what was the reason behind the handball not given?
we were not given it so we cannot contest whether or not they were correct cos we dont know what they have looked at seen and judged.
As was said in order to critique it properly we need to be privy to the conversation had by VAR room and ref
comment by Izzy... Big Ange Cinched it (U3410)
posted 1 minute ago
In which case it's going to create a dangerous precedent........'doing a Goldson' to stop the ball hitting your face and expecting to get away with it.. it's a nonsense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not. How many times have you seen handball given if it hits a players hand whilst covering their privates at a free kick? For the same reason, almost never.
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 30 seconds ago
You can disagree with me no problem but it doesn't change the fact that the laws state it wasn't a penalty. The only alternative conclusion is that several officials watched it several times and decided not to give it because they didn't want to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is the laws don’t unequivocally state that it’s not a penalty. There’s interpretation. And I appreciate given your username you’ve interpreted the rules in a way that favours your own team. That’s grand. I’ve outlined above why it meets the criteria of creating a larger unnatural frame (unless you’ve a forehead like jolean Lescott) which would make it a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've interpreted it the way the law is applied and the way the officials agreed on it. Only one of us is interpreting it differently based on the team they support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure “the Scottish ref officials agree with me” is the argument I would go down if you’re looking to appeal to experts as you’re supporting rationale. As I said I don’t mind your interpretation given the team you support. I’ve outlined I think clearly why I think the decision is wrong. I wouldn’t want to speculate on why the officials got it wrong though.
Didn't expect it to be given yesterday
It's not hitting his face if his hands aren't there imo but its fired in that direction and thats why he raises his hands ,
It's for me not a deliberate handball , he's protecting himself
But I'm a bit lost as to what constitutes handball nowadays
Please just go back to deliberate handball or play on - easy
No technology is better than the operator, or in this case, the interpreter of the outcome. When interpreted by Scottish refs you can only conclude that VAR is, as it was always going to be, utter scheidt.
VAR follows the laws of the game, and when it comes to the Goldson incident, the only part under the laws where a foul can be given against there...is where the ball has hit a players hand/arm when they have made their body unaturally bigger (unatural position)
Goldson had his arms raised, not above his head, but still raised and in front of his chest, so for me the unnatural position argument is certainly applicable
However, the laws of the game also state that a foul isn't usually given for handball, if the ball strikes a players arm/hand directly from the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
With Starfelt right in front of Goldson, when he attempts to volley it home, but it spins off his boot and hits Goldsons hand, I feel the second point can also be applicable here
So there is an argument on both sides for and against there
VAR is only supposed to intervene when they think the referree has made a clear and obvious error...so if VAR concurs with Beaton, they don't think he has made a mistake, they won't intervene
Having said that, VAR is supposed to have a review for anything that is subjective or a matter of opinion....I think that was very much the case here, so I think a review should have been held, and Beaton should have been sent to the monitor to check
Whether that would have resulted in the pen being given or not....I don't know, but with all the talk of bias at the moment, I can't imagine the backlash there would be right now, if Beaton had went to the monitor, seen it, and made the same decision ie not giving it, because of how close Starfelt was to Goldson, reasoning which is clearly detailed in the laws of the game
VAR needs work...no doubt
But with folk also moaning about how long it takes for decisions to be made, Ilit doesn't surprise me that if the VAR concurs with the on field ref, for whatever reason, they don't go to a review for the sake of itz they just get on with it
It's a difficult one
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
what was the reason behind the handball not given?
we were not given it so we cannot contest whether or not they were correct cos we dont know what they have looked at seen and judged.
As was said in order to critique it properly we need to be privy to the conversation had by VAR room and ref
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can debate whether we agree with the decision but without transparency we can’t critique the rationale for the decision made.
To go to VAR it's got to be an obvious error.
Given how subjective this was, you could argue it wasn't an obvious error.
It's one of those where you can understand why it wasn't given, but you could understand why it could have been given.
Ultimately it's not an anti-Celtic thing though.
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
To go to VAR it's got to be an obvious error.
Given how subjective this was, you could argue it wasn't an obvious error.
It's one of those where you can understand why it wasn't given, but you could understand why it could have been given.
Ultimately it's not an anti-Celtic thing though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s an anti-competence and anti-transparency thing.
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 13 seconds ago
To go to VAR it's got to be an obvious error.
Given how subjective this was, you could argue it wasn't an obvious error.
