The disallowed goal

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,893]

5 pages in and lots of folk agreeing with the var/ref decision, based on the apparent rules, but none posting the specific rule......

[McEwan's Lager 30,672]

5 minutes ago, Nk89 said:

Rangers V Servette, Cantwell penalty, watch it, going by today's rule, tht is a free kick to Servette, Cantwell puts foot in front after defenders touch, but doesn't touch the ball before contact made. 

The difference is that in the Servette game the player isn't trying to make a pass. He's gambled on making a tackle after a horrendous touch knowing Cantwell is going to get there before him.

 

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

I genuinely dont see why it would be any different from a defender in the box putting his leg in to try and intercept the ball, missing and the attacker then being tripped by the defenders foot when he is trying to shoot.

If Dessers had got the ball, then no foul. He didnt, so it was a foul.

[Blue72 1,147]

5 minutes ago, folkestoneger said:

I don’t do conspiracy theories. I just think VAR should be scrapped as it’s ruining the game as a spectator sport. Or at the very least it should only be for absolutely extreme decisions.

You can’t even cheer a bloody goal these days as you know there will be some arse looking for excuses to intervene. Frankly I’d rather accept the odd mistake went for or against me than suffer this shit

As above commented on wrong post mate.

 

and yes agree VAR is ruining the game a bit - there was little more satisfying than winning by a late and entirely unfair goal…and the occasional suffering fi the reverse.  It was in a way part of the magic of it.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Just now, Blue72 said:

As above commented on wrong post mate.

 

and yes agree VAR is ruining the game a bit - there was little more satisfying than winning by a late and entirely unfair goal…and the occasional suffering fi the reverse.  It was in a way part of the magic of it.

Fuck that.

Dont mind VAR. It was a fucking cunt today, but probably wouldnt have got to the Europa final without it.

[Somemightsay7 2,462]

3 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

5 pages in and lots of folk agreeing with the var/ref decision, based on the apparent rules, but none posting the specific rule......

It's the obstruction rule, what rule do you expect it to be, the fucking offside rule? 

[folkestoneger 8,214]

4 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Did they no both stop reffing about a decade ago at least?

You got any who are a bit more recent?

What’s that got to do with it ? 

[Nk89 1,289]

3 minutes ago, McEwan's Lager said:

The difference is that in the Servette game the player isn't trying to make a pass. He's gambled on making a tackle after a horrendous touch knowing Cantwell is going to get there before him.

 

But Cantwell has obstructed him because Cantwell hasn't touched the ball, so Madden says

[folkestoneger 8,214]

Just now, Somemightsay7 said:

It's the obstruction rule, what rule do you expect it to be, the fucking offside rule? 

I posted the obstruction rules a few pages back. It doesn’t fit todays scenario as for it to be obstruction the ball can’t be within playing distance 

[ForeverAndEver 71,752]

2 minutes ago, Nk89 said:

But Cantwell has obstructed him because Cantwell hasn't touched the ball, so Madden says

But the Servette player isn’t in control of the ball, Lagerbielke is

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,893]

2 minutes ago, Somemightsay7 said:

It's the obstruction rule, what rule do you expect it to be, the fucking offside rule? 

Quote the exact obstruction rule then so we can all see how Dessers breached it.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Just now, folkestoneger said:

What’s that got to do with it ? 

Well I would imagine that current or recent refs would be significantly more likely to have went on the training courses for the most recent rule implementations.

 A ref who has been out of the game for a decade is likely to be a bit out of touch.

Do we agree that the Morelos foul in Europe was for the same thing? 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,893]

3 minutes ago, folkestoneger said:

I posted the obstruction rules a few pages back. It doesn’t fit todays scenario as for it to be obstruction the ball can’t be within playing distance 

If Dessers.obstructed him then it would be pretty easy.to demonstrate the rule and show from the video evidence on P1 how he had fouled the player.

Seems folk are happy to quote a rule that no-one posts and which no-one can show how a foul has been committed compared to the video evidence.

