comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 17 seconds ago
https://x.com/lewfalc/status/1698338777024831802?s=46

Free kick to rangers, and not a penalty to St Mirren.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be raging if a penalty was given against us for that, clear dive by the guy after the contact, could easily have stayed on his feet

Don't think it's a free kick to us either, the guy just stood in front of Sands who's clearly trying to kick the ball, play on
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fvck sake Stevie-Sands booted the St Mirren player’s foot-that’s what caused Sands to go over as well!

Every rangers player in sight claims for the foul as well.

You’re now just answering like McCann did last night-you can’t ignore the rule just because you don’t like it. Rangers got a foul in that instance and the circumstances are nigh on the same as yesterday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me the rule, have been asking this the whole time

I don’t know the rule-but you’ve now got 3 incidents where it’s happened, one of which is where your own player benefited.

Do you think they’ve just all made this up?!

Did you ask to see the rule when it happened with Sands?

"I don’t know the rule"

There it is

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 3 minutes ago
"I don’t know the rule"

There it is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is dessers was never in control of the ball. So thats why its a foul.

You cant honestly expect to impede a player and get away with it.

For clarity, I don’t know the rule number. Impeding a player has always been a foul though.

If we’re being honest, it’s the only part you’ve got left to hang onto. Everything else has been answered-even to the point of showing you when rangers benefitted from the rule that you don’t want to look for.

POV

Whether dessers done anything wrong in the rules seems to be the difference in opinion but the celtic lad went down after he kicked desser on the back of the leg, clearly can be seen in the replay, so bit of a 50 - 50 situation

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
For clarity, I don’t know the rule number. Impeding a player has always been a foul though.

If we’re being honest, it’s the only part you’ve got left to hang onto. Everything else has been answered-even to the point of showing you when rangers benefitted from the rule that you don’t want to look for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What I've seen is 3 incidents....one where the referee blows for a foul, 2 where he doesn't and needs VAR to convince him

For me.....it's a grey area, and that's the issue

Can see why the foul was given, but can also see why people are up in arms about a foul being given

The rules are pretty sketchy on this, impeding a player has always been a foul, but impeding is defined as follows:

"Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent's path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player."

The ball is clearly within playing distance of both players, so for me, shouldn't be a foul

comment by puyolsnohadahaircut (U6410)
posted 3 minutes ago
Whether dessers done anything wrong in the rules seems to be the difference in opinion but the celtic lad went down after he kicked desser on the back of the leg, clearly can be seen in the replay, so bit of a 50 - 50 situation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not though-he impeded Lagerbielke from kicking the ball-which he was in the progress of doing-by putting his leg in front of him. The Celtic player is still deemed to be in control of the ball at that point.

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
For clarity, I don’t know the rule number. Impeding a player has always been a foul though.

If we’re being honest, it’s the only part you’ve got left to hang onto. Everything else has been answered-even to the point of showing you when rangers benefitted from the rule that you don’t want to look for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What I've seen is 3 incidents....one where the referee blows for a foul, 2 where he doesn't and needs VAR to convince him

For me.....it's a grey area, and that's the issue

Can see why the foul was given, but can also see why people are up in arms about a foul being given

The rules are pretty sketchy on this, impeding a player has always been a foul, but impeding is defined as follows:

"Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent's path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player."

The ball is clearly within playing distance of both players, so for me, shouldn't be a foul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then Dessers should have played the ball rather than impeding the Celtic player.

And VAR didn’t over rule the ref as you said earlier. They check every goal including the build up for an incident the ref might have missed. Don clearly couldn’t have seen the incident or else he would have given a foul, which he did after reviewing the incident.

It’s what VAR was brought in for.

If you can see why the foul was given, and can see it’s been applied to rangers benefit, then that’s it done.

Think it’s been done to death now.

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
For clarity, I don’t know the rule number. Impeding a player has always been a foul though.

If we’re being honest, it’s the only part you’ve got left to hang onto. Everything else has been answered-even to the point of showing you when rangers benefitted from the rule that you don’t want to look for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What I've seen is 3 incidents....one where the referee blows for a foul, 2 where he doesn't and needs VAR to convince him

For me.....it's a grey area, and that's the issue

Can see why the foul was given, but can also see why people are up in arms about a foul being given

The rules are pretty sketchy on this, impeding a player has always been a foul, but impeding is defined as follows:

"Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent's path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player."

The ball is clearly within playing distance of both players, so for me, shouldn't be a foul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but he didnt touch the ball though.

If he did then not a foul but as he didn't its a clear foul.

What would any one of us have given to be sat in that stadium as it went crushingly silent at our goal?

