The disallowed goal

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,983]

2 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

I don't know what you look like mate this is an anonymous forum.

So you can't quote the good Guidance? You can't show what instructions the refs are working to, just that they're doing it....

I'm happy to state there appears to be guidance over and above the rule book that refs are now following. Whilst that doesn't justify var involvement imo, it would explain why the ref should have given a foul (but didnt).

But how the fuck can we accept rules / guidance changing that everyone accepts to be the case without being able to read what it is? How do you know if refs do right / wrong on misinterpreting this and other guidance that's not clear? We'd be as well not having rule books and guidance because it's only important refs all do the same thing whatever that is.

Do you know every single rule in football and how the refs are told to interpret them? 

As for VAR, i said it earlier in the thread, they check every goal, they seen the foul (wether we agree on it being one or not doesnt matter) and how the foul directly led to the goal, they'd likely have asked the ref "did you see the foul by dessers before he assisted roofe" 

If ref says aye then we get the goal, but if he says no then it would fall under an obvious error or whatever, hence him being called to view it 

Again wether we agree with the setup or not is irrelevant, imo we got unlucky, no conspiracy or tarrier loving ref out to get us

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,983]

3 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

Audio from the refs/VAR room should be available tbh. 

The match report will state step by step how they chalked the goal off, if we believe we were robbed then thats a pretty nassive cover up

And the ex refs coming out saying it should have stood, well tonight in the paddy game they were shown up as another current and active ref did the exact same thing

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,293]

14 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Do you know every single rule in football and how the refs are told to interpret them? 

As for VAR, i said it earlier in the thread, they check every goal, they seen the foul (wether we agree on it being one or not doesnt matter) and how the foul directly led to the goal, they'd likely have asked the ref "did you see the foul by dessers before he assisted roofe" 

If ref says aye then we get the goal, but if he says no then it would fall under an obvious error or whatever, hence him being called to view it 

Again wether we agree with the setup or not is irrelevant, imo we got unlucky, no conspiracy or tarrier loving ref out to get us

The bit in bold. Yes, every single rule is available to find be it national associations, ifab etc. The rule book is the rule book. But no for the guidance, which is the point I'm stating and still asking for clarity on 24 pages into a thread.

I'll take from the rest that in the theoretical convo refs were having you thought it wasca clear and obvious foul. Did you at the time?

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,293]

15 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

The match report will state step by step how they chalked the goal off, if we believe we were robbed then thats a pretty nassive cover up

And the ex refs coming out saying it should have stood, well tonight in the paddy game they were shown up as another current and active ref did the exact same thing

If local authorities charged you more without you knowing why is it OK if they all do it?

What about police giving tickets out for things with reasoning you don't get explained or made aware of. Again OK if they're all doing it?

Maybe the above penalties are acceptable, but should the legislation and guidance not be readily available? Or is it OK if local authorities and plod know the guidance, we don't have to...

You're happy refs are now apparently consistently implementing guidance on how a rule is to be implemented. But unclear on the specific rule and the exact guidance. Am I right? If I'm wrong, please provide the specific rule and exact guidance so we can all be objective to what refs are doing and why.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,293]

18 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

Audio from the refs/VAR room should be available tbh. 

100%

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

40 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

The bit in bold. Yes, every single rule is available to find be it national associations, ifab etc. The rule book is the rule book. But no for the guidance, which is the point I'm stating and still asking for clarity on 24 pages into a thread.

I'll take from the rest that in the theoretical convo refs were having you thought it wasca clear and obvious foul. Did you at the time?

IFAB themselves state that the rules are not supposed to cover every eventuality:-

"The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game and the Laws – this often involves asking the question, “what would football want/expect?”

Yes, it sounds incredibly wanky.

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/about-the-laws/

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,983]

1 hour ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

If local authorities charged you more without you knowing why is it OK if they all do it?

What about police giving tickets out for things with reasoning you don't get explained or made aware of. Again OK if they're all doing it?

Maybe the above penalties are acceptable, but should the legislation and guidance not be readily available? Or is it OK if local authorities and plod know the guidance, we don't have to...

You're happy refs are now apparently consistently implementing guidance on how a rule is to be implemented. But unclear on the specific rule and the exact guidance. Am I right? If I'm wrong, please provide the specific rule and exact guidance so we can all be objective to what refs are doing and why.

