comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 21 minutes ago
Change in reason is a farce but can see why offside would be given. Rules are rules, as we were told when it came to Roofe’s goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is they don't know why they disallowed it. They initially said it was for a foul, and then changed their mind.
For the roofe goal, if you look back, Robertson doesn't initially signal that it was a goal, so he clearly knew that there was something amiss.
Mental comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And as I said the change in reasoning is a farce…
But he is interfering with the keeper.
The keeper didn’t move. He didn’t even claim for it. Considering everything else they claimed for, if he felt there was interference he would have been shouting about it from the rooftops.
Even the officials don’t know what they disallowed it for.
‘The keeper didn’t move. He didn’t even claim for it. Considering everything else they claimed for, if he felt there was interference he would have been shouting about it from the rooftops. ‘
Exactly why I’m comparing it to the Roofe incident. No claims were made by Celtic defenders in that case. But we were told the rules are rules. Clearly can see why he’s interfering in play.
Surely scotland can ask for the audio of the var?
But the ref doesnt point for a foul and if that has now been changed then the game should be replayed.
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 44 minutes ago
‘The keeper didn’t move. He didn’t even claim for it. Considering everything else they claimed for, if he felt there was interference he would have been shouting about it from the rooftops. ‘
Exactly why I’m comparing it to the Roofe incident. No claims were made by Celtic defenders in that case. But we were told the rules are rules. Clearly can see why he’s interfering in play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's not rewrite history - Lagerbielke was shouting at the ref for a foul as he knew he had been fouled
comment by Call Sign (U3627)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 44 minutes ago
‘The keeper didn’t move. He didn’t even claim for it. Considering everything else they claimed for, if he felt there was interference he would have been shouting about it from the rooftops. ‘
Exactly why I’m comparing it to the Roofe incident. No claims were made by Celtic defenders in that case. But we were told the rules are rules. Clearly can see why he’s interfering in play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's not rewrite history - Lagerbielke was shouting at the ref for a foul as he knew he had been fouled
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite incredible how this nonsense has taken root. As you say he was claiming straight away.
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Call Sign (U3627)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 44 minutes ago
‘The keeper didn’t move. He didn’t even claim for it. Considering everything else they claimed for, if he felt there was interference he would have been shouting about it from the rooftops. ‘
Exactly why I’m comparing it to the Roofe incident. No claims were made by Celtic defenders in that case. But we were told the rules are rules. Clearly can see why he’s interfering in play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's not rewrite history - Lagerbielke was shouting at the ref for a foul as he knew he had been fouled
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite incredible how this nonsense has taken root. As you say he was claiming straight away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And he wasn’t the only one. Even the ref knew it was a foul-that’s why he never signalled for a goal straight away.
You’re having a mare here, renegade.
I doubt any neutral observer would have agreed with that call last night-it was a shocker of a decision.
Have seen a few neutrals that agreed with the decision last night, Paddy Kenny was one. Whereas we had actual refs disagreeing with the foul given in the old firm.
Rules are rules.
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
Have seen a few neutrals that agreed with the decision last night, Paddy Kenny was one. Whereas we had actual refs disagreeing with the foul given in the old firm.
Rules are rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You brought up the defenders🤣🤣🤣🤣
Did the player move from an already offside position to a position where he could be deemed to be interfering with play ?
Standing more or less on the keepers toes while making even minimal contact might be seen as an interference
Even the opinion that he wouldn’t have been able to save it anyway I don’t think is relevant
It’s a very tight call
Had he been onside and made the move towards the keeper I thinks it’s a goal as it’s really not much of a foul imo
Had he been offside but not made the move to the keeper then it’s a goal as he then would have not interfered
It’s only when you combine the 2 it’s questionable imo
Very tight
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 14 minutes ago
Have seen a few neutrals that agreed with the decision last night, Paddy Kenny was one. Whereas we had actual refs disagreeing with the foul given in the old firm.
Rules are rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*former refs…
Was Paddy Kenny not a bit of a spoofer? And he was a goalie-if anyone was going to stick up for a another goalie…
No idea why the Roofe situation is relevant-even allowing for ‘rules are rules’ to be given as an argument. The issue is that they haven’t applied rules. They’ve said it was for a foul, and the changed it to offside. That negates any ‘rules are rules’ argument, as they’ve clearly made a roaring cvnt of it.
I can agree with Duke that it could be classed as a tight call, it’s been left open to interpretation-but to change the reason why?
