul for that challenge, merely slagging the defender for his fuck-up. That whole mob must have been laughing their bollocks off after how it ended.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,292]

7 hours ago, Helicopter Sundae said:

Just watched the incident again on the "highlights" and it looks even more fucked up than before. Seriously that VAR and ref must be fucking embarrassed. They should both quit the game. Simple as that. In a proper professional league setup they would.  Yet they will be seen again this next round of matches no doubt. 

 

I actually watched the "highlights" from the Cuntic TV feed, and at no point did they call for a foul for that challenge, merely slagging the defender for his fuck-up. That whole mob must have been laughing their bollocks off after how it ended.

Being kicked on the park is now apparently a foul against you in this circumstance. Based on guidance apparently issued to refs that isn't freely available for us to view and understand it seems.

When the Morelos goal was chalked off var couldn't intervene as it wasn't a clear and obvious error. In what then wasn't a clear and obvious error on Sunday var intervened and cos they did the ref overturned his on field decision.

Across the city as a club, fanbase and with msm cheerleader allies they go tonto for weeks over decisions not in their favour. Campaigns against refs.  We're often polar opposite, accept it with some vigorously defending it, and when the club complain the Board are criticised for doing so.

At times we deserve what we get, and when the next big goal is chalked off, or the opponents get away with things we're penalised for, we'll again accept it and move along quietly.

 

[Helicopter Sundae 6,197]

2 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Being kicked on the park is now apparently a foul against you in this circumstance. Based on guidance apparently issued to refs that isn't freely available for us to view and understand it seems.

When the Morelos goal was chalked off var couldn't intervene as it wasn't a clear and obvious error. In what then wasn't a clear and obvious error on Sunday var intervened and cos they did the ref overturned his on field decision.

Across the city as a club, fanbase and with msm cheerleader allies they go tonto for weeks over decisions not in their favour. Campaigns against refs.  We're often polar opposite, accept it with some vigorously defending it, and when the club complain the Board are criticised for doing so.

At times we deserve what we get, and when the next big goal is chalked off, or the opponents get away with things we're penalised for, we'll again accept it and move along quietly.

 

A militant club acting it and we are all seeing the results. The same cunts who believe a financial misdemeanour is a hanging offense whereas real sex crimes against minors is skillfully deflected. Dangerous bastards.

[RealWorldRich 799]

3 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Being kicked on the park is now apparently a foul against you in this circumstance. Based on guidance apparently issued to refs that isn't freely available for us to view and understand it seems.

When the Morelos goal was chalked off var couldn't intervene as it wasn't a clear and obvious error. In what then wasn't a clear and obvious error on Sunday var intervened and cos they did the ref overturned his on field decision.

Across the city as a club, fanbase and with msm cheerleader allies they go tonto for weeks over decisions not in their favour. Campaigns against refs.  We're often polar opposite, accept it with some vigorously defending it, and when the club complain the Board are criticised for doing so.

At times we deserve what we get, and when the next big goal is chalked off, or the opponents get away with things we're penalised for, we'll again accept it and move along quietly.

 

This is absolutely the case, and it's something that's been decades in the making.

 

I remember about 15 years ago, picking up a newspaper in Central Station on a Monday morning after we won at Parkhead.  I'm not sure if anyone here will remember the game, but Kirk Broadfoot won a penalty when he dribbled in the box and was fouled by a baldy Swedish defender (Can't remember who exactly, might have been Thomas Graveson?).

Anyway, it was probably soft-sih for the time (would be an absolute stick-on nowadays), the defender stepped across Broadfoot who knocked the ball past him, and he sort of went down of the guys knee.  As far as penalty decisions go, you would we see 100+ more controversial penalty calls on any given weekend across Europe, it really wasn't that controversial.  I'm not sure we'd have complained much had we not got it, but on balance, it was probably a fair penalty shout.

 

Anyway, we scored the penalty, think it might have been Kenny Miller, and went on to win the game.

 

Now the reason I picked up a paper was to enjoy reading the back pages that Monday... but instead of some articles on the football... no joke... there was a double page spread by Billy McNeil, which to paraphrase, read something like "This is nothing new, we've been cheated for over 50 years".  The meat of the article was that back in his day, ref's were against them for being the only real Catholic club in a protestant country, and that bigotry was still playing a part in the decision making in the modern game.

