The disallowed goal

[bluenoz 31,060]

1 minute ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

A good enough Rangers side absolutely wipes the floor with them today. 

 

That's not the point and you know it. We have been getting screwed for years. We score that, and it changes the complexion of the game.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,689]

1 minute ago, Sunglasses Ron said:

Madden’s explanation makes no sense. Dessers was in the process of taking control by getting his foot in front first.

But he wasn't, dessers never touched the ball until he obstructed the tarrier playing it

Thats the issue, same with morelos against dortmund

[theiconicman 2,994]

3 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Completely different scenario, the defender is in control of the ball while he guides it out the park

How can he be in control of the ball if he hasn't touched it? He's obstructing the attacking player (who often has touched the ball beforehand) - every ref seems to think that is ok, therefore the principle that if you get yourself in front of the attacker and set, you are ok. Unless of course you are a Rangers player either against a bit team like Dortmund or against the filth.

[Badger 8,771]

I felt it was very soft to disallow it. Player barely protested about it. Was it clear and obvious?

The defender got himself into a right mess with dithering on the ball - it was there to be won and above all else he just got out muscled for a ball Dessers shouldn't even if had an option to win. Defender only has himself to blame there.

Put it this way, if the ref allows the goal.... I don't think there is much controversy or talking about it (outside of their most rabid.). Pundits will be slating the defender for dithering and not being stronger.

If it happened against us, I'm raging at our defender for dilly dallying and not being stronger - rather than crying about a borderline foul.

They got away with it on a technicality.

[OrangeRab 2,848]

Their whole team was surrounding the ref putting pressure on him. They realise that the league is going to be tight and these fine margins could well decide it. 

If that happens at Parkhead there is no way VAR is overturning that. (Clear and obvious error..)

[AGM_72 3,682]

Sadly, by the laws of the game, it's a foul. It's a ridiculous rule, though.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,689]

1 minute ago, theiconicman said:

How can he be in control of the ball if he hasn't touched it? He's obstructing the attacking player (who often has touched the ball beforehand) - every ref seems to think that is ok, therefore the principle that if you get yourself in front of the attacker and set, you are ok. Unless of course you are a Rangers player either against a bit team like Dortmund or against the filth.

Because when the defender allows it to run out the ball isnt in anyones possession, so the fact the defender can play it (because he's there first) but chooses not to, its still classed as his posession

[Sunglasses Ron 2,506]

Just now, Jimbeamjunior said:

But he wasn't, dessers never touched the ball until he obstructed the tarrier playing it

Thats the issue, same with morelos against dortmund

Fair enough, if that’s the rule then that’s the rule but seems a daft rule because you take control by getting your body in front of your opponent and the ball (Dessers foot). 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,689]

1 minute ago, OrangeRab said:

Their whole team was surrounding the ref putting pressure on him. They realise that the league is going to be tight and these fine margins could well decide it. 

If that happens at Parkhead there is no way VAR is overturning that. (Clear and obvious error..)

If that happens at Parkhead and its not overturned then the refs need held accountable because its a foul

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,689]

1 minute ago, Sunglasses Ron said:

Fair enough, if that’s the rule then that’s the rule but seems a daft rule because you take control by getting your body in front of your opponent and the ball (Dessers foot). 

I think its because the player is in the act of kicking the ball, if he wasn't then it's fair game 

[GWR1979 1,968]

7 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

Was Lager***** protesting? No. He thought he had fucked it.

Watched it back and he doesn't claim a foul only the VAR and Sutton thought it was a foul. It's cool but as long a we are Dignified and silent these things will even out. 

[bluenoz 31,060]

Doesn't it have to be conclusive for it to be overturned? I don't think it is up for debate but for argument's sake, let's say it is. 

The video evidence is inconclusive and therefore, it can't be overturned.

[OrangeRab 2,848]

Just now, Jimbeamjunior said:

If that happens at Parkhead and its not overturned then the refs need held accountable because its a foul

No. VAR is for a clear and obvious error or serious missed incident.

