According to International Football Association Board (IFAB) rules: "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick (unless it's against the home side at Ibrox)
https://twitter.com/deanomac55/status/1655555745977442304
Some helpful still shots. Mental that Celtic have so. The league yet so obsessed with decisions that don’t matter, and aren’t even fouls Funny Duk didn’t even appeal
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 25 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/deanomac55/status/1655555745977442304
Some helpful still shots. Mental that Celtic have so. The league yet so obsessed with decisions that don’t matter, and aren’t even foulsFunny Duk didn’t even appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weird how you don’t show still shots of the bits before that, when Goldson dragged him back and then put both arms round that.
Huh.
Weird…
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 25 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/deanomac55/status/1655555745977442304
Some helpful still shots. Mental that Celtic have so. The league yet so obsessed with decisions that don’t matter, and aren’t even foulsFunny Duk didn’t even appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weird how you don’t show still shots of the bits before that, when Goldson dragged him back and then put both arms round that.
Huh.
Weird…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is that weird? That still shot I’ve posted a link to is outside the box.
Any shots before that are outside the box so clearly no penalty then…
Because it still doesn’t take away from the fact that there was an incredibly obvious foul not given, and a probably red card.
As for your pics, It’s ridiculous to suggest that the foul didn’t continue-the video shows how Goldson rag dolls him.
It’s east just to say you got away with one when something like that happens. It’s not that big a deal. You’re completely incapable of it though. Rangers have never just ‘got away with one’.
Pretty sure you were one of the posters who tried to justify a pen against Aberdeen for some imaginary foul on Sakala I think it was?! Here, you’re using a still photo to try and justify a clear foul, and a definite penalty.
The pictures show quite clearly that Duk clamps his arms, Goldson arms are out to the side and Duk has hold of both of them, it’s as clear as day when slowed down There’s a couple still photos there. It looks when you first see it, but clearly isn’t, if there is any foul it’d have been outside the box, but clearly not the case when you see the images. Or are you claiming that Duk doesn’t have hold of Goldson arms?
Duk was happy, while it was Goldson asking for a foul, funny that…
No idea on the Sakala one, could be, but I’m not an obsessive weirdo who counts or remembers these things.
It’s ignoring the most blatant of fouls from Goldson that instigates it. It’s ignoring that Goldson puts both arms round him, and then spins him ffs.
To try and mitigate some of it by saying ‘here’s a still pic that shows what I think is happening’ says nothing. It doesn’t show movement or anything. A still pic gives zero context. I’ll rely on the videos.
Why did Duk not claim? No idea. Is it possible that he knew it didn’t matter as he wouldn’t get it?
Why did Goldson claim? Because he claims for everything and accepts liability for nothing.
As for the last part-it’s a decent guess that you would have been one of those posters-like I said, rangers have never had a dubious decision go in their favour according to you.
Ever.
You’re saying the pictures don’t show anything? More than one for a start, and they clearly show Duk holding Goldson. So clearly shows a lot
So the pictures don’t show anything, Duk not claiming doesn’t show anything. If it’s a foul before that big deal. Clearly Rangers have had decisions for and against that are wrong. That is being made out like a clear cut one and any evidence proving otherwise doesn’t matter? Absolute lunatics.
Pics don’t give any context-that’s the issue. You’re not talking about the videos for some reason?! The ones that show Goldson fouling both outside and inside the box.
If it was a foul before that, then there’s a decent shout for a red for Goldson, as he spun away towards goal.
Sorry-but it’s not really evidence, is it? It’s a momentary frame of the full incident. Duk not claiming is somehow evidence that there was nothing in it-not one Celtic player claimed for a sending off at our game, yet looked what happened there…
But now we’ve got the standards that you’ll accept for evidence. That’s always something.
So pictures showing that it’s Duk holding Goldson are of no relevance to the video No point discussing it if you’re that blinkered.
No, that’s fine.
We can ignore what happened before and after that, and why Goldson’s arms were where they were.
But aye, Duk…
Aye because Duk holding on to Goldsons arms clearly isn’t relevant to what happens after
Imagine your team winning the league and instead of being jubilant about it you're raging about a correct decision in a game your team wasn't even playing in.
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 3 minutes ago
Imagine your team winning the league and instead of being jubilant about it you're raging about a correct decision in a game your team wasn't even playing in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think anyone’s raging-are they?
I also don’t see the significance of any of what you’ve said.
This rangers penalty anomaly is becoming a bigger debating point the longer it goes on. Can you tell me when it’s ok for us to talk about it?
I don’t have an issue with renegade trying to minimise the challenge from Goldson-I just don’t think it’s overly relevant to the full incident. If an Aberdeen defender had carried out that challenge and the outcome had been the same, there would be cries of ‘cheat’-similar to what he did at the last OF league game at Celtic park.