[McEwan's Lager 30,672]

3 minutes ago, Nk89 said:

But Cantwell has obstructed him because Cantwell hasn't touched the ball, so Madden says

Madden's story has two posts before the one posted on here saying the Celtic player is in control and is playing the ball with his left foot.

The Servette player has lost control of the ball. He then attempts a slide tackle, he's not trying to pass it, and upends Cantwell. If he doesn't make the slide tackle then Cantwell is gaining possession.

There's no chance with the action Dessers takes that he gains possession cleanly without obstructing the Celtic player.

[bluenoz 31,060]

13 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Did they no both stop reffing about a decade ago at least?

You got any who are a bit more recent?

Wow!

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

3 minutes ago, folkestoneger said:

I posted the obstruction rules a few pages back. It doesn’t fit todays scenario as for it to be obstruction the ball can’t be within playing distance 

If a defender steps in front of a player between him and the ball and body checks an attacker it would be a clear obstruction. Like an exact textbook example.

I think you are just misinterpreting what that part of the rule means in practice.

[folkestoneger 8,214]

Just now, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Well I would imagine that current or recent refs would be significantly more likely to have went on the training courses for the most recent rule implementations.

 A ref who has been out of the game for a decade is likely to be a bit out of touch.

Do we agree that the Morelos foul in Europe was for the same thing? 

Can’t remember it to be honest.
My point still is that if trained refs can’t agree it shouldn’t be deemed an obvious error. It’s not just refs that are confused. That well known rangers fan on sport scene said in one sentence it’s a foul to them then said if Dessers had went down he would have gotten a free kick. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,893]

Just now, McEwan's Lager said:

Madden's story has two posts before the one posted on here saying the Celtic player is in control and is playing the ball with his left foot.

The Servette player has lost control of the ball. He then attempts a slide tackle, he's not trying to pass it, and upends Cantwell. If he doesn't make the slide tackle then Cantwell is gaining possession.

There's no chance with the action Dessers takes that he gains possession cleanly without obstructing the Celtic player.

So now a Rangers player can't be alongside a celtic player who makes a cunt of it?

Dessers clearly isn't blocking or between the ball and their player. Their player kicks Dessers but that's because he's all over the place, not cause he's being obstructed.

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,893]

3 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

If a defender steps in front of a player between him and the ball and body checks an attacker it would be a clear obstruction. Like an exact textbook example.

I think you are just misinterpreting what that part of the rule means in practice.

Whats the specific rule?

[Nk89 1,289]

5 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

But the Servette player isn’t in control of the ball, Lagerbielke is

How though, they both have a player in between them and the ball, both Rangers players haven't touched the ball when they are kicked and the ball is within distance of the opposing player tht took the touch

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Just now, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

So now a Rangers player can't be alongside a celtic player who makes a cunt of it?

Dessers clearly isn't blocking or between the ball and their player. Their player kicks Dessers but that's because he's all over the place, not cause he's being obstructed.

 

Is it not exactly the same as the one with Morelos in Europe?

Was that ref part of the conspiracy against us also?

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Just now, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Whats the specific rule?

The one one they penalised Morelos with in the Dortmund game.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,893]

Just now, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Is it not exactly the same as the one with Morelos in Europe?

Was that ref part of the conspiracy against us also?

Post the rule mate.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,893]

Just now, mitre_mouldmaster said:

The one one they penalised Morelos with in the Dortmund game.

Post the rule 🤣

[folkestoneger 8,214]

1 minute ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

If a defender steps in front of a player between him and the ball and body checks an attacker it would be a clear obstruction. Like an exact textbook example.

I think you are just misinterpreting what that part of the rule means in practice.

I’m not as the obstruction rule is where you don’t make contact  . Dessers didn’t make the contact the defender did. . A different rule says it’s a foul to impede with contact. 

I looked at every offence in the book and none of them say you can’t put a foot in to try to win the ball so I’m baffled as to where this he has to touch the ball comes from.