The Offside Goal vs St.J

[Tiger Shaw 30,679]

36 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Didnt we go two years or something without conceding a penalty in the league? 

Apparently so but don’t see what’s that’s got to do with me saying overall they get more decisions in their favour than us. Because we’ve not conceded a penalty in whatever time makes no difference to that, we still get shafted more often than not with other decision, denying that is just silly.  The standard of refereeing is shocking VAR is a shambles all teams get bad decisions against them, we just seem to be really unlucky and rarely get benefit of the doubt. 

Don’t know why people can’t just can’t accept that, it’s not paranoia not a conspiracy it’s not acting like a tarrier it’s just calling it as it is. 

You’ll no change yer mind mate and I’m not looking for a big debate just giving my opinion 

[Colin Traive 22,945]

Two weeks, two goals, two examples of blatant corruption.

Never going to change it, just move on.

[graeme_4 34,815]

2 hours ago, GOAT said:

See sometimes we’ve got a cheek to slag tarriers for being paranoid.  It might be on side it might be offside fuck knows it’s a shite angle and we can’t tell.  We were lucky not to concede a penalty.  But that’s now what you should be talking about this weekend, it’s the fact the tarriers got a penalty for the exact same type of situation we were denied a goal in against them the other week.  That’s the real issue this weekend. 

I thought the difference was neither were in control of the ball and the Dundee player then kicked the filth player, vs Dessers when their CB was in control of the ball.

Based on the way they applied the rule on Morelos vs Dortmund, I actually think both were correct decisions. 

[bluenoz 31,062]

14 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

I thought the difference was neither were in control of the ball and the Dundee player then kicked the filth player, vs Dessers when their CB was in control of the ball.

Based on the way they applied the rule on Morelos vs Dortmund, I actually think both were correct decisions. 

 

That's the issue. He was never in control of the ball. He fucked it and panicked when under pressure.

It amazes me that people can see it differently.

[Bears 794]

Their kid-on defender came into contact with Dessers' leg only because his foot moved towards Dessers and not in a straight line as he would if he was running with/to the ball. It was an unnatural movement. No one could run like that so it should never have counted against Dessers, who did nothing wrong. It was probably an instinctive movement to protect the ball but Dessers should never have been punished for that.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,701]

1 hour ago, GOAT said:

So you’re going against every referee that’s reviewed last weeks decision other than one ex Scottish referee?  You’re talking absolute nonsense.  Anyone that thinks the other weeks goal was a foul for them is a fucking idiot. 

Going against every referee? What the 3 that have been out the game for so long they wont know the latest guidelines? 

Take it the ref in the dortmund game couple years ago, the ref when we played st mirren last season and the ref in the Ireland v france game last week are all fucking idiots given they called the same tyoe of incident the same way? 

Moan all you like, its a foul against dessers and the tarrier penalty yesterday was fuck all like it

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,701]

54 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

I thought the difference was neither were in control of the ball and the Dundee player then kicked the filth player, vs Dessers when their CB was in control of the ball.

Based on the way they applied the rule on Morelos vs Dortmund, I actually think both were correct decisions. 

Two days after the OF the France abd Ireland game seen the exact same type of incident, and a totally different ref in a completely different competition gave a foul the exact same way

But cheatin tarrier refs etc etc

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,701]

26 minutes ago, Bears said:

Their kid-on defender came into contact with Dessers' leg only because his foot moved towards Dessers and not in a straight line as he would if he was running with/to the ball. It was an unnatural movement. No one could run like that so it should never have counted against Dessers, who did nothing wrong. It was probably an instinctive movement to protect the ball but Dessers should never have been punished for that.

An unnatural movement, he was trying to pass the ball, absolutely fuck all unnatural about it 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,701]

38 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

That's the issue. He was never in control of the ball. He fucked it and panicked when under pressure.

It amazes me that people can see it differently.

How was he never in control of the ball, he was in the process of trying to pass the ball, that would highly indicate he was in control of the ball

[graeme_4 34,815]

2 hours ago, GOAT said:

So you’re going against every referee that’s reviewed last weeks decision other than one ex Scottish referee?  You’re talking absolute nonsense.  Anyone that thinks the other weeks goal was a foul for them is a fucking idiot. 

Usually like most of your posts, but you’ve got this one wrong IMO.

It’s a case of a lot of people (pundits included) not fully understanding the rule book. 

[RealWorldRich 702]

8 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Usually like most of your posts, but you’ve got this one wrong IMO.

It’s a case of a lot of people (pundits included) not fully understanding the rule book. 

Quote the rule you think Dessers broke.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,946]

20 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Usually like most of your posts, but you’ve got this one wrong IMO.

It’s a case of a lot of people (pundits included) not fully understanding the rule book. 

Can you show me the rules and the apparent guidance refs are now following? 

 

[graeme_4 34,815]

1 hour ago, RealWorldRich said:

Quote the rule you think Dessers broke.