One decision goes against rangers, and there’s cries of cheat.
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 7 hours, 5 minutes ago
So pictures showing that it’s Duk holding Goldson are of no relevance to the videoNo point discussing it if you’re that blinkered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your argument is irrelevant.
The referee did not see Duk grabbing his arm or he'd have given a free kick to Rangers. So it had no part in his decision making.
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 16 minutes ago
Imagine your team winning the league
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't have to.
Obviously I'd expect the Aberdeen fans to call for a penalty, and I'd expect Rangers fans to call for a penalty if it were the other way around because that's what partisan fans do, and on first viewing it did look like a pull back from Goldson that may have continued into the box. Watching it back though, it's clearly not a foul (by Goldson), clearly not a penalty, clearly the right call by the ref, so as far as any "Rangers penalty anomaly" theories go, Rangers not getting a penalty against them because they didn't commit a foul in the box is a pretty weak argument and hints towards some deeper paranoia or at least desire for a conspiracy to be true.
‘ Watching it back though, it's clearly not a foul (by Goldson)’
I’ve found Stevie Wonder’s login.
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 17 minutes ago
Obviously I'd expect the Aberdeen fans to call for a penalty, and I'd expect Rangers fans to call for a penalty if it were the other way around because that's what partisan fans do, and on first viewing it did look like a pull back from Goldson that may have continued into the box. Watching it back though, it's clearly not a foul (by Goldson), clearly not a penalty, clearly the right call by the ref, so as far as any "Rangers penalty anomaly" theories go, Rangers not getting a penalty against them because they didn't commit a foul in the box is a pretty weak argument and hints towards some deeper paranoia or at least desire for a conspiracy to be true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 13 minutes ago
Obviously I'd expect the Aberdeen fans to call for a penalty, and I'd expect Rangers fans to call for a penalty if it were the other way around because that's what partisan fans do, and on first viewing it did look like a pull back from Goldson that may have continued into the box. Watching it back though, it's clearly not a foul (by Goldson), clearly not a penalty, clearly the right call by the ref, so as far as any "Rangers penalty anomaly" theories go, Rangers not getting a penalty against them because they didn't commit a foul in the box is a pretty weak argument and hints towards some deeper paranoia or at least desire for a conspiracy to be true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that the paranoia and conspiracy stuff is more based on the fact that you've had one penalty against in 95 domestic matches, yet managed to concede 4 in 10 games in Europe.
comment by Magnum (2 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 13 minutes ago
Obviously I'd expect the Aberdeen fans to call for a penalty, and I'd expect Rangers fans to call for a penalty if it were the other way around because that's what partisan fans do, and on first viewing it did look like a pull back from Goldson that may have continued into the box. Watching it back though, it's clearly not a foul (by Goldson), clearly not a penalty, clearly the right call by the ref, so as far as any "Rangers penalty anomaly" theories go, Rangers not getting a penalty against them because they didn't commit a foul in the box is a pretty weak argument and hints towards some deeper paranoia or at least desire for a conspiracy to be true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that the paranoia and conspiracy stuff is more based on the fact that you've had one penalty against in 95 domestic matches, yet managed to concede 4 in 10 games in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A rational mind might consider that it might have something to do with having much more defending to do in those games against a far higher standard of attacker. But I guess sometimes it's more comforting to just howl at the moon instead.
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 1 hour, 48 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (2 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 13 minutes ago
Obviously I'd expect the Aberdeen fans to call for a penalty, and I'd expect Rangers fans to call for a penalty if it were the other way around because that's what partisan fans do, and on first viewing it did look like a pull back from Goldson that may have continued into the box. Watching it back though, it's clearly not a foul (by Goldson), clearly not a penalty, clearly the right call by the ref, so as far as any "Rangers penalty anomaly" theories go, Rangers not getting a penalty against them because they didn't commit a foul in the box is a pretty weak argument and hints towards some deeper paranoia or at least desire for a conspiracy to be true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that the paranoia and conspiracy stuff is more based on the fact that you've had one penalty against in 95 domestic matches, yet managed to concede 4 in 10 games in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A rational mind might consider that it might have something to do with having much more defending to do in those games against a far higher standard of attacker. But I guess sometimes it's more comforting to just howl at the moon instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An even more rational mind might say, then why haven't Celtic seen the same statistics, considering they are the most attacking successful club for the last few years.
Anyone thinking the stats ain't skewed is mental.
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR Bad decisions..?
