I see the two of you are genuinely struggling with the concept of a rule book completely absolving any notion of interpretation by the officials on the field of play.

For example “A red card offence is deemed applicable if dangerous or excessive force is used”. Pretty simple right? Except it’s down to the official to decide as to whether it is in his opinion that dangerous or excessive force is used or not.

Another example would be “A penalty kick is awarded if the ball hits any part of the arm in an unnatural position or if deliberately hand balled”. And who decides that again? Oh yeah. The officials on match day.

So the rule books don’t clear it up to the point that there is absolutely no doubt what happens in any and every given situation. Was that so difficult for you both? Priceless indeed.

And by “hiding behind the IFAB rule book”, I meant by those declaring it wasn’t a penalty because the rule books say so. Utter nonsense. It’s always down to interpretation by the officials on the day.

In fact practically every bit of play is other than whether the ball crosses the goal line or not. Then it’s clear technology.

Jesus wept.

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
Not sure what the issue is? There will always be interpretations applied on marginal cases.

- whether the ball really was heading for the face
- what speed it was doing
- how far away it was hit
- whether it looked more like a deliberate action than a reflex one
- whether the player had an alternative
- whether that player has been 'at it' the whole game
- colour of his shirt

Now, I doubt the refs are considering ALL these in the second(s) they make their decision. The VAR guy might and the ref may get a 2nd chance at the monitor but all are possible. It is not always an exact science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Good God man

It’s in the IFAB rule book.

Sakes.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
Not sure what the issue is? There will always be interpretations applied on marginal cases.

- whether the ball really was heading for the face
- what speed it was doing
- how far away it was hit
- whether it looked more like a deliberate action than a reflex one
- whether the player had an alternative
- whether that player has been 'at it' the whole game
- colour of his shirt

Now, I doubt the refs are considering ALL these in the second(s) they make their decision. The VAR guy might and the ref may get a 2nd chance at the monitor but all are possible. It is not always an exact science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Good God man

It’s in the IFAB rule book.

Sakes.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
so what your saying is that its down to interpretation. the ref interpreted Goldson wasnt a handball. so it wsa the right call.

the person whos job it was to interpret, interpreted it wasnt a pen.

so correct decision.

glad we cleared that up and you now agree it wasnt a pen cos the person in charge deciding decided.

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
Not sure what the issue is? There will always be interpretations applied on marginal cases.

- whether the ball really was heading for the face
- what speed it was doing
- how far away it was hit
- whether it looked more like a deliberate action than a reflex one
- whether the player had an alternative
- whether that player has been 'at it' the whole game
- colour of his shirt

Now, I doubt the refs are considering ALL these in the second(s) they make their decision. The VAR guy might and the ref may get a 2nd chance at the monitor but all are possible. It is not always an exact science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Good God man

It’s in the IFAB rule book.

Sakes.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
so what your saying is that its down to interpretation. the ref interpreted Goldson wasnt a handball. so it wsa the right call.

the person whos job it was to interpret, interpreted it wasnt a pen.

so correct decision.

glad we cleared that up and you now agree it wasnt a pen cos the person in charge deciding decided.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty much. What I was also saying is that any other referee could have interpreted it differently is all.

As for being the “correct” decision, that’s solely down to him and the VAR team. It was deemed correct by them and that’s what counted as we all know. So if that’s it all cleared up then fine.

But it’s not as if many other “correct” decisions could be easily considered incorrect by anyone else is it? And that’s what I’ve been saying.

And as for the IFAB rule book being the definitive; how can it be when the officials interpretation will always be the final arbiter?

And if anyone genuinely cared to bother, I agreed with the decision on the day, but I can easily see why many others wouldn’t. I just don’t go by the team I support. I call it as I see it regardless.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
Not sure what the issue is? There will always be interpretations applied on marginal cases.

- whether the ball really was heading for the face
- what speed it was doing
- how far away it was hit
- whether it looked more like a deliberate action than a reflex one
- whether the player had an alternative
- whether that player has been 'at it' the whole game
- colour of his shirt

Now, I doubt the refs are considering ALL these in the second(s) they make their decision. The VAR guy might and the ref may get a 2nd chance at the monitor but all are possible. It is not always an exact science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Good God man

It’s in the IFAB rule book.