See when you start comparing plod giving out fines to refs interpreting rules for situations on a football park, you'd be as well chucking it mate

We've literally seen 4 differing refs and VAR teams over 3 different competitions including an international match where the refs are supposed to be the best of the best, all coming to the same conclusion about the same situation we've had go for us and against us

No i dont know the guidance the refs use, im not a ref, no i cant find it in any rulebook as you have been told a couple times now that the rules do not cover every situation, 

But seeing as we've seen this outcome from the same situation 4 times now, im inclined to believe that the refs are following some form of guidance they have received, rather than a conspiracy 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,983]

2 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

The bit in bold. Yes, every single rule is available to find be it national associations, ifab etc. The rule book is the rule book. But no for the guidance, which is the point I'm stating and still asking for clarity on 24 pages into a thread.

I'll take from the rest that in the theoretical convo refs were having you thought it wasca clear and obvious foul. Did you at the time?

Until i seen the VAR replays no cause its hard to spot, hence why VAR picks up on these fouls missed

Unless again you are claiming that both the ref and VAR are in cahoots to screw us over by seemingly following guidance about the dessers situation 

[BridgeIsBlue 66,654]

Thread's an embarrassment, never heard a peep about referees when we last won the league. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,293]

4 hours ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

IFAB themselves state that the rules are not supposed to cover every eventuality:-

"The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game and the Laws – this often involves asking the question, “what would football want/expect?”

Yes, it sounds incredibly wanky.

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/about-the-laws/

It does sound wanky but I accept the jist of what they're saying there. But that appears to be about adhoc incidents refs need to react to not those after apparent guidance has been provided which firms up the definition and application of the Laws in advance of matches.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,293]

7 hours ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

See when you start comparing plod giving out fines to refs interpreting rules for situations on a football park, you'd be as well chucking it mate

We've literally seen 4 differing refs and VAR teams over 3 different competitions including an international match where the refs are supposed to be the best of the best, all coming to the same conclusion about the same situation we've had go for us and against us

No i dont know the guidance the refs use, im not a ref, no i cant find it in any rulebook as you have been told a couple times now that the rules do not cover every situation, 

But seeing as we've seen this outcome from the same situation 4 times now, im inclined to believe that the refs are following some form of guidance they have received, rather than a conspiracy 

Didn't think you'd like those scenarios Jim despite you being a fan of giving made up examples.

I know you can't find it. You'd have posted if you could. But you vehemently back the refs decisions against us, for laws you can't explain or quote, because several refs have now ruled the same way. I find that bizarre.

The rules dont cover every situation, but you've said a million times they do cover this one. You just don't know exactly how and what is covered, but that's OK.

I do think refs can give decisions against us they wouldn't across the city. The Clancy OF game imo simply can't be explained by incompetence.  Offside goals in cup final, Morelos OF goal, Roofe don't change that opinion. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,293]

3 hours ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Until i seen the VAR replays no cause its hard to spot, hence why VAR picks up on these fouls missed

Unless again you are claiming that both the ref and VAR are in cahoots to screw us over by seemingly following guidance about the dessers situation 

So var is there to identify hard to spot fouls and bring them to a refs attention?

So VAR now arent about establishing clear and obvious errors, its the hard to find and in depth analysis ones too, and var effectively facilitating re-refereeing of games?

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,293]

2 hours ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

Thread's an embarrassment, never heard a peep about referees when we last won the league. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2021/mar/03/livingston-rangers-match-report-steven-gerrard-sent-off&ved=2ahUKEwjyutSLnpqBAxWuXUEAHWQOC-IQFnoECCgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0JaQwKo76RcwCHlmNyxUUq

 

We definitely didn't discuss any of this. Not a peep.

[Jamie0202 12,561]

1 hour ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2021/mar/03/livingston-rangers-match-report-steven-gerrard-sent-off&ved=2ahUKEwjyutSLnpqBAxWuXUEAHWQOC-IQFnoECCgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0JaQwKo76RcwCHlmNyxUUq

 

We definitely didn't discuss any of this. Not a peep.

I can't believe you never used your own thread as an example as it's literally the 55 season.

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,293]

36 minutes ago, Jamie0202 said:

I can't believe you never used your own thread as an example as it's literally the 55 season.

 

I was building up to that 🤣

[OrangeRab 3,038]

4 hours ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

Thread's an embarrassment, never heard a peep about referees when we last won the league. 

Why is it an embarrassment?