Page 6 of 13
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 8/5/23
“Honest” mistakes
posted on 8/5/23
posted on 8/5/23
According to International Football Association Board (IFAB) rules: "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick (unless it's against the home side at Ibrox)
posted on 8/5/23
https://twitter.com/deanomac55/status/1655555745977442304
Some helpful still shots. Mental that Celtic have so. The league yet so obsessed with decisions that don’t matter, and aren’t even fouls Funny Duk didn’t even appeal
posted on 8/5/23
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 25 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/deanomac55/status/1655555745977442304
Some helpful still shots. Mental that Celtic have so. The league yet so obsessed with decisions that don’t matter, and aren’t even foulsFunny Duk didn’t even appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weird how you don’t show still shots of the bits before that, when Goldson dragged him back and then put both arms round that.
Huh.
Weird…
posted on 8/5/23
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 25 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/deanomac55/status/1655555745977442304
Some helpful still shots. Mental that Celtic have so. The league yet so obsessed with decisions that don’t matter, and aren’t even foulsFunny Duk didn’t even appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weird how you don’t show still shots of the bits before that, when Goldson dragged him back and then put both arms round that.
Huh.
Weird…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is that weird? That still shot I’ve posted a link to is outside the box.
Any shots before that are outside the box so clearly no penalty then…
posted on 8/5/23
Because it still doesn’t take away from the fact that there was an incredibly obvious foul not given, and a probably red card.
As for your pics, It’s ridiculous to suggest that the foul didn’t continue-the video shows how Goldson rag dolls him.
It’s east just to say you got away with one when something like that happens. It’s not that big a deal. You’re completely incapable of it though. Rangers have never just ‘got away with one’.
Pretty sure you were one of the posters who tried to justify a pen against Aberdeen for some imaginary foul on Sakala I think it was?! Here, you’re using a still photo to try and justify a clear foul, and a definite penalty.
posted on 8/5/23
*it’s easy
posted on 8/5/23
The pictures show quite clearly that Duk clamps his arms, Goldson arms are out to the side and Duk has hold of both of them, it’s as clear as day when slowed down There’s a couple still photos there. It looks when you first see it, but clearly isn’t, if there is any foul it’d have been outside the box, but clearly not the case when you see the images. Or are you claiming that Duk doesn’t have hold of Goldson arms?
Duk was happy, while it was Goldson asking for a foul, funny that…
No idea on the Sakala one, could be, but I’m not an obsessive weirdo who counts or remembers these things.
posted on 8/5/23
It’s ignoring the most blatant of fouls from Goldson that instigates it. It’s ignoring that Goldson puts both arms round him, and then spins him ffs.
To try and mitigate some of it by saying ‘here’s a still pic that shows what I think is happening’ says nothing. It doesn’t show movement or anything. A still pic gives zero context. I’ll rely on the videos.
Why did Duk not claim? No idea. Is it possible that he knew it didn’t matter as he wouldn’t get it?
Why did Goldson claim? Because he claims for everything and accepts liability for nothing.
As for the last part-it’s a decent guess that you would have been one of those posters-like I said, rangers have never had a dubious decision go in their favour according to you.
Ever.
posted on 9/5/23
You’re saying the pictures don’t show anything? More than one for a start, and they clearly show Duk holding Goldson. So clearly shows a lot
So the pictures don’t show anything, Duk not claiming doesn’t show anything. If it’s a foul before that big deal. Clearly Rangers have had decisions for and against that are wrong. That is being made out like a clear cut one and any evidence proving otherwise doesn’t matter? Absolute lunatics.
posted on 9/5/23
Pics don’t give any context-that’s the issue. You’re not talking about the videos for some reason?! The ones that show Goldson fouling both outside and inside the box.
If it was a foul before that, then there’s a decent shout for a red for Goldson, as he spun away towards goal.
Sorry-but it’s not really evidence, is it? It’s a momentary frame of the full incident. Duk not claiming is somehow evidence that there was nothing in it-not one Celtic player claimed for a sending off at our game, yet looked what happened there…
But now we’ve got the standards that you’ll accept for evidence. That’s always something.
posted on 9/5/23
So pictures showing that it’s Duk holding Goldson are of no relevance to the video No point discussing it if you’re that blinkered.
posted on 9/5/23
No, that’s fine.
We can ignore what happened before and after that, and why Goldson’s arms were where they were.
But aye, Duk…
posted on 9/5/23
Aye because Duk holding on to Goldsons arms clearly isn’t relevant to what happens after
posted on 9/5/23
Imagine your team winning the league and instead of being jubilant about it you're raging about a correct decision in a game your team wasn't even playing in.
posted on 9/5/23
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 3 minutes ago
Imagine your team winning the league and instead of being jubilant about it you're raging about a correct decision in a game your team wasn't even playing in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think anyone’s raging-are they?
I also don’t see the significance of any of what you’ve said.
This rangers penalty anomaly is becoming a bigger debating point the longer it goes on. Can you tell me when it’s ok for us to talk about it?
I don’t have an issue with renegade trying to minimise the challenge from Goldson-I just don’t think it’s overly relevant to the full incident. If an Aberdeen defender had carried out that challenge and the outcome had been the same, there would be cries of ‘cheat’-similar to what he did at the last OF league game at Celtic park.