It's one of those where you can understand why it wasn't given, but you could understand why it could have been given.
Ultimately it's not an anti-Celtic thing though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on mate
I was also annoyed at McCoist in his commentary basically saying the onfield refs are being weakened by VAR
Beaton made the on field call......VAR didn't overrule him....so how is that weakening him
In the same vein...if Beaton had pointed to the spot, given how subjective it was, again I don't think VAR would have overruled him...so how would he be weakened there.
On field referees decision is final.....has always been that way and always will be....refs haven't been weakened at all
When Beaton is seen saying 'its not up to me"....he's 100% right, it's entirely up to the VAR to decide whether he agrees with Beaton or not, has fck all to do with him
For me that's where the rules could be changed for football, and it could be similar to rugby, where the on field ref, if he is not sure, can call for the assistance of the TMO, and between them, they come to a mutual agreement
Why can't that work in football?
I didn't really enjoy the equaliser for celtic because I was sure Mooy was offside in the build up
Only once the wider angle was available you seen good ole Barasic playing him on
So it kinda kills certain moments like that
I'm not a fan of it but theres no doubt it helps in certain situations
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 13 seconds ago
To go to VAR it's got to be an obvious error.
Given how subjective this was, you could argue it wasn't an obvious error.
It's one of those where you can understand why it wasn't given, but you could understand why it could have been given.
Ultimately it's not an anti-Celtic thing though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on mate
I was also annoyed at McCoist in his commentary basically saying the onfield refs are being weakened by VAR
Beaton made the on field call......VAR didn't overrule him....so how is that weakening him
In the same vein...if Beaton had pointed to the spot, given how subjective it was, again I don't think VAR would have overruled him...so how would he be weakened there.
On field referees decision is final.....has always been that way and always will be....refs haven't been weakened at all
When Beaton is seen saying 'its not up to me"....he's 100% right, it's entirely up to the VAR to decide whether he agrees with Beaton or not, has fck all to do with him
For me that's where the rules could be changed for football, and it could be similar to rugby, where the on field ref, if he is not sure, can call for the assistance of the TMO, and between them, they come to a mutual agreement
Why can't that work in football?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It could. It’s not perfect in rugby by any stretch of the imagination, but having that plus being able to listen to VAR-Ref audio would improve things.
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 9 seconds ago
His arms don't create a larger frame ffs, he puts them in front of his face. If he doesn't he takes it in the pus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do though if they’re right out in front away from his body. It’s not as if he’s got them touching his face. It’s basic geometry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless it was some mad looping shot it makes no difference and it wasn't. The shot was getting blocked by his face and he protected it.
I'm with smid on this, the rule was applied correctly.
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 10 minutes ago
To go to VAR it's got to be an obvious error.
Given how subjective this was, you could argue it wasn't an obvious error.
It's one of those where you can understand why it wasn't given, but you could understand why it could have been given.
Ultimately it's not an anti-Celtic thing though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically this
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 9 seconds ago
His arms don't create a larger frame ffs, he puts them in front of his face. If he doesn't he takes it in the pus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do though if they’re right out in front away from his body. It’s not as if he’s got them touching his face. It’s basic geometry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless it was some mad looping shot it makes no difference and it wasn't. The shot was getting blocked by his face and he protected it.
I'm with smid on this, the rule was applied correctly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And again I don’t mind that rangers fans interpret decisions in a way that favours rangers.
The ball doesn’t look like it is hitting Goldson’s face though.
Both hands, pushes ball away.
Iv seen enough to know that it woild be given against us.
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 1 minute ago
Both hands, pushes ball away.
Iv seen enough to know that it woild be given against us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Santa bring you a new tin foil hat for Christmas?
Have u seen the decisions var has given against us.
I know you have seen at least one...
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 23 minutes ago
To go to VAR it's got to be an obvious error.
Given how subjective this was, you could argue it wasn't an obvious error.
It's one of those where you can understand why it wasn't given, but you could understand why it could have been given.
Ultimately it's not an anti-Celtic thing though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR is anti-Dundee United though! That Tony Watt decision was farcical and a clear example of a referee wanting to be the centre of attention.
I don’t think that VAR is only anti-Celtic. I would say that I think there are only 1 or 2 teams who’ve not had a ‘subjective’ call go against them. Most teams have had a decision referred or given by the VAR team that’s been more than just debatable.