Sakes.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
so what your saying is that its down to interpretation. the ref interpreted Goldson wasnt a handball. so it wsa the right call.

the person whos job it was to interpret, interpreted it wasnt a pen.

so correct decision.

glad we cleared that up and you now agree it wasnt a pen cos the person in charge deciding decided.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty much. What I was also saying is that any other referee could have interpreted it differently is all.

As for being the “correct” decision, that’s solely down to him and the VAR team. It was deemed correct by them and that’s what counted as we all know. So if that’s it all cleared up then fine.

But it’s not as if many other “correct” decisions could be easily considered incorrect by anyone else is it? And that’s what I’ve been saying.

And as for the IFAB rule book being the definitive; how can it be when the officials interpretation will always be the final arbiter?

And if anyone genuinely cared to bother, I agreed with the decision on the day, but I can easily see why many others wouldn’t. I just don’t go by the team I support. I call it as I see it regardless.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
the IFAB book of rules change every time I look at them !!

some of the rules are bonkers and are made by people not in touch with the game it seems.

I will use the rashford example rather than ours as its far clearer cut.

Anyone how knows the game knows that should be offisde or the rule should say its offside.

its a farce.

Has anyone seen the Kent replay ? Iv been told there are views that show no punch but must admit form the angle shown on replay I assumed Kent was walking !

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
Not sure what the issue is? There will always be interpretations applied on marginal cases.

- whether the ball really was heading for the face
- what speed it was doing
- how far away it was hit
- whether it looked more like a deliberate action than a reflex one
- whether the player had an alternative
- whether that player has been 'at it' the whole game
- colour of his shirt

Now, I doubt the refs are considering ALL these in the second(s) they make their decision. The VAR guy might and the ref may get a 2nd chance at the monitor but all are possible. It is not always an exact science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Good God man

It’s in the IFAB rule book.

Sakes.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
so what your saying is that its down to interpretation. the ref interpreted Goldson wasnt a handball. so it wsa the right call.

the person whos job it was to interpret, interpreted it wasnt a pen.

so correct decision.

glad we cleared that up and you now agree it wasnt a pen cos the person in charge deciding decided.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty much. What I was also saying is that any other referee could have interpreted it differently is all.

As for being the “correct” decision, that’s solely down to him and the VAR team. It was deemed correct by them and that’s what counted as we all know. So if that’s it all cleared up then fine.

But it’s not as if many other “correct” decisions could be easily considered incorrect by anyone else is it? And that’s what I’ve been saying.

And as for the IFAB rule book being the definitive; how can it be when the officials interpretation will always be the final arbiter?

And if anyone genuinely cared to bother, I agreed with the decision on the day, but I can easily see why many others wouldn’t. I just don’t go by the team I support. I call it as I see it regardless.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
the IFAB book of rules change every time I look at them !!

some of the rules are bonkers and are made by people not in touch with the game it seems.

I will use the rashford example rather than ours as its far clearer cut.

Anyone how knows the game knows that should be offisde or the rule should say its offside.

its a farce.

Has anyone seen the Kent replay ? Iv been told there are views that show no punch but must admit form the angle shown on replay I assumed Kent was walking !
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely and I agree.

Hence why the above notion being offered up that “it’s in the IFAB rule book” being some kind of definitive is just ridiculous.

The unwritten law that still applies to football is “the referee’s decision is final”. All VAR does is give them an opportunity (if used) to review their first call. After that it’s back to the referee.

Any rule book for football is always going to be subject to interpretation and the only way I can see to bring a definitive into the penalty kick situation is to just go the whole hog and state no matter the situation, when the ball hits any part of the arm, it’s a penalty. No argument, no ifs and no buts.

That whoever would make a farce of the game.

Haven’t seen the Kent issue. Didn’t see it when watching the game. So to me it’s irrelevant as again, the referee nor VAR saw it or it was seen and not deemed a punch or whatever.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 8 minutes ago
Haven’t seen the Kent issue. Didn’t see it when watching the game. So to me it’s irrelevant as again, the referee nor VAR saw it or it was seen and not deemed a punch or whatever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent’s punch was Morelosrsque 😟 Davies’ rugby tackle in the penalty box was worse than the GG tackle on the Kilmarnock player in the box. All incidents either missed or dismissed by officials and VAR.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 7 minutes ago
Haven’t seen the Kent issue. Didn’t see it when watching the game. So to me it’s irrelevant as again, the referee nor VAR saw it or it was seen and not deemed a punch or whatever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im assuming it wasnt or it would have been made a much bigger deal of.