"nnngggffffss......BOOOOO"

"Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent's path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player."

The ball is clearly within playing distance of both players, so for me, shouldn't be a foul

Within distance is irrelevant in yesterday's case as Dessers had already caused the trip on Lagerbielke when he had already planted his foot on the ball in a vain attempt to make contact.

The fact he couldn't get to the ball even with the interference in Lagerbielke's phannying around makes it quite obvious the ball wasn't within distance.

There

I'm undecided on whether it's a foul. Madden after the game gave a good explanation on why it was a foul but Dermot Gallagher on sky gave equally as good on why it wasn't.

VAR was supposed to come in if the ref made a clear and obvious error and we can probably agree he didn't since he had a clear view. Thats why we were told the Morelos goal a few months back wasn't interfered with by VAR.

However in the grand scheme its irrelevant. In these games sometimes you benefit from decisions and sometimes you don't. It might have changed the outcome yesterday but not the bigger picture.

From the outside looking in, the majority of Beale’s signings look like they simply won’t cut it.
I’ve read him being compared to Caixinha and Warburton and the signs are definitely there.

For Cantwell read Josh Windass - a daft boy with talent but who will essentially never hit the heights.

For Dessers read Herrera - a trier but one of those strikers where whenever he gets a chance you almost expect him to waste it.

Cifuentes is Peña without the class a. Nothing there to excite.

Lammers is a poor man’s Barry McKay on evidence thus far.

Sima, one excellent strike aside, has had as much an impact as Dalcio.

The rest of them are barely worth mentioning given their contributions.


As for Beale, at least Warburton had a style of play. He looks completely out his depth.
Brendan Rodgers couldn’t have timed his return any better with the nick Rangers are in right now.

St Mirren and Motherwell have looked more convincing this year and that must be a huge worry.

comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 2 minutes ago
I'm undecided on whether it's a foul. Madden after the game gave a good explanation on why it was a foul but Dermot Gallagher on sky gave equally as good on why it wasn't.

VAR was supposed to come in if the ref made a clear and obvious error and we can probably agree he didn't since he had a clear view. Thats why we were told the Morelos goal a few months back wasn't interfered with by VAR.

However in the grand scheme its irrelevant. In these games sometimes you benefit from decisions and sometimes you don't. It might have changed the outcome yesterday but not the bigger picture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its a foul but in all honesty we got away with one. Our guy clearly dallied on the ball but your guy fouled him.

If dessers was a couple of seconds later he probably could have robbed him fairly and scored.

comment by Staunch neutral (U23065)
posted 2 minutes ago
From the outside looking in, the majority of Beale’s signings look like they simply won’t cut it.
I’ve read him being compared to Caixinha and Warburton and the signs are definitely there.

For Cantwell read Josh Windass - a daft boy with talent but who will essentially never hit the heights.

For Dessers read Herrera - a trier but one of those strikers where whenever he gets a chance you almost expect him to waste it.

Cifuentes is Peña without the class a. Nothing there to excite.

Lammers is a poor man’s Barry McKay on evidence thus far.

Sima, one excellent strike aside, has had as much an impact as Dalcio.

The rest of them are barely worth mentioning given their contributions.


As for Beale, at least Warburton had a style of play. He looks completely out his depth.
Brendan Rodgers couldn’t have timed his return any better with the nick Rangers are in right now.

St Mirren and Motherwell have looked more convincing this year and that must be a huge worry.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute pash

So the rule states it's not a foul if you impede a player when the ball is within playing distance......but you lot are saying Dessers not playing the ball makes a difference when the rule says nothing about the ball having to be touched, and that the distance between the ball and either player is irrelevant, when that's exactly what the rule says

Right then...see when an attacker has a heavy touch, and a defender stands right in front of him, stops him from getting near the ball, and shepherds it out of play.....surely that's obstruction

- Defender is impeding the attacker
- Defender isn't touching the ball

Only reason it isn't a foul is because the ball is within playing distance, guy the defender is allowed to stand his ground

Don't see what the difference is with the Dessers incident...he's allowed to put his foot on the ground, and when he does so the ball is within playing distance

In simple terms....the rule is pash

https://twitter.com/ScotlandSky/status/1698650755924893850?t=_RpqltGHG879S0v3u0PHGg&s=19

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 10 minutes ago
So the rule states it's not a foul if you impede a player when the ball is within playing distance......but you lot are saying Dessers not playing the ball makes a difference when the rule says nothing about the ball having to be touched, and that the distance between the ball and either player is irrelevant, when that's exactly what the rule says

Right then...see when an attacker has a heavy touch, and a defender stands right in front of him, stops him from getting near the ball, and shepherds it out of play.....surely that's obstruction

- Defender is impeding the attacker
- Defender isn't touching the ball

Only reason it isn't a foul is because the ball is within playing distance, guy the defender is allowed to stand his ground

Don't see what the difference is with the Dessers incident...he's allowed to put his foot on the ground, and when he does so the ball is within playing distance

In simple terms....the rule is pash
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok. You don’t like the rule. Meh. It’s a rule so try and stick with it.