Fucking unbelievable, that a reputable paper would even print such a thing, but this is exactly the kind of relentless propaganda they have been peddling for as long as I can remember.  A decision that goes against them, can't ever just be the correct decision, can it?  No, it has to be orchestrated campaign of sectarian bigotry.  That's the long term, relentless pressure that they always placed upon the ref's.  From Assaulting Hugh Dallas on the field, to having him booted out of the SFA for forwarding a humorous email, to causing ref's to actually strike because Neil Lennon didn't get the decisions he wanted.

 

Even in an Ibrox stadium packed full of only home fans, these ref's are still so terrified of celtic they conjure up fouls were none exist - to avoid the wrath that will come upon them (accusations of bigotry or being a freemason), if don't make they calls that celtic expect to get.

I wonder if we'll ever wise up to it.

 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,982]

43 minutes ago, RealWorldRich said:

This is absolutely the case, and it's something that's been decades in the making.

 

I remember about 15 years ago, picking up a newspaper in Central Station on a Monday morning after we won at Parkhead.  I'm not sure if anyone here will remember the game, but Kirk Broadfoot won a penalty when he dribbled in the box and was fouled by a baldy Swedish defender (Can't remember who exactly, might have been Thomas Graveson?).

Anyway, it was probably soft-sih for the time (would be an absolute stick-on nowadays), the defender stepped across Broadfoot who knocked the ball past him, and he sort of went down of the guys knee.  As far as penalty decisions go, you would we see 100+ more controversial penalty calls on any given weekend across Europe, it really wasn't that controversial.  I'm not sure we'd have complained much had we not got it, but on balance, it was probably a fair penalty shout.

 

Anyway, we scored the penalty, think it might have been Kenny Miller, and went on to win the game.

 

Now the reason I picked up a paper was to enjoy reading the back pages that Monday... but instead of some articles on the football... no joke... there was a double page spread by Billy McNeil, which to paraphrase, read something like "This is nothing new, we've been cheated for over 50 years".  The meat of the article was that back in his day, ref's were against them for being the only real Catholic club in a protestant country, and that bigotry was still playing a part in the decision making in the modern game.

Fucking unbelievable, that a reputable paper would even print such a thing, but this is exactly the kind of relentless propaganda they have been peddling for as long as I can remember.  A decision that goes against them, can't ever just be the correct decision, can it?  No, it has to be orchestrated campaign of sectarian bigotry.  That's the long term, relentless pressure that they always placed upon the ref's.  From Assaulting Hugh Dallas on the field, to having him booted out of the SFA for forwarding a humorous email, to causing ref's to actually strike because Neil Lennon didn't get the decisions he wanted.

 

Even in an Ibrox stadium packed full of only home fans, these ref's are still so terrified of celtic they conjure up fouls were none exist - to avoid the wrath that will come upon them (accusations of bigotry or being a freemason), if don't make they calls that celtic expect to get.

I wonder if we'll ever wise up to it.

 

Ah fuck it, cba

[Helicopter Sundae 6,197]

1 hour ago, RealWorldRich said:

This is absolutely the case, and it's something that's been decades in the making.

 

I remember about 15 years ago, picking up a newspaper in Central Station on a Monday morning after we won at Parkhead.  I'm not sure if anyone here will remember the game, but Kirk Broadfoot won a penalty when he dribbled in the box and was fouled by a baldy Swedish defender (Can't remember who exactly, might have been Thomas Graveson?).

Anyway, it was probably soft-sih for the time (would be an absolute stick-on nowadays), the defender stepped across Broadfoot who knocked the ball past him, and he sort of went down of the guys knee.  As far as penalty decisions go, you would we see 100+ more controversial penalty calls on any given weekend across Europe, it really wasn't that controversial.  I'm not sure we'd have complained much had we not got it, but on balance, it was probably a fair penalty shout.

 

Anyway, we scored the penalty, think it might have been Kenny Miller, and went on to win the game.