I just mind seeing the initial replay quite far back behind him and after the aberdeen boy said he punched him and I seen that replay just assumed that he was gonna go.

I dont have a problem with VAR the problem seems to be that when you give the people (ie the viewers) more then they just want more and more.

just as many talking points will still occur due to interpretations and the more complex they make the rules the more they can cover their back for whatever reason they can find. However I think all the blatant and obvious misses will be picked up. there is pros and cons.

as time goes by the tech will become cheaper to use and more reliable and smoother.

I’ve never bought into any conspiracy theories and doing so makes us look pathetic.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 58 seconds ago
I’ve never bought into any conspiracy theories and doing so makes us look pathetic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a conspiracy theory if it's true.

But then again still decisions can be wrong or what people perceive to be wrong.

For eg the Ivan Toney pen.

Does anyone here think that was a pen?

I didnt , if anything a foul by Toney for holding that guys arm under his own, you can literally see him drag the defender off balance towards him before they tangle and he falls, yet VAR didnt change it despite reviewing it?

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 3 minutes ago
But then again still decisions can be wrong or what people perceive to be wrong.

For eg the Ivan Toney pen.

Does anyone here think that was a pen?

I didnt , if anything a foul by Toney for holding that guys arm under his own, you can literally see him drag the defender off balance towards him before they tangle and he falls, yet VAR didnt change it despite reviewing it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

For as many as think a contentious decision (depending of course as to whether you believe the IFAB rule books make everything definitive 😂) is correct, there will be likely as many think it’s incorrect.

Can understand the argument that for a lot of rules there’s interpretation, for the Goldson pen incident there is an exact scenario that mirrors the incident that states no pen. It’s a laughable stretch to say the scenario set out isn’t the same as the incident. The handball rule and the interpretation of it has been a farce over last couple years. Setting out more scenarios like this one would help.

Again the apparent Goldson handball in lead up to goal, if anyone can set out how that meets definition of handball under rules happy to hear it.

Turnbull one, from what I’ve seen he jumped with a straight leg that is six foot in the air with studs up into the keepers face/shoulder. So to me it’s laughable to suggest that isn’t a red. Again maybe I’ve got the wrong end of the stick on this one and not seen incident correctly.

Kent one I’ve seen a poor replay, looked dodgy from that angle which was a pash poor one but seen a tweet that Dermot Gallagher looked at it today and said no pen. So unclear if there is actually a good view of incident.

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 13 minutes ago
Can understand the argument that for a lot of rules there’s interpretation, for the Goldson pen incident there is an exact scenario that mirrors the incident that states no pen. It’s a laughable stretch to say the scenario set out isn’t the same as the incident. The handball rule and the interpretation of it has been a farce over last couple years. Setting out more scenarios like this one would help.

Again the apparent Goldson handball in lead up to goal, if anyone can set out how that meets definition of handball under rules happy to hear it.

Turnbull one, from what I’ve seen he jumped with a straight leg that is six foot in the air with studs up into the keepers face/shoulder. So to me it’s laughable to suggest that isn’t a red. Again maybe I’ve got the wrong end of the stick on this one and not seen incident correctly.

Kent one I’ve seen a poor replay, looked dodgy from that angle which was a pash poor one but seen a tweet that Dermot Gallagher looked at it today and said no pen. So unclear if there is actually a good view of incident.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, but bottom line is that many will disagree with the interpretation on the day. Usually by those with tinted glasses.

Others can “see” or understand why it may be given differently but just accept it.

A few minutes before Stewart gets sent off

https://twitter.com/gm1903_/status/1614979911118094336?s=48&t=8s0F0XXMSoIdCzVLIV0SCg

comment by MaHeed'sNippin aka I’m the competent Wullie Collum (U3633)
posted 49 minutes ago
A few minutes before Stewart gets sent off

https://twitter.com/gm1903_/status/1614979911118094336?s=48&t=8s0F0XXMSoIdCzVLIV0SCg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You digging out the mccrorie one?

comment by MaHeed'sNippin aka I’m the competent Wullie Collum (U3633)
posted 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
A few minutes before Stewart gets sent off

https://twitter.com/gm1903_/status/1614979911118094336?s=48&t=8s0F0XXMSoIdCzVLIV0SCg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes there was loads of tackles that took place before his red, loads of passes too, a few shot here and there.

sorry what was your point?