One decision goes against rangers, and there’s cries of cheat.
posted on 9/5/23
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 7 hours, 5 minutes ago
So pictures showing that it’s Duk holding Goldson are of no relevance to the videoNo point discussing it if you’re that blinkered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your argument is irrelevant.
The referee did not see Duk grabbing his arm or he'd have given a free kick to Rangers. So it had no part in his decision making.
posted on 9/5/23
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 16 minutes ago
Imagine your team winning the league
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't have to.
posted on 9/5/23
Obviously I'd expect the Aberdeen fans to call for a penalty, and I'd expect Rangers fans to call for a penalty if it were the other way around because that's what partisan fans do, and on first viewing it did look like a pull back from Goldson that may have continued into the box. Watching it back though, it's clearly not a foul (by Goldson), clearly not a penalty, clearly the right call by the ref, so as far as any "Rangers penalty anomaly" theories go, Rangers not getting a penalty against them because they didn't commit a foul in the box is a pretty weak argument and hints towards some deeper paranoia or at least desire for a conspiracy to be true.
posted on 9/5/23
‘ Watching it back though, it's clearly not a foul (by Goldson)’
I’ve found Stevie Wonder’s login.
posted on 9/5/23
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 17 minutes ago
Obviously I'd expect the Aberdeen fans to call for a penalty, and I'd expect Rangers fans to call for a penalty if it were the other way around because that's what partisan fans do, and on first viewing it did look like a pull back from Goldson that may have continued into the box. Watching it back though, it's clearly not a foul (by Goldson), clearly not a penalty, clearly the right call by the ref, so as far as any "Rangers penalty anomaly" theories go, Rangers not getting a penalty against them because they didn't commit a foul in the box is a pretty weak argument and hints towards some deeper paranoia or at least desire for a conspiracy to be true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 9/5/23
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 13 minutes ago
Obviously I'd expect the Aberdeen fans to call for a penalty, and I'd expect Rangers fans to call for a penalty if it were the other way around because that's what partisan fans do, and on first viewing it did look like a pull back from Goldson that may have continued into the box. Watching it back though, it's clearly not a foul (by Goldson), clearly not a penalty, clearly the right call by the ref, so as far as any "Rangers penalty anomaly" theories go, Rangers not getting a penalty against them because they didn't commit a foul in the box is a pretty weak argument and hints towards some deeper paranoia or at least desire for a conspiracy to be true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that the paranoia and conspiracy stuff is more based on the fact that you've had one penalty against in 95 domestic matches, yet managed to concede 4 in 10 games in Europe.
posted on 9/5/23
comment by Magnum (2 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 13 minutes ago
Obviously I'd expect the Aberdeen fans to call for a penalty, and I'd expect Rangers fans to call for a penalty if it were the other way around because that's what partisan fans do, and on first viewing it did look like a pull back from Goldson that may have continued into the box. Watching it back though, it's clearly not a foul (by Goldson), clearly not a penalty, clearly the right call by the ref, so as far as any "Rangers penalty anomaly" theories go, Rangers not getting a penalty against them because they didn't commit a foul in the box is a pretty weak argument and hints towards some deeper paranoia or at least desire for a conspiracy to be true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that the paranoia and conspiracy stuff is more based on the fact that you've had one penalty against in 95 domestic matches, yet managed to concede 4 in 10 games in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A rational mind might consider that it might have something to do with having much more defending to do in those games against a far higher standard of attacker. But I guess sometimes it's more comforting to just howl at the moon instead.
posted on 9/5/23
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 1 hour, 48 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (2 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by WorkPermitPending (U1067)
posted 13 minutes ago
Obviously I'd expect the Aberdeen fans to call for a penalty, and I'd expect Rangers fans to call for a penalty if it were the other way around because that's what partisan fans do, and on first viewing it did look like a pull back from Goldson that may have continued into the box. Watching it back though, it's clearly not a foul (by Goldson), clearly not a penalty, clearly the right call by the ref, so as far as any "Rangers penalty anomaly" theories go, Rangers not getting a penalty against them because they didn't commit a foul in the box is a pretty weak argument and hints towards some deeper paranoia or at least desire for a conspiracy to be true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that the paranoia and conspiracy stuff is more based on the fact that you've had one penalty against in 95 domestic matches, yet managed to concede 4 in 10 games in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A rational mind might consider that it might have something to do with having much more defending to do in those games against a far higher standard of attacker. But I guess sometimes it's more comforting to just howl at the moon instead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An even more rational mind might say, then why haven't Celtic seen the same statistics, considering they are the most attacking successful club for the last few years.
Anyone thinking the stats ain't skewed is mental.
Page 6 of 13
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11