I think we can also do away with the clear and obvious part-we’ve all seen calls that are so obscure as to be ridiculous, and also calls that have taken so long that it can’t have been that clear or obvious.
On the Goldson one, it says ‘not usually given’, which makes it more odd that Beaton didn’t go to the screen to ensure that his subjective view was correct. Subjective has done a lot of heavy lifting since the implementation of VAR.
And can we stop implying that VAR is some automated system?! It’s ultimately another ref (some of whom don’t have any or minimal top tier game experience) who is interpreting an image and applying rules. Even for offside, it’s a human that’s drawing the lines.
Lastly, the argument that a posse of officials agree with your interpretation of the rules-that is a stance that will definitely come back to haunt you in the future.
we have a very basic form of VAR with a muhc lower amount of cameras used and no (as far as im aware) automatic cases that its used unlike down in England.
Yeah-I know. I didn’t make it clear I was only talking about up here. Sorry.
VAR against Celtic
Hearts handball at Tynie
Bernibi handball at CP
Goldson handball at Ibrox
Any more..?
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 9 seconds ago
His arms don't create a larger frame ffs, he puts them in front of his face. If he doesn't he takes it in the pus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do though if they’re right out in front away from his body. It’s not as if he’s got them touching his face. It’s basic geometry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless it was some mad looping shot it makes no difference and it wasn't. The shot was getting blocked by his face and he protected it.
I'm with smid on this, the rule was applied correctly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And again I don’t mind that rangers fans interpret decisions in a way that favours rangers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, basically the same interpretation as is applied by Scottish officials.
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 1 minute ago
Both hands, pushes ball away.
Iv seen enough to know that it woild be given against us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Santa bring you a new tin foil hat for Christmas?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, he wore out the old one.
According to an article today the Goldson decision was in line with IFAB rules.
I'm in favour of VAR but there have been issues with it in various places including England. It's new in Scotland and maybe it can be improved.
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR
Page 2 of 3
posted on 3/1/23
what was the reason behind the handball not given?
we were not given it so we cannot contest whether or not they were correct cos we dont know what they have looked at seen and judged.
As was said in order to critique it properly we need to be privy to the conversation had by VAR room and ref
posted on 3/1/23
comment by Izzy... Big Ange Cinched it (U3410)
posted 1 minute ago
In which case it's going to create a dangerous precedent........'doing a Goldson' to stop the ball hitting your face and expecting to get away with it.. it's a nonsense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not. How many times have you seen handball given if it hits a players hand whilst covering their privates at a free kick? For the same reason, almost never.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 30 seconds ago
You can disagree with me no problem but it doesn't change the fact that the laws state it wasn't a penalty. The only alternative conclusion is that several officials watched it several times and decided not to give it because they didn't want to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is the laws don’t unequivocally state that it’s not a penalty. There’s interpretation. And I appreciate given your username you’ve interpreted the rules in a way that favours your own team. That’s grand. I’ve outlined above why it meets the criteria of creating a larger unnatural frame (unless you’ve a forehead like jolean Lescott) which would make it a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've interpreted it the way the law is applied and the way the officials agreed on it. Only one of us is interpreting it differently based on the team they support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure “the Scottish ref officials agree with me” is the argument I would go down if you’re looking to appeal to experts as you’re supporting rationale. As I said I don’t mind your interpretation given the team you support. I’ve outlined I think clearly why I think the decision is wrong. I wouldn’t want to speculate on why the officials got it wrong though.
posted on 3/1/23
Didn't expect it to be given yesterday
It's not hitting his face if his hands aren't there imo but its fired in that direction and thats why he raises his hands ,
It's for me not a deliberate handball , he's protecting himself
But I'm a bit lost as to what constitutes handball nowadays
Please just go back to deliberate handball or play on - easy
posted on 3/1/23
No technology is better than the operator, or in this case, the interpreter of the outcome. When interpreted by Scottish refs you can only conclude that VAR is, as it was always going to be, utter scheidt.
