The Offside Goal vs St.J

[The Dude 20,026]

15 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.

It’s been posted in the thread. 

[Roy Hobbs 2,215]

2 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

That's not what I said.

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

You said he had no time to refer to the rule book. Why would he need to?

[bluenoz 31,060]

Just now, Roy Hobbs said:

You said he had no time to refer to the rule book. Why would he need to?

 

People keep talking about a rule. I'm saying he gave the decision by watching a replay and not a rule. 

And the replay doesn't give enough evidence to overturn. 

The only reason it's still getting talked to death is because the SFA refuses to address the situation.

[Big Al 55 9,282]

Th ref (prob ex) who said today their pen decision was correct said he thought our goal should have stood in OF.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,701]

4 hours ago, Inigo said:

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.

Mate its not worth your time, it was explained in the other thread now we're back to square one in a different thread with people comparing two completely different scenarios 

As much as the guidelines cost us, i actually like the new directive, when you see messi getting the penalty for impeding koulibaly trying to clear the ball, then something had to change, 

Just a pity its cost us twice now, 

[Inigo 32,557]

1 hour ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Mate its not worth your time, it was explained in the other thread now we're back to square one in a different thread with people comparing two completely different scenarios 

As much as the guidelines cost us, i actually like the new directive, when you see messi getting the penalty for impeding koulibaly trying to clear the ball, then something had to change, 

Just a pity its cost us twice now, 

100%.

[GOAT 30,449]

7 hours ago, graeme_4 said:

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

I’ll take former professional premier league referees over them all. 👍🏻

[Big Al 55 9,282]

12 hours ago, GOAT said:

I’ll take former professional premier league referees over them all. 👍🏻

This notion that ex-referees aren’t up on current guidelines is laughable tbh.

[Inigo 32,557]

1 hour ago, Big Al 55 said:

This notion that ex-referees aren’t up on current guidelines is laughable tbh.

Less laughable than the idea that current ones aren't.

[Big Al 55 9,282]

16 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Less laughable than the idea that current ones aren't.

No one suggested they weren’t tbf 👍

Of course, mistakes are never made, especially when down to interpretation are they?

Quite clearly there are differences of opinion across the refereeing profession.

Impressive so many of you are so sure given the uncertainty among the experts 👍

[OhW 4,676]

1 hour ago, Big Al 55 said:

This notion that ex-referees aren’t up on current guidelines is laughable tbh.

I enjoy laughing at notions 

[Big Al 55 9,282]

15 minutes ago, OhW said:

I enjoy laughing at notions 

You’ve come to the right place 

[Inigo 32,557]

53 minutes ago, Big Al 55 said:

No one suggested they weren’t tbf 👍

Of course, mistakes are never made, especially when down to interpretation are they?

Quite clearly there are differences of opinion across the refereeing profession.

Impressive so many of you are so sure given the uncertainty among the experts 👍

Yeah, the ones in the game are interpreting it exclusively one way, the ones not aren't. A lot of mistakes that. 4 referees and three sets of VAR officials.

Or maybe there's another explanation...

[Big Al 55 9,282]

7 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Yeah, the ones in the game are interpreting it exclusively one way, the ones not aren't. A lot of mistakes that. 4 referees and three sets of VAR officials.

Or maybe there's another explanation...

The ones still in the game always close ranks and protect each other. I’m friends with a grade 1 referee and he absolutely always backs up the officials, regardless.

My point is there’s more than enough doubt to question you guys definitive viewpoint 👍

[Inigo 32,557]

6 minutes ago, Big Al 55 said:

The ones still in the game always close ranks and protect each other. I’m friends with a grade 1 referee and he absolutely always backs up the officials, regardless.

My point is there’s more than enough doubt to question you guys definitive viewpoint 👍

They're making the same calls in four different games just to protect each other? Sounds a bit weird.

Also, the Robertson one and Dortmund one they told him he was wrong. Not exactly backing him up.

Eventually folk will get it. Will take more time for some than others.

[Big Al 55 9,282]

Just now, Inigo said:

They're making the same calls in four different games just to protect each other? Sounds a bit weird.

Eventually folk will get it. Will take more time for some than others.

True. You might get it eventually 

[Inigo 32,557]

3 minutes ago, Big Al 55 said:

True. You might get it eventually 

Ooft. Classic, mate.

 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,701]

6 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Yeah, the ones in the game are interpreting it exclusively one way, the ones not aren't. A lot of mistakes that. 4 referees and three sets of VAR officials.

Or maybe there's another explanation...

Defo another explanation, the ref in the France v Ireland game was out to cheat us

[Big Al 55 9,282]

6 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Defo another explanation, the ref in the France v Ireland game was out to cheat us

Never said at any point we were cheated, just that’s there’s enough doubt that you lot are full of shite.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,701]

33 minutes ago, Big Al 55 said:

Never said at any point we were cheated, just that’s there’s enough doubt that you lot are full of shite.

So 4 refs, 3 VAR teams, across 3 different competitions in 2 years, going both for and against us and not including us

All this arriving at the exact same result in each instance, gives enough doubt about the decision 

Okay........... 

[The Dude 20,026]

Maybe @Bluepeter9 had a point about paranoid Protestants after all

[GOAT 30,449]

9 hours ago, Big Al 55 said:

This notion that ex-referees aren’t up on current guidelines is laughable tbh.

Sky and TNT employ former referees who don’t have a fucking clue what their talking about to discuss weekly refereeing decisions. 🙈🤣

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, GOAT said:

Sky and TNT employ former referees who don’t have a fucking clue what their talking about to discuss weekly refereeing decisions. 🙈🤣

Aye there’s definitely no pundits who don’t have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

[Big Al 55 9,282]

12 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Aye there’s definitely no pundits who don’t have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

And there’s definitely no refs who misinterpret the rules, or potentially just ignore them.

[The Dude 20,026]

9 minutes ago, Big Al 55 said:

And there’s definitely no refs who misinterpret the rules, or potentially just ignore them.

True. Thankfully, that’s not what’s happened in this instance.