comment by MaHeed'sNippin aka I’m the competent Wullie Collum (U3633)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
A few minutes before Stewart gets sent off

https://twitter.com/gm1903_/status/1614979911118094336?s=48&t=8s0F0XXMSoIdCzVLIV0SCg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 footed, studs up, both feet off ground and thus not in control. Could easily have been a red card.

comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by MaHeed'sNippin aka I’m the competent Wullie Collum (U3633)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
A few minutes before Stewart gets sent off

https://twitter.com/gm1903_/status/1614979911118094336?s=48&t=8s0F0XXMSoIdCzVLIV0SCg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 footed, studs up, both feet off ground and thus not in control. Could easily have been a red card.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


dont forget the bit he pulled out a knife

comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by MaHeed'sNippin aka I’m the competent Wullie Collum (U3633)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
A few minutes before Stewart gets sent off

https://twitter.com/gm1903_/status/1614979911118094336?s=48&t=8s0F0XXMSoIdCzVLIV0SCg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 footed, studs up, both feet off ground and thus not in control. Could easily have been a red card.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


dont forget the bit he pulled out a knife
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He did not pull out a knife. It could easily have been given as a red card. I can also see that it wasn’t. Plurality of views and that 👍

comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by MaHeed'sNippin aka I’m the competent Wullie Collum (U3633)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
A few minutes before Stewart gets sent off

https://twitter.com/gm1903_/status/1614979911118094336?s=48&t=8s0F0XXMSoIdCzVLIV0SCg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 footed, studs up, both feet off ground and thus not in control. Could easily have been a red card.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


dont forget the bit he pulled out a knife
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He did not pull out a knife. It could easily have been given as a red card. I can also see that it wasn’t. Plurality of views and that 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
its a clear red, drop kicks the guy in the chest, then spat on his child. VAR are cheats man

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 15 hours, 17 minutes ago
I’ve never bought into any conspiracy theories and doing so makes us look pathetic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not conspiracy theories but the research done into the inherent or unconscious biases in NBA refereeing is insightful in how, when looked at collectively, some clubs can benefit from decisions more than others. Not a chance that the parochial, private and paranoid SFA would lift a finger to investigate that in Scottish football.

comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 15 hours, 17 minutes ago
I’ve never bought into any conspiracy theories and doing so makes us look pathetic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not conspiracy theories but the research done into the inherent or unconscious biases in NBA refereeing is insightful in how, when looked at collectively, some clubs can benefit from decisions more than others. Not a chance that the parochial, private and paranoid SFA would lift a finger to investigate that in Scottish football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument is valid, the part that baffles me is that a number of Celtic supporters seem to believe it is only one way. It never seems to be the case that the bias referenced positively impacts Celtic. The 60k crowd at Parkhead has no apparent influence, the years of writing complaints to the SFA and putting pressure on referees or stoning their houses has no influence, the wide representation on SPFL and SFA boards has no influence. It's all just a one way bias against Celtic who have dominated the game in terms of trophies over the last 20 years.

I also find it baffling they seem to be the most vocal against VAR despite telling us for years how corrupt our refs are. The introduction of technology that allows another view and another set of eyes on the day you would think would appease people with this mindset but instead it has only seemed to heighten their paranoia.

It's all very bizarre.

comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 15 hours, 17 minutes ago
I’ve never bought into any conspiracy theories and doing so makes us look pathetic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not conspiracy theories but the research done into the inherent or unconscious biases in NBA refereeing is insightful in how, when looked at collectively, some clubs can benefit from decisions more than others. Not a chance that the parochial, private and paranoid SFA would lift a finger to investigate that in Scottish football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument is valid, the part that baffles me is that a number of Celtic supporters seem to believe it is only one way. It never seems to be the case that the bias referenced positively impacts Celtic. The 60k crowd at Parkhead has no apparent influence, the years of writing complaints to the SFA and putting pressure on referees or stoning their houses has no influence, the wide representation on SPFL and SFA boards has no influence. It's all just a one way bias against Celtic who have dominated the game in terms of trophies over the last 20 years.

I also find it baffling they seem to be the most vocal against VAR despite telling us for years how corrupt our refs are. The introduction of technology that allows another view and another set of eyes on the day you would think would appease people with this mindset but instead it has only seemed to heighten their paranoia.

It's all very bizarre.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now now, Celtic voted for VAR. Anything you've heard from the club or management concerns consistency and speed of decisions, something I am sure all clubs and fans would want to get behind, no?

As for the SFA, NBA = basketball; basketball = hoops; hoops = bad; nothing to see here.