posted on 3/1/23
VAR follows the laws of the game, and when it comes to the Goldson incident, the only part under the laws where a foul can be given against there...is where the ball has hit a players hand/arm when they have made their body unaturally bigger (unatural position)
Goldson had his arms raised, not above his head, but still raised and in front of his chest, so for me the unnatural position argument is certainly applicable
However, the laws of the game also state that a foul isn't usually given for handball, if the ball strikes a players arm/hand directly from the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
With Starfelt right in front of Goldson, when he attempts to volley it home, but it spins off his boot and hits Goldsons hand, I feel the second point can also be applicable here
So there is an argument on both sides for and against there
VAR is only supposed to intervene when they think the referree has made a clear and obvious error...so if VAR concurs with Beaton, they don't think he has made a mistake, they won't intervene
Having said that, VAR is supposed to have a review for anything that is subjective or a matter of opinion....I think that was very much the case here, so I think a review should have been held, and Beaton should have been sent to the monitor to check
Whether that would have resulted in the pen being given or not....I don't know, but with all the talk of bias at the moment, I can't imagine the backlash there would be right now, if Beaton had went to the monitor, seen it, and made the same decision ie not giving it, because of how close Starfelt was to Goldson, reasoning which is clearly detailed in the laws of the game
VAR needs work...no doubt
But with folk also moaning about how long it takes for decisions to be made, Ilit doesn't surprise me that if the VAR concurs with the on field ref, for whatever reason, they don't go to a review for the sake of itz they just get on with it
It's a difficult one
posted on 3/1/23
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
what was the reason behind the handball not given?
we were not given it so we cannot contest whether or not they were correct cos we dont know what they have looked at seen and judged.
As was said in order to critique it properly we need to be privy to the conversation had by VAR room and ref
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can debate whether we agree with the decision but without transparency we can’t critique the rationale for the decision made.
posted on 3/1/23
To go to VAR it's got to be an obvious error.
Given how subjective this was, you could argue it wasn't an obvious error.
It's one of those where you can understand why it wasn't given, but you could understand why it could have been given.
Ultimately it's not an anti-Celtic thing though.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
To go to VAR it's got to be an obvious error.
Given how subjective this was, you could argue it wasn't an obvious error.
It's one of those where you can understand why it wasn't given, but you could understand why it could have been given.
Ultimately it's not an anti-Celtic thing though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s an anti-competence and anti-transparency thing.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 13 seconds ago
To go to VAR it's got to be an obvious error.
Given how subjective this was, you could argue it wasn't an obvious error.
It's one of those where you can understand why it wasn't given, but you could understand why it could have been given.
Ultimately it's not an anti-Celtic thing though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on mate
I was also annoyed at McCoist in his commentary basically saying the onfield refs are being weakened by VAR
Beaton made the on field call......VAR didn't overrule him....so how is that weakening him
In the same vein...if Beaton had pointed to the spot, given how subjective it was, again I don't think VAR would have overruled him...so how would he be weakened there.
On field referees decision is final.....has always been that way and always will be....refs haven't been weakened at all
When Beaton is seen saying 'its not up to me"....he's 100% right, it's entirely up to the VAR to decide whether he agrees with Beaton or not, has fck all to do with him
For me that's where the rules could be changed for football, and it could be similar to rugby, where the on field ref, if he is not sure, can call for the assistance of the TMO, and between them, they come to a mutual agreement
Why can't that work in football?
posted on 3/1/23
I didn't really enjoy the equaliser for celtic because I was sure Mooy was offside in the build up
Only once the wider angle was available you seen good ole Barasic playing him on
So it kinda kills certain moments like that
I'm not a fan of it but theres no doubt it helps in certain situations
posted on 3/1/23
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 13 seconds ago
To go to VAR it's got to be an obvious error.
Given how subjective this was, you could argue it wasn't an obvious error.
It's one of those where you can understand why it wasn't given, but you could understand why it could have been given.
Ultimately it's not an anti-Celtic thing though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on mate
I was also annoyed at McCoist in his commentary basically saying the onfield refs are being weakened by VAR
Beaton made the on field call......VAR didn't overrule him....so how is that weakening him
In the same vein...if Beaton had pointed to the spot, given how subjective it was, again I don't think VAR would have overruled him...so how would he be weakened there.
On field referees decision is final.....has always been that way and always will be....refs haven't been weakened at all
When Beaton is seen saying 'its not up to me"....he's 100% right, it's entirely up to the VAR to decide whether he agrees with Beaton or not, has fck all to do with him
For me that's where the rules could be changed for football, and it could be similar to rugby, where the on field ref, if he is not sure, can call for the assistance of the TMO, and between them, they come to a mutual agreement
Why can't that work in football?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It could. It’s not perfect in rugby by any stretch of the imagination, but having that plus being able to listen to VAR-Ref audio would improve things.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 9 seconds ago
His arms don't create a larger frame ffs, he puts them in front of his face. If he doesn't he takes it in the pus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do though if they’re right out in front away from his body. It’s not as if he’s got them touching his face. It’s basic geometry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless it was some mad looping shot it makes no difference and it wasn't. The shot was getting blocked by his face and he protected it.