 

Now the reason I picked up a paper was to enjoy reading the back pages that Monday... but instead of some articles on the football... no joke... there was a double page spread by Billy McNeil, which to paraphrase, read something like "This is nothing new, we've been cheated for over 50 years".  The meat of the article was that back in his day, ref's were against them for being the only real Catholic club in a protestant country, and that bigotry was still playing a part in the decision making in the modern game.

Fucking unbelievable, that a reputable paper would even print such a thing, but this is exactly the kind of relentless propaganda they have been peddling for as long as I can remember.  A decision that goes against them, can't ever just be the correct decision, can it?  No, it has to be orchestrated campaign of sectarian bigotry.  That's the long term, relentless pressure that they always placed upon the ref's.  From Assaulting Hugh Dallas on the field, to having him booted out of the SFA for forwarding a humorous email, to causing ref's to actually strike because Neil Lennon didn't get the decisions he wanted.

 

Even in an Ibrox stadium packed full of only home fans, these ref's are still so terrified of celtic they conjure up fouls were none exist - to avoid the wrath that will come upon them (accusations of bigotry or being a freemason), if don't make they calls that celtic expect to get.

I wonder if we'll ever wise up to it.

 

Just out of interest, what did you feel about the challenge on Cantwell in their box?

[GA1972 9,839]

5 minutes ago, Helicopter Sundae said:

Just out of interest, what did you feel about the challenge on Cantwell in their box?

It was a penalty but they’re peddling this about that Cantwell is a serial diver so he won’t ever get any decisions. Meanwhile Kyogo is a saint, totally glossing over the fact he was responsible for the most pathetic dive I’ve ever seen with Souttar 

Rangers minded pundits don’t help, you’ve got Sutton setting the narrative saying Cantwell is a diver and Dessers fouled the Swedish donkey with no real retort 

[Helicopter Sundae 6,197]

1 hour ago, RealWorldRich said:

This is absolutely the case, and it's something that's been decades in the making.

 

I remember about 15 years ago, picking up a newspaper in Central Station on a Monday morning after we won at Parkhead.  I'm not sure if anyone here will remember the game, but Kirk Broadfoot won a penalty when he dribbled in the box and was fouled by a baldy Swedish defender (Can't remember who exactly, might have been Thomas Graveson?).

Anyway, it was probably soft-sih for the time (would be an absolute stick-on nowadays), the defender stepped across Broadfoot who knocked the ball past him, and he sort of went down of the guys knee.  As far as penalty decisions go, you would we see 100+ more controversial penalty calls on any given weekend across Europe, it really wasn't that controversial.  I'm not sure we'd have complained much had we not got it, but on balance, it was probably a fair penalty shout.

 

Anyway, we scored the penalty, think it might have been Kenny Miller, and went on to win the game.

 

Now the reason I picked up a paper was to enjoy reading the back pages that Monday... but instead of some articles on the football... no joke... there was a double page spread by Billy McNeil, which to paraphrase, read something like "This is nothing new, we've been cheated for over 50 years".  The meat of the article was that back in his day, ref's were against them for being the only real Catholic club in a protestant country, and that bigotry was still playing a part in the decision making in the modern game.

Fucking unbelievable, that a reputable paper would even print such a thing, but this is exactly the kind of relentless propaganda they have been peddling for as long as I can remember.  A decision that goes against them, can't ever just be the correct decision, can it?  No, it has to be orchestrated campaign of sectarian bigotry.  That's the long term, relentless pressure that they always placed upon the ref's.  From Assaulting Hugh Dallas on the field, to having him booted out of the SFA for forwarding a humorous email, to causing ref's to actually strike because Neil Lennon didn't get the decisions he wanted.

 

Even in an Ibrox stadium packed full of only home fans, these ref's are still so terrified of celtic they conjure up fouls were none exist - to avoid the wrath that will come upon them (accusations of bigotry or being a freemason), if don't make they calls that celtic expect to get.

I wonder if we'll ever wise up to it.

 

 

1 hour ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Ah fuck it, cba

....and there's the difference between us and them. We accept shite. They mobilise and challenge it. And it will not be long before they are telling us..."We welcome the chase"!