The very fact it’s this controversial suggests it’s not clear and obvious.

It it was allowed there would be little controversy surrounding it.

Very strange that VAR told him to take a look under their guidelines.

But if you ramp up enough pressure on the officials off the field then these things eventually go your way 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,689]

Just now, OrangeRab said:

No. VAR is for a clear and obvious error or serious missed incident.

The very fact it’s this controversial suggests it’s not clear and obvious.

It it was allowed there would be little controversy surrounding it.

Very strange that VAR told him to take a look under their guidelines.

But if you ramp up enough pressure on the officials off the field then these things eventually go your way 

Its only controversial to us cause we got beat

Its a foul, its nothing else

VAR look at the build up to every goal

[Somemightsay7 2,462]

As much as it's a terrible rule and I don't agree with it, it's a foul.

The same reason the same foul was given against Morelos vs Dortmund.

You can't put your foot in front of an opposing player who is in the process of attempting to play the ball, unless you first play the ball yourself.

[OrangeRab 2,848]

Just now, Jimbeamjunior said:

Its only controversial to us cause we got beat

Its a foul, its nothing else

VAR look at the build up to every goal

Of course it’s fucking controversial! Have you been living under a rock?

We already have one ex referee who has come out and said a) it wasn’t a foul and b) it wasn’t clear and obvious and Var shouldn’t have intervened

[BridgeIsBlue 66,614]

13 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

That's not the point and you know it. We have been getting screwed for years. We score that, and it changes the complexion of the game.

See the season we won the league were the referees brilliant? 

[bluenoz 31,060]

2 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Its only controversial to us cause we got beat

Its a foul, its nothing else

VAR look at the build up to every goal

 

I'm not convinced there is contact by Dessers without Lager kicking him first, but there was defo contact in the box on Cantwell. Why didn't VAR ask the ref to at least look at that? Cheats. We talk about it in every OF game it seems.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,689]

1 minute ago, OrangeRab said:

Of course it’s fucking controversial! Have you been living under a rock?

We already have one ex referee who has come out and said a) it wasn’t a foul and b) it wasn’t clear and obvious and Var shouldn’t have intervened

And yet twice now in two different competitions, a ref has looked at VAR and chalked a goal off for the exact same offence

VAR told the ref he potentially missed a foul in the build up to the goal, thats why they intervened

[five stars 1,653]

23 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Its pretty much obstruction, dessers doesn't play the ball but stops the opponent playing the ball

He actually put his leg outwards, look at the position of his foot.

The picture posted by Madden is misleading, in the video it's clear.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,689]

1 minute ago, bluenoz said:

I'm not convinced there is contact by Dessers without Lager kicking him first, but there was defo contact in the box on Cantwell. Why didn't VAR ask the ref to at least look at that? Cheats. We talk about it in every OF game it seems.

Call out the penalty yeah, but the roofe goal was a foul in the build up, dessers doesn't have to make contact, its the same theory as when an attacker knocks the ball past a defender who cannot get out the way and the two players collide, the foul is awarded to the attacker

Shite rules but its the rules

[bluenoz 31,060]

1 minute ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

See the season we won the league were the referees brilliant? 

 

it's a goal 99% of the time mate. Don't moan about everything else and remain dignified when cheated.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,689]

1 minute ago, five stars said:

He actually put his leg outwards, look at the position of his foot.

The picture posted by Madden is misleading, in the video it's clear.

Doesn't matter what dessers did with his foot or leg, he never played the ball and stopped the tarriers playing it

Had dessera even slightly nicked the ball when planting his foot the goal stands 

[BridgeIsBlue 66,614]

1 minute ago, bluenoz said:

it's a goal 99% of the time mate. Don't moan about everything else and remain dignified when cheated.

It's a foul. 

[ElBufalo20 7,925]

24 minutes ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

A good enough Rangers side absolutely wipes the floor with them today. 

That’s not the point at all though. I’m angry as everyone else but we can’t just accept it.