Here’s another one.

Striker running into the box and is about to shoot just before the defender plants his leg into the mix and the attacker ends up kicking the defenders leg and falls on his rse.

Penalty?

Of course it is. Clear foul.

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/ScotlandSky/status/1698650755924893850?t=_RpqltGHG879S0v3u0PHGg&s=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He on drugs ?? I can only think they think he's pushed him ?

Whit?? Aye nothing to do with him tripping him whilst in the act of playing it .

I just can't believe the ref never blew for the foul right away , you almost always get those given

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 10 minutes ago
So the rule states it's not a foul if you impede a player when the ball is within playing distance......but you lot are saying Dessers not playing the ball makes a difference when the rule says nothing about the ball having to be touched, and that the distance between the ball and either player is irrelevant, when that's exactly what the rule says

Right then...see when an attacker has a heavy touch, and a defender stands right in front of him, stops him from getting near the ball, and shepherds it out of play.....surely that's obstruction

- Defender is impeding the attacker
- Defender isn't touching the ball

Only reason it isn't a foul is because the ball is within playing distance, guy the defender is allowed to stand his ground

Don't see what the difference is with the Dessers incident...he's allowed to put his foot on the ground, and when he does so the ball is within playing distance

In simple terms....the rule is pash
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok. You don’t like the rule. Meh. It’s a rule so try and stick with it.

Here’s another one.

Striker running into the box and is about to shoot just before the defender plants his leg into the mix and the attacker ends up kicking the defenders leg and falls on his rse.

Penalty?

Of course it is. Clear foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly

I'm amazed at how folk can't see that

Some wanted the one Cantwell took a shoulder barge given

He's some man , 5 minutes of treatment for a shoulder nudge ...did he not have his pads in ??

comment by lauders (U9757)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Staunch neutral (U23065)
posted 2 minutes ago
From the outside looking in, the majority of Beale’s signings look like they simply won’t cut it.
I’ve read him being compared to Caixinha and Warburton and the signs are definitely there.

For Cantwell read Josh Windass - a daft boy with talent but who will essentially never hit the heights.

For Dessers read Herrera - a trier but one of those strikers where whenever he gets a chance you almost expect him to waste it.

Cifuentes is Peña without the class a. Nothing there to excite.

Lammers is a poor man’s Barry McKay on evidence thus far.

Sima, one excellent strike aside, has had as much an impact as Dalcio.

The rest of them are barely worth mentioning given their contributions.


As for Beale, at least Warburton had a style of play. He looks completely out his depth.
Brendan Rodgers couldn’t have timed his return any better with the nick Rangers are in right now.

St Mirren and Motherwell have looked more convincing this year and that must be a huge worry.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute pash
----------------------------------------------------------------------


A warm welcome back for old Pedro.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 10 minutes ago
So the rule states it's not a foul if you impede a player when the ball is within playing distance......but you lot are saying Dessers not playing the ball makes a difference when the rule says nothing about the ball having to be touched, and that the distance between the ball and either player is irrelevant, when that's exactly what the rule says

Right then...see when an attacker has a heavy touch, and a defender stands right in front of him, stops him from getting near the ball, and shepherds it out of play.....surely that's obstruction

- Defender is impeding the attacker
- Defender isn't touching the ball

Only reason it isn't a foul is because the ball is within playing distance, guy the defender is allowed to stand his ground

Don't see what the difference is with the Dessers incident...he's allowed to put his foot on the ground, and when he does so the ball is within playing distance

In simple terms....the rule is pash
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok. You don’t like the rule. Meh. It’s a rule so try and stick with it.

Here’s another one.

Striker running into the box and is about to shoot just before the defender plants his leg into the mix and the attacker ends up kicking the defenders leg and falls on his rse.

Penalty?

Of course it is. Clear foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, not for me

Clear foul if it's a desperate lunge and the defender is nowhere near getting the ball and sticks a leg in

If the defender is standing right beside the player, and is contesting him for the ball, and both are in a position to play it, I don't see how the attacker kicking the defender warrants a penalty