I'm with smid on this, the rule was applied correctly.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 10 minutes ago
To go to VAR it's got to be an obvious error.
Given how subjective this was, you could argue it wasn't an obvious error.
It's one of those where you can understand why it wasn't given, but you could understand why it could have been given.
Ultimately it's not an anti-Celtic thing though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically this
posted on 3/1/23
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 9 seconds ago
His arms don't create a larger frame ffs, he puts them in front of his face. If he doesn't he takes it in the pus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do though if they’re right out in front away from his body. It’s not as if he’s got them touching his face. It’s basic geometry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless it was some mad looping shot it makes no difference and it wasn't. The shot was getting blocked by his face and he protected it.
I'm with smid on this, the rule was applied correctly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And again I don’t mind that rangers fans interpret decisions in a way that favours rangers.
The ball doesn’t look like it is hitting Goldson’s face though.
posted on 3/1/23
Both hands, pushes ball away.
Iv seen enough to know that it woild be given against us.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 1 minute ago
Both hands, pushes ball away.
Iv seen enough to know that it woild be given against us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Santa bring you a new tin foil hat for Christmas?
posted on 3/1/23
Have u seen the decisions var has given against us.
I know you have seen at least one...
posted on 3/1/23
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 23 minutes ago
To go to VAR it's got to be an obvious error.
Given how subjective this was, you could argue it wasn't an obvious error.
It's one of those where you can understand why it wasn't given, but you could understand why it could have been given.
Ultimately it's not an anti-Celtic thing though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR is anti-Dundee United though! That Tony Watt decision was farcical and a clear example of a referee wanting to be the centre of attention.
posted on 3/1/23
I don’t think that VAR is only anti-Celtic. I would say that I think there are only 1 or 2 teams who’ve not had a ‘subjective’ call go against them. Most teams have had a decision referred or given by the VAR team that’s been more than just debatable.
I think we can also do away with the clear and obvious part-we’ve all seen calls that are so obscure as to be ridiculous, and also calls that have taken so long that it can’t have been that clear or obvious.
On the Goldson one, it says ‘not usually given’, which makes it more odd that Beaton didn’t go to the screen to ensure that his subjective view was correct. Subjective has done a lot of heavy lifting since the implementation of VAR.
And can we stop implying that VAR is some automated system?! It’s ultimately another ref (some of whom don’t have any or minimal top tier game experience) who is interpreting an image and applying rules. Even for offside, it’s a human that’s drawing the lines.
Lastly, the argument that a posse of officials agree with your interpretation of the rules-that is a stance that will definitely come back to haunt you in the future.
posted on 3/1/23
we have a very basic form of VAR with a muhc lower amount of cameras used and no (as far as im aware) automatic cases that its used unlike down in England.
posted on 3/1/23
Yeah-I know. I didn’t make it clear I was only talking about up here. Sorry.
posted on 3/1/23
VAR against Celtic
Hearts handball at Tynie
Bernibi handball at CP
Goldson handball at Ibrox
Any more..?
posted on 3/1/23
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 9 seconds ago
His arms don't create a larger frame ffs, he puts them in front of his face. If he doesn't he takes it in the pus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do though if they’re right out in front away from his body. It’s not as if he’s got them touching his face. It’s basic geometry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless it was some mad looping shot it makes no difference and it wasn't. The shot was getting blocked by his face and he protected it.
I'm with smid on this, the rule was applied correctly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And again I don’t mind that rangers fans interpret decisions in a way that favours rangers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, basically the same interpretation as is applied by Scottish officials.
posted on 3/1/23
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 1 minute ago
Both hands, pushes ball away.
Iv seen enough to know that it woild be given against us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Santa bring you a new tin foil hat for Christmas?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, he wore out the old one.
According to an article today the Goldson decision was in line with IFAB rules.
I'm in favour of VAR but there have been issues with it in various places including England. It's new in Scotland and maybe it can be improved.
Page 2 of 3