It’s a discussion about a potentially league deciding decision. And that’s not hyperbole-

If the goal stands I think we go on to win that game. It’s a 6 point swing in a title race that if we are to win will be by the closest of margins.

Everyone sees it differently. I don’t think there’s any conspiracy or bias. But I do think  they have put a huge amount more pressure on referees and created a ridiculous narrative that everything goes against them.

And imo that possibly influenced Var to check it. I don’t think the ref is called to review that if the situation is reversed at Parkhead.

[RealWorldRich 799]

7 hours ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Until i seen the VAR replays no cause its hard to spot, hence why VAR picks up on these fouls missed

Unless again you are claiming that both the ref and VAR are in cahoots to screw us over by seemingly following guidance about the dessers situation 

They're not out to get us, but they feel the weight of the pressure from celtic for sure, their fans are bananas.  If you seen your colleague go on strike in response to the abuse from their staff, or worse, get attacked on the field, then plenty of them are going to fold under that pressure and give them what they want.  Refs are only human, they all feel the heat.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,983]

15 hours ago, OrangeRab said:

Why is it an embarrassment?

It’s a discussion about a potentially league deciding decision. And that’s not hyperbole-

If the goal stands I think we go on to win that game. It’s a 6 point swing in a title race that if we are to win will be by the closest of margins.

Everyone sees it differently. I don’t think there’s any conspiracy or bias. But I do think  they have put a huge amount more pressure on referees and created a ridiculous narrative that everything goes against them.

And imo that possibly influenced Var to check it. I don’t think the ref is called to review that if the situation is reversed at Parkhead.

If the exact same incident happened at parkhead and the tarriers scored, VAR needs to look at it

If not then either the Ibrox VAR team did not do their jobs or the piggery VAR team did not do their jobs

Its not about an opinion, its not like the ref can say "i didnt see much in the tackle" etc

Its either reviewed by VAR or not, imo it would be given its a foul leading directly to a goal conceded

I take it we are all in agreement that the call to chop the goal off was the correct call and now were down to arguing wether VAR should have gotten involved

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,983]

14 hours ago, RealWorldRich said:

They're not out to get us, but they feel the weight of the pressure from celtic for sure, their fans are bananas.  If you seen your colleague go on strike in response to the abuse from their staff, or worse, get attacked on the field, then plenty of them are going to fold under that pressure and give them what they want.  Refs are only human, they all feel the heat.

If the ref last sunday was shit scared of the tarriers he'd have chalked the goal off without VAR and claimed dessers fouled the boy

The fact he allowed the goal to stand until VAR intervened would indicate that the ref isnt running scared of the tarrier fans

[OrangeRab 3,038]

9 hours ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

If the ref last sunday was shit scared of the tarriers he'd have chalked the goal off without VAR and claimed dessers fouled the boy

The fact he allowed the goal to stand until VAR intervened would indicate that the ref isnt running scared of the tarrier fans

No and it’s not about being “scared”. 

The ref (like every single person and pundit watching the game) didn’t deem it a foul. 

There was no need for Var to intervene. It’s not that Muir wanted celtic to win. It’s just arse covering for himself. He removes the downside for himself. He doesn’t want to be exposed to potential scrutiny so he passes the buck to the ref.

Once Robertson is called over, he’s calling a foul every single time because you’ve essentially been told you’ve made a mistake. And it would take unbelievable guts to stick with your original decision under that pressure.
That’s what pressure and controlling the narrative can do. It’s not about wanting a team to win. It’s just the natural human instinct to take the easiest option for yourself. 

 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,983]

38 minutes ago, OrangeRab said:

No and it’s not about being “scared”. 

The ref (like every single person and pundit watching the game) didn’t deem it a foul. 

There was no need for Var to intervene. It’s not that Muir wanted celtic to win. It’s just arse covering for himself. He removes the downside for himself. He doesn’t want to be exposed to potential scrutiny so he passes the buck to the ref.

Once Robertson is called over, he’s calling a foul every single time because you’ve essentially been told you’ve made a mistake. And it would take unbelievable guts to stick with your original decision under that pressure.
That’s what pressure and controlling the narrative can do. It’s not about wanting a team to win. It’s just the natural human instinct to take the easiest option for yourself. 

