Can't believe the goals stood.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Interfering with an opponent and play seems quite black and white.

...and "bundled"?

He seems to jump on Bougherra then slides off him. If anything, he fouls Bougherra, who's trying to play the ball, to get there.

Having looked at again maybe saying he's 'bundled' is incorrect and he tripped over Bougherra. A bit desperate to suggest he fouls the defender though. If you want to continue to not 'believe the goals stood', carry on, but we weren't hard done by on this occasion.

We didn't play well, but Hearts didn't do enough to win the game in reality. Another ref's decision, which was clear to see from the outset, went against us.

I don't think either goal would have stood against Celtic.

Nonsense. For a start what to you was, 'clear to see from the outset', has been proved to be anything but as the second goal was plainly onside. It's also ridiculous to suggest the first was

in any way 'clear'. Like I said, it could be argued that there was a technical offside but I think the majority will agree that we have little to complain about.

As for your last statement, your paranoia about the situation is irrelevant. I understand that's how you feel but that means nothing when looking at the real facts.

Oh dear. You've confused yourself, misapplying arguments where they weren't initially applied.

Oh well. At least the insults were in the usual place.

Would you feel more comfortable on a less "language-based" forum such as the "picture-based" options?

[mark_ni 12]

offside or not our defending was amateur for both goals. No excuses we just didnt turn up yesterday and that makes the defeat hurt so much more.

[TheWholeStruth 7]

A case could be made that the Hearts player inadvertently impeded McGregor at the first goal - but looking at the stills and in real time it's obvious he was getting nowhere near the shot. In my opinion the goal correctly stood.

The second goal was onside.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

A case could be made that the Hearts player inadvertently impeded McGregor at the first goal - but looking at the stills and in real time it's obvious he was getting nowhere near the shot. In my opinion the goal correctly stood.

The second goal was onside.

Yet, he does get there, just a fraction of a second too late, due to the defender blocking him.

[Briton 394]

Oh dear. You've confused yourself, misapplying arguments where they weren't initially applied.

Oh well. At least the insults were in the usual place.

Would you feel more comfortable on a less "language-based" forum such as the "picture-based" options?

Trying to divert with meaningless irrelevances, why am I not surprised at that?

To remind you the thread is about the fact you 'can't believe the goals stood'. Fair enough if you are not able to answer the points made...I understand.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Oh dear. You've confused yourself, misapplying arguments where they weren't initially applied.

Oh well. At least the insults were in the usual place.

Would you feel more comfortable on a less "language-based" forum such as the "picture-based" options?

Trying to divert with meaningless irrelevances, why am I not surprised at that?

To remind you the thread is about the fact you 'can't believe the goals stood'. Fair enough if you are not able to answer the points made...I understand.

Ah, the old lies and fabrications return.

[TheWholeStruth 7]

A case could be made that the Hearts player inadvertently impeded McGregor at the first goal - but looking at the stills and in real time it's obvious he was getting nowhere near the shot. In my opinion the goal correctly stood.

The second goal was onside.

Yet, he does get there, just a fraction of a second too late, due to the defender blocking him.

No he doesn't. Look at the first still, the ball is crossing the line and McGregor is nowhere near it.

[Briton 394]

Oh dear. You've confused yourself, misapplying arguments where they weren't initially applied.

Oh well. At least the insults were in the usual place.

Would you feel more comfortable on a less "language-based" forum such as the "picture-based" options?

Trying to divert with meaningless irrelevances, why am I not surprised at that?

To remind you the thread is about the fact you 'can't believe the goals stood'. Fair enough if you are not able to answer the points made...I understand.

Ah, the old lies and fabrications return.

Stick to the subject matter, that's the legitimacy of the Hearts goals, remember? Can't think why you keep trying to move away from that.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

A case could be made that the Hearts player inadvertently impeded McGregor at the first goal - but looking at the stills and in real time it's obvious he was getting nowhere near the shot. In my opinion the goal correctly stood.

The second goal was onside.

Yet, he does get there, just a fraction of a second too late, due to the defender blocking him.

No he doesn't. Look at the first still, the ball is crossing the line and McGregor is nowhere near it.

The one where, McGregor is trying to step over the player in an offside position?

The minute the shot is taken, it's offside. Where it ends up is irrelevant.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Oh dear. You've confused yourself, misapplying arguments where they weren't initially applied.

Oh well. At least the insults were in the usual place.

Would you feel more comfortable on a less "language-based" forum such as the "picture-based" options?

Trying to divert with meaningless irrelevances, why am I not surprised at that?