If you want to be arsey it’s law 12.1

There’s not a specific explanation of that particular incident in the rules of the game (there aren’t any for any incident type), it’s down to common interpretation of the laws by refs.

We’ve seen it previously with Morelos vs Dortmund for example with a guy who reffed at the highest level. 

Can read what Bobby Madden has to say on it if you like…

https://www.reddit.com/r/CelticFC/comments/1694nbg/bobby_madden_on_the_lagerbielke_foul/

 

[Bears 794]

3 hours ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

An unnatural movement, he was trying to pass the ball, absolutely fuck all unnatural about it 

Try looking closely at it and you'll see it.

The ball is in front of both players and the defender's foot moves across, in front of Dessers' stride. The ball is nothing to do with this movement.

[GOAT 30,449]

22 hours ago, graeme_4 said:

I thought the difference was neither were in control of the ball and the Dundee player then kicked the filth player, vs Dessers when their CB was in control of the ball.

Based on the way they applied the rule on Morelos vs Dortmund, I actually think both were correct decisions. 

Steve conroy of all people saying in the papers today celtics was a penalty and our goal should have stood.  Another referee telling you and everyone else who thinks otherwise your wrong.

[graeme_4 34,815]

7 minutes ago, GOAT said:

Steve conroy of all people saying in the papers today celtics was a penalty and our goal should have stood.  Another referee telling you and everyone else who thinks otherwise your wrong.

I’d take Madden and Lahoz over Steve Conroy tbh. 

[Inigo 32,553]

16 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

I’d take Madden and Lahoz over Steve Conroy tbh. 

Madden, Lahoz, ref v St Mirren, Robertson, ref in France v Ireland. All of the up to date refs are showing and telling us how those incidents are being interpreted. 

[bluenoz 31,062]

3 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Madden, Lahoz, ref v St Mirren, Robertson, ref in France v Ireland. All of the up to date refs are showing and telling us how those incidents are being interpreted. 

 

I will say it again. Alan Muir reacted to a video replay and concluded it was a foul in roughly 20 seconds. There was no way he had time to refer to a rule that I have yet to see in print. And if that rule exists, the SFA would have responded to Rangers by citing the rule.

I really question some of our fanbase. We are getting cheated almost on a weekly basis and you can't even see it.

[G.E.C. 18,883]

3 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

I will say it again. Alan Muir reacted to a video replay and concluded it was a foul in roughly 20 seconds. There was no way he had time to refer to a rule that I have yet to see in print. And if that rule exists, the SFA would have responded to Rangers by citing the rule.

I really question some of our fanbase. We are getting cheated almost on a weekly basis and you can't even see it.

Can’t take this serious when you consider how long we haven’t conceded a penalty in the league.

[Roy Hobbs 2,215]

4 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

I will say it again. Alan Muir reacted to a video replay and concluded it was a foul in roughly 20 seconds. There was no way he had time to refer to a rule that I have yet to see in print. And if that rule exists, the SFA would have responded to Rangers by citing the rule.

I really question some of our fanbase. We are getting cheated almost on a weekly basis and you can't even see it.

Do you actually think VAR referees have the rule book in front of them when reviewing incidents?

[ForeverAndEver 71,793]

8 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

I will say it again. Alan Muir reacted to a video replay and concluded it was a foul in roughly 20 seconds. There was no way he had time to refer to a rule that I have yet to see in print. And if that rule exists, the SFA would have responded to Rangers by citing the rule.

I really question some of our fanbase. We are getting cheated almost on a weekly basis and you can't even see it.

Come on to fuck mate  

[bluenoz 31,062]

1 minute ago, Roy Hobbs said:

Do you actually think VAR referees have the rule book in front of them when reviewing incidents?

 

No I don't. That's what I said.

[Roy Hobbs 2,215]

Just now, bluenoz said:

No I don't. That's what I said.

Then why would you expect them to refer to it? If a referee doesn't know the rules of the game without consulting the rule book they shouldn't be a referee.

[Inigo 32,553]

11 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

I will say it again. Alan Muir reacted to a video replay and concluded it was a foul in roughly 20 seconds. There was no way he had time to refer to a rule that I have yet to see in print. And if that rule exists, the SFA would have responded to Rangers by citing the rule.

I really question some of our fanbase. We are getting cheated almost on a weekly basis and you can't even see it.

Mate, we've been over this several times. It's an interpretation of a rule that refs have green instructed on (believe it or not, refs are given instructions on how to interpret the rules for specific incidents, as they were after the Messi penalty). 

There's already 4 pieces of evidence of it being reffed that way. For and against us and not involving us. Not sure how many it's going to take for the penny to drop. If you're determined to add this to your list if grievances, batter in, but all it does is distract from real ones.

[bluenoz 31,062]

4 minutes ago, Roy Hobbs said:

Then why would you expect them to refer to it? If a referee doesn't know the rules of the game without consulting the rule book they shouldn't be a referee.

 

That's not what I said.

Tbh, I can't be arsed talking about it anymore.