The Offside Goal vs St.J

[J-Maestro 11,837]

2 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

People keep bumping it in the vain idea we were cheated in the OF game

It shouldn't have been chopped off as it wasn't some clear and obvious error, not a conspiracy though.

[Malkytfp1 18,770]

10 minutes ago, Broxi said:

I have never even opened this thread until right now but honestly, why is this one incident even still being talked about

Because the dude thrives on arguing with people.

[The Dude 20,026]

10 minutes ago, J-Maestro said:

It shouldn't have been chopped off as it wasn't some clear and obvious error, not a conspiracy though.

Totally irrelevant. Every goal is checked. There doesn't need to be any 'clear and obvious error' when it comes to goal checks. The slightest infringement can be enough for a goal to be disallowed.

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,001]

8 minutes ago, J-Maestro said:

It shouldn't have been chopped off as it wasn't some clear and obvious error, not a conspiracy though.

It clearly was at it was a foul that led directly to a goal

[J-Maestro 11,837]

3 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

It clearly was at it was a foul that led directly to a goal

Every tug of a shirt is a foul.

[J-Maestro 11,837]

6 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Totally irrelevant. Every goal is checked. There doesn't need to be any 'clear and obvious error' when it comes to goal checks. The slightest infringement can be enough for a goal to be disallowed.

Just as nonsense a write-off as the Morelos one before.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,297]

20 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Stopping the opposition player from making a pass without taking possession of the ball 'completes the foul'.

 

Round we go again. In relation to rules are you referring to 12.1 where there is impeding with contact? Because a few posts ago it seemed you were implying it was simply impeding due to where he placed his foot ( ie it was a foul even if no contact had come from it). Two very separate and distinct rules.

If its the former, then imo the contact element infers contact made by the attacker. Not a rule warning for player A about the actions of player B causing player A to have committed an offence.

  If its the latter, then based on your own quote that I've copied below again, its not about possession its about the ball being in playing distance which with Dessers it was.

Which is why I'm trying to drill down to exact cause of the foul and rules breached and why, yet it seems like you're being vague.

 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Round we go again. In relation to rules are you referring to 12.1 where there is impeding with contact? Because a few posts ago it seemed you were implying it was simply impeding due to where he placed his foot ( ie it was a foul even if no contact had come from it). Two very separate and distinct rules.

If its the former, then imo the contact element infers contact made by the attacker. Not a rule warning for player A about the actions of player B causing player A to have committed an offence.

  If its the latter, then based on your own quote that I've copied below again, its not about possession its about the ball being in playing distance which with Dessers it was.

Which is why I'm trying to drill down to exact cause of the foul and rules breached and why, yet it seems like you're being vague.

 

I implied nothing of the sort. I outright stated that Dessers putting his foot in and failing to win the ball is what impeded the celtic player from making a pass. That's where the foul is.

You've now quoted the bit about impeding an opponent without contact - which is as relevant to this as the offside rule.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,297]

3 hours ago, The Dude said:

He was only kicked because he impeded him. For someone who spends so much time talking about fitba, this is schoolboy-level stuff for you to be getting wrong.

 

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I implied nothing of the sort. I outright stated that Dessers putting his foot in and failing to win the ball is what impeded the celtic player from making a pass. That's where the foul is.

You've now quoted the bit about impeding an opponent without contact - which is as relevant to this as the offside rule.

Top post abive. Only kicked because he impeded him. That suggests the foul (impeding) has been committed from where the foot is, and the kicking comes after that foul. If that's not what you were inferring fair enough I'm simply clearing that point up. We're talking about impeding with contact which as I've said I believe is about the contact being made by the attacker.

Btw- it's fine to discuss points without being wankyall the time 😄 👍

 

[The Dude 20,026]

4 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

 

Top post abive. Only kicked because he impeded him. That suggests the foul (impeding) has been committed from where the foot is, and the kicking comes after that foul. If that's not what you were inferring fair enough I'm simply clearing that point up. We're talking about impeding with contact which as I've said I believe is about the contact being made by the attacker.

Btw- it's fine to discuss points without being wankyall the time 😄 👍

 

Well, you'd be wrong.

You may want to take your own advice there.