To remind you the thread is about the fact you 'can't believe the goals stood'. Fair enough if you are not able to answer the points made...I understand.

Ah, the old lies and fabrications return.

Stick to the subject matter, that's the legitimacy of the Hearts goals, remember? Can't think why you keep trying to move away from that.

You twisted my words, making out I was claiming something I didn't, then asked me to explain your own distortion. You've done this repeatedly in any thread I create.

If you want to act a prick, fair enough, but don't expect me to indulge you.

[TheWholeStruth 7]

A case could be made that the Hearts player inadvertently impeded McGregor at the first goal - but looking at the stills and in real time it's obvious he was getting nowhere near the shot. In my opinion the goal correctly stood.

The second goal was onside.

Yet, he does get there, just a fraction of a second too late, due to the defender blocking him.

No he doesn't. Look at the first still, the ball is crossing the line and McGregor is nowhere near it.

The one where, McGregor is trying to step over the player in an offside position?

The minute the shot is taken, it's offside. Where it ends up is irrelevant.

You said he got there a fraction of a second too late. He clearly doesn't.

You also said it was because the player was impeding him. This is where your argument has merit. The player was in his road. Did this prevent McGregor from saving the shot and thus making the Hearts player active?

In my opinion it didn't. We've had some horrendous decisions go against us in the last year, I don't think this was one of them.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

A case could be made that the Hearts player inadvertently impeded McGregor at the first goal - but looking at the stills and in real time it's obvious he was getting nowhere near the shot. In my opinion the goal correctly stood.

The second goal was onside.

Yet, he does get there, just a fraction of a second too late, due to the defender blocking him.

No he doesn't. Look at the first still, the ball is crossing the line and McGregor is nowhere near it.

The one where, McGregor is trying to step over the player in an offside position?

The minute the shot is taken, it's offside. Where it ends up is irrelevant.

You said he got there a fraction of a second too late. He clearly doesn't.

You also said it was because the player was impeding him. This is where your argument has merit. The player was in his road. Did this prevent McGregor from saving the shot and thus making the Hearts player active?

In my opinion it didn't. We've had some horrendous decisions go against us in the last year, I don't think this was one of them.

The minute a player in an offside position impedes the keeper, it's offside. No argument.

Had the player not been there, McGregor would have got there to block the shot before it crossed the line. It's the only reason the Hearts player leaves the ball and clambers over Bougherra, going by the picture.

If you look at the second picture, Kingston is also going towards the keeper, rather than just stepping out of the way.

[BlueIsTheColour 35]

I think you are clutching at straws here Oleg. The second goal was most certainly onside and due the amount of players on the line and around the sixyard box before the first goal there is just no way that the linesman could have possibly called it offside with any confidence. I think if you look aswell, McGrrgor isn't even on the field of play due to him being behind the line. Same with the man who is allegedly offside.

On this occasion the officials were spot-on altought the overall performance of the referee yesterday was embarrasing. The double standards with regards to bookings was disgraceful.

[Briton 394]

Oh dear. You've confused yourself, misapplying arguments where they weren't initially applied.

Oh well. At least the insults were in the usual place.

Would you feel more comfortable on a less "language-based" forum such as the "picture-based" options?

Trying to divert with meaningless irrelevances, why am I not surprised at that?

To remind you the thread is about the fact you 'can't believe the goals stood'. Fair enough if you are not able to answer the points made...I understand.

Ah, the old lies and fabrications return.

Stick to the subject matter, that's the legitimacy of the Hearts goals, remember? Can't think why you keep trying to move away from that.

You twisted my words, making out I was claiming something I didn't, then asked me to explain your own distortion. You've done this repeatedly in any thread I create.

If you want to act a prick, fair enough, but don't expect me to indulge you.

What words have I twisted? If you dispute anything I say then tell me exactly what it is instead of coming out with these vague diversions.

As for your accusation regarding other threads. As far as I'm aware I've only ever answered a very small percentage of your threads and saying, 'you've done this repeatedly in any thread I create', is a figment of your paranoid imagination...either that or your just plain lying.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

I think you are clutching at straws here Oleg. The second goal was most certainly onside and due the amount of players on the line and around the sixyard box before the first goal there is just no way that the linesman could have possibly called it offside with any confidence. I think if you look aswell, McGrrgor isn't even on the field of play due to him being behind the line. Same with the man who is allegedly offside.

On this occasion the officials were spot-on altought the overall performance of the referee yesterday was embarrasing. The double standards with regards to bookings was disgraceful.

For me the first goal should have been disallowed.