 

What do you mean there was no need for VAR to intervene, the ref never called a foul that directly led to a goal, thats exactly what VAR is needed for

Sure its shite cause it went against us, but if VAR don't highlight the foul to the ref and he's asked about it after the game by his bosses, it would look a lot worse that it wasnt brought to his attention

[OrangeRab 3,038]

41 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

What do you mean there was no need for VAR to intervene, the ref never called a foul that directly led to a goal, thats exactly what VAR is needed for

Sure its shite cause it went against us, but if VAR don't highlight the foul to the ref and he's asked about it after the game by his bosses, it would look a lot worse that it wasnt brought to his attention

Again going round in circles. If it’s a clear and obvious mistake missed by the ref then Var should intervene. There’s deliberately a high bar set so that we don’t just get rid of referees and pull play back every single time for the slightest technicality after watching it several times in slow motion.

I don’t see how this meets the definition of clear and obvious. The referee saw the play and made the no foul call in real time. Several referees and pundits have come out and said they didn’t think it was a foul.

Nobody watching the game at the time, any tv pundit or radio, any fan etc thought it was a foul. 

That’s not what Var was introduced for. 

In the same way that technically Cantwell was fouled by Maeda. But the referee saw it and rightly imo said it was just a footballing coming together. And Var correctly didn’t call him over to the monitor.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,983]

14 minutes ago, OrangeRab said:

Again going round in circles. If it’s a clear and obvious mistake missed by the ref then Var should intervene. There’s deliberately a high bar set so that we don’t just get rid of referees and pull play back every single time for the slightest technicality after watching it several times in slow motion.

I don’t see how this meets the definition of clear and obvious. The referee saw the play and made the no foul call in real time. Several referees and pundits have come out and said they didn’t think it was a foul.

Nobody watching the game at the time, any tv pundit or radio, any fan etc thought it was a foul. 

That’s not what Var was introduced for. 

In the same way that technically Cantwell was fouled by Maeda. But the referee saw it and rightly imo said it was just a footballing coming together. And Var correctly didn’t call him over to the monitor.

Aye no one thought it was a foul, yet it is and since then we've had the same incident on the international stage and we've seen it twice before in our games

If the ref went to the monitor then he's likely thinking "what did i miss" and after viewing the monitor he seen he missed the foul so chopped the goal off

Im not getting the hate for VAR here, yeah it went against us but the point of it is to help refs as things like dessers foul are easy to miss in the blink of an eye, 

Had we lost a goal like that id be ragin that VAR didnt intervene as it is a foul

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

54 minutes ago, OrangeRab said:

Again going round in circles. If it’s a clear and obvious mistake missed by the ref then Var should intervene. There’s deliberately a high bar set so that we don’t just get rid of referees and pull play back every single time for the slightest technicality after watching it several times in slow motion.

I don’t see how this meets the definition of clear and obvious. The referee saw the play and made the no foul call in real time. Several referees and pundits have come out and said they didn’t think it was a foul.

Nobody watching the game at the time, any tv pundit or radio, any fan etc thought it was a foul. 

That’s not what Var was introduced for. 

In the same way that technically Cantwell was fouled by Maeda. But the referee saw it and rightly imo said it was just a footballing coming together. And Var correctly didn’t call him over to the monitor.

I called it as a foul at the time.

VAR did the right thing.

Ref missed the trip, which was a foul in the build up to the goal.

It's the way VAR is used throughout the world.

Goal was correctly chopped off.

There is no real argument to be had on it anymore.

It's now just the people who didn't realise that this was a foul in football trying to continue to argue so that they don't have to hold their hands up and say they were wrong.

[The Dude 20,026]

28 minutes ago, OrangeRab said:

Again going round in circles. If it’s a clear and obvious mistake missed by the ref then Var should intervene. There’s deliberately a high bar set so that we don’t just get rid of referees and pull play back every single time for the slightest technicality after watching it several times in slow motion.

I don’t see how this meets the definition of clear and obvious. The referee saw the play and made the no foul call in real time. Several referees and pundits have come out and said they didn’t think it was a foul.

Nobody watching the game at the time, any tv pundit or radio, any fan etc thought it was a foul. 

That’s not what Var was introduced for. 

In the same way that technically Cantwell was fouled by Maeda. But the referee saw it and rightly imo said it was just a footballing coming together. And Var correctly didn’t call him over to the monitor.

It doesn't need to be. It was a goal which meant it was checked. Every single goal is checked for infringements. Clear and obvious doesn't come into it in that context.