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,297]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Well, you'd be wrong.

You may want to take your own advice there.

 

Which posts have I been wanky in? 😂😂😂

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Which posts have I been wanky in? 😂😂😂

You're kidding, eh?

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,297]

Just now, The Dude said:

You're kidding, eh?

Nope. Post away 😂

[graeme_4 35,278]

1 hour ago, J-Maestro said:

Just as nonsense a write-off as the Morelos one before.

I think the Morelos one was a goal, but he’d blown the whistle before it went in so under VAR rules they couldn’t change it?

Clancy is a wee cheating rat though. 

[RealWorldRich 806]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

I implied nothing of the sort. I outright stated that Dessers putting his foot in and failing to win the ball is what impeded the celtic player from making a pass. That's where the foul is.

You've now quoted the bit about impeding an opponent without contact - which is as relevant to this as the offside rule.

He doesn't have some god given right to pass the ball, especially after making a poor touch then trying to turn 180 when he knew he was in trouble.

 

Dessers ran into an unoccupied square of grass - that cannot ever be a foul.

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,001]

23 minutes ago, RealWorldRich said:

He doesn't have some god given right to pass the ball, especially after making a poor touch then trying to turn 180 when he knew he was in trouble.

 

Dessers ran into an unoccupied square of grass - that cannot ever be a foul.

Dessers never ran into anywhere,  he left a foot in and the player on the ball made contact with it

Next time we get a penalty for someone going by a defender then colliding with a leg left in, im guessing you'll say its not a penalty 

[Inigo 32,686]

37 minutes ago, RealWorldRich said:

He doesn't have some god given right to pass the ball, especially after making a poor touch then trying to turn 180 when he knew he was in trouble.

 

Dessers ran into an unoccupied square of grass - that cannot ever be a foul.

In that situation it's a rules given right rather than a god given one.

[Tiger Shaw 30,827]

3 hours ago, Broxi said:

I have never even opened this thread until right now but honestly, why is this one incident even still being talked about

Because people can’t just accept other peoples opinions for what they are and won’t stop until everybody else agrees with them or at worst they get the last word in 

Welcome to the internet buddy, everybody wants to win it  👊🏼

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,297]

3 hours ago, Inigo said:

In that situation it's a rules given right rather than a god given one.

Which rules mate? Be specific. Not just the ifab rule bit the specific term related to the Dessers incident.

If its impeding then then quote the ifab rule, specifically whether you believe the contact is relevant or not.

[RealWorldRich 806]

3 hours ago, Tiger Shaw said:

Because people can’t just accept other peoples opinions for what they are and won’t stop until everybody else agrees with them or at worst they get the last word in 

Welcome to the internet buddy, everybody wants to win it  👊🏼

Which makes the Dessers "foul" all the more scandalous, it's abundantly clear that it was an entirely subjective call.  They say VAR isn't there to "re-ref" the game.  On field decisions that are subjective should remain how they were originally called by the ref.

[Inigo 32,686]

3 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Which rules mate? Be specific. Not just the ifab rule bit the specific term related to the Dessers incident.

If its impeding then then quote the ifab rule, specifically whether you believe the contact is relevant or not.

Mate, no offence, but @The Dude has tried, quoted everything that we need to know. If you want to live in the belief it's not a foul, batter in. You'll be in the same position wondering what's going on the next time, for what will be the the 4th time involving us, the same decision is made. 

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,001]

7 hours ago, RealWorldRich said:

Which makes the Dessers "foul" all the more scandalous, it's abundantly clear that it was an entirely subjective call.  They say VAR isn't there to "re-ref" the game.  On field decisions that are subjective should remain how they were originally called by the ref.

VAR is there to make sure every goal is legit, ours wasnt

[RealWorldRich 806]

30 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

VAR is there to make sure every goal is legit, ours wasnt

In your subjective, and wrong, opinion.

[RFC55 110,238]

Can this shite be binned 

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,001]

2 hours ago, RealWorldRich said:

In your subjective, and wrong, opinion.

Ah so im wrong, along with current refs

Good to know, btw you didnt answer my question yesterday 

If one of our attackers runs into a defenders outstretched leg in the box, are you wanting a penalty? 

Yes or no will suffice