The second one is 50-50 and having had the first one go against us, I was surprised the second stood. You normally see a levelling up refs in such circumstances.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Oh dear. You've confused yourself, misapplying arguments where they weren't initially applied.

Oh well. At least the insults were in the usual place.

Would you feel more comfortable on a less "language-based" forum such as the "picture-based" options?

Trying to divert with meaningless irrelevances, why am I not surprised at that?

To remind you the thread is about the fact you 'can't believe the goals stood'. Fair enough if you are not able to answer the points made...I understand.

Ah, the old lies and fabrications return.

Stick to the subject matter, that's the legitimacy of the Hearts goals, remember? Can't think why you keep trying to move away from that.

You twisted my words, making out I was claiming something I didn't, then asked me to explain your own distortion. You've done this repeatedly in any thread I create.

If you want to act a prick, fair enough, but don't expect me to indulge you.

What words have I twisted? If you dispute anything I say then tell me exactly what it is instead of coming out with these vague diversions.

As for your accusation regarding other threads. As far as I'm aware I've only ever answered a very small percentage of your threads and saying, 'you've done this repeatedly in any thread I create', is a figment of your paranoid imagination...either that or your just plain lying.

I refer you the response above.

[Gazzas_Flute 11]

This is the type of pish excuses timmy would be coming out with. Accept defeat , Everytime we drop points there is always someone who blames it on anything bar the fact we are absolutely dire.

[TheWholeStruth 7]

Something else to think about re the first goal. I've just had another look and the Hearts player has his legs across the defender and in line with McGregor. Am I correct in stating that to be offside that there has to be clear daylight between the attacker and the second last man.

The referee and linesman have a split second to make a decision. Even after watching it again and again in real-time and stills we still can't agree on it.

I think we just have to take this one on the chin and move on.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

This is the type of pish excuses timmy would be coming out with. Accept defeat , Everytime we drop points there is always someone who blames it on anything bar the fact we are absolutely dire.

The fact is, we'd be top if all decisions went correctly.

Same as last season.

Do we just continue to accept this?

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Something else to think about re the first goal. I've just had another look and the Hearts player has his legs across the defender and in line with McGregor. Am I correct in stating that to be offside that there has to be clear daylight between the attacker and the second last man.

The referee and linesman have a split second to make a decision. Even after watching it again and again in real-time and stills we still can't agree on it.

I think we just have to take this one on the chin and move on.

It goes by the furthest forward part of the body that can score a goal. So everything bar the arms.

[Gazzas_Flute 11]

This is the type of pish excuses timmy would be coming out with. Accept defeat , Everytime we drop points there is always someone who blames it on anything bar the fact we are absolutely dire.

The fact is, we'd be top if all decisions went correctly.

Same as last season.

Do we just continue to accept this?

If we were winning every game 4-0 , 3-0 etc. We wouldn't care about the terrible state our referee's are in. We know they are awful. The two games we have done remotely well bar the old firm , where Kilmarnock away and Inverness at home. Broadfoot had a penalty claim at Rugby park from what I can remember was a stone waller imo and got yellow carded , Inverness at home and Boyd got a dubious decision against him and got a goal disallowed. The fact is that we are Rangers and we should be winning every game without fail and not relying on the referee to get every decision correct in order to win the game for us, the puck has to stop with the management and the running of the club.

[Briton 394]

I refer you the response above.

You accuse somebody of lying then run away because you can't back your shite up. Totally gutless thing to do.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

I refer you the response above.

You accuse somebody of lying then run away because you can't back your shite up. Totally gutless thing to do.

If you want to act a prick, fair enough, but don't expect me to indulge you.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

This is the type of pish excuses timmy would be coming out with. Accept defeat , Everytime we drop points there is always someone who blames it on anything bar the fact we are absolutely dire.

The fact is, we'd be top if all decisions went correctly.

Same as last season.

Do we just continue to accept this?

If we were winning every game 4-0 , 3-0 etc. We wouldn't care about the terrible state our referee's are in. We know they are awful. The two games we have done remotely well bar the old firm , where Kilmarnock away and Inverness at home. Broadfoot had a penalty claim at Rugby park from what I can remember was a stone waller imo and got yellow carded , Inverness at home and Boyd got a dubious decision against him and got a goal disallowed. The fact is that we are Rangers and we should be winning every game without fail and not relying on the referee to get every decision correct in order to win the game for us, the puck has to stop with the management and the running of the club.

Celtic are very poor too, but are being assisted by referees. Fairness would see us top this year and last year.

[davie1689 1]

any links to the goals