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 8 minutes ago
Had he been onside and made the move towards the keeper I thinks it’s a goal as it’s really not much of a foul imo
Had he been offside but not made the move to the keeper then it’s a goal as he then would have not interfered
It’s only when you combine the 2 it’s questionable imo
Very tight
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but it looks like the ref gave the foul and not the offside last night.
He doesn't indicate offside but that it was a foul and they didn't draw the lines when checking it only afterwards.
As gutted as I was at ti getting ruled out, in the end it was prob the right call.
wasnt a foul, but did look like he was offside and is in contact with the keeper so he is interfering 100%.
Gutter though cos I was running about like a madman screaming.
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 8 minutes ago
Had he been onside and made the move towards the keeper I thinks it’s a goal as it’s really not much of a foul imo
Had he been offside but not made the move to the keeper then it’s a goal as he then would have not interfered
It’s only when you combine the 2 it’s questionable imo
Very tight
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but it looks like the ref gave the foul and not the offside last night.
He doesn't indicate offside but that it was a foul and they didn't draw the lines when checking it only afterwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As said it’s a combination
I don’t think it that relevant whether he gives a direct or indirect free kick
Though he probably should have given offside
If someone scores a 30 yard shot and a player is standing offside on the keepers toes
He would give offside
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 30 minutes ago
Have seen a few neutrals that agreed with the decision last night, Paddy Kenny was one. Whereas we had actual refs disagreeing with the foul given in the old firm.
Rules are rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You said no defenders claimed for a foul. Are you changing the subject now?
Rangers very own Bobby Madden came out on social media straight away and backed up the foul on Lagerbielke
on a separate note how bad a commentator is Michael Stewart, he is even rotten when he is being biased towards your team. without doubt one of the worst commentators Iv heard.
I think Michael Stewart is a very good commentator. Very passionate and knows the game
Do we know yet what the official reason for ruling out the goal was?
Have Scotland asked for the VAR transcript, that needs to be done.
I've a big issue with it being called for both a foul and an offside, one I could live with just about but the other is an absolute scandal.
I've been in the VAR camp since it's introduction but we are now some years down the line and is it really helping?
It was supposed to improve the game and for some it has but it's also having the opposite effect on many others plus delaying the game.
I wouldn't argue if they wanted to bin it now.
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted less than a minute ago
Do we know yet what the official reason for ruling out the goal was?
Have Scotland asked for the VAR transcript, that needs to be done.
I've a big issue with it being called for both a foul and an offside, one I could live with just about but the other is an absolute scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside and interfering with play
Very tight but ultimately imo correct
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted less than a minute ago
Do we know yet what the official reason for ruling out the goal was?
Have Scotland asked for the VAR transcript, that needs to be done.
I've a big issue with it being called for both a foul and an offside, one I could live with just about but the other is an absolute scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside and interfering with play
Very tight but ultimately imo correct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you class it as interfering with play its with a shot the keeper isn't saving anyway. So the result is no interference in the game imo.
If he stopped him diving or something fair enough, if he could save it then fair enough.
It's a better call than foul but I still don't agree with it.
Fuming the bastirts got a second goal as well, at least 1-0 or 2-1 we would have got our of there with top spot in our hands.
On VAR. They need to get them fookers mic'd up if we're keeping it.
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted less than a minute ago
Do we know yet what the official reason for ruling out the goal was?
Have Scotland asked for the VAR transcript, that needs to be done.
I've a big issue with it being called for both a foul and an offside, one I could live with just about but the other is an absolute scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside and interfering with play
Very tight but ultimately imo correct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you class it as interfering with play its with a shot the keeper isn't saving anyway. So the result is no interference in the game imo.
If he stopped him diving or something fair enough, if he could save it then fair enough.
It's a better call than foul but I still don't agree with it.
Fuming the bastirts got a second goal as well, at least 1-0 or 2-1 we would have got our of there with top spot in our hands.
On VAR. They need to get them fookers mic'd up if we're keeping it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is giving the keeper something else to think about, Hendrys hand is even on his chest. the keeper needs to then consider if the defender can get to the ball and has to adjust his position accordingly
it was a farce cos it was given as a foul which it wasnt, it was offside however. It was nice of the governing body to come in half way thro' the 2nd half to let the refs all know however !!
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted less than a minute ago
Do we know yet what the official reason for ruling out the goal was?
Have Scotland asked for the VAR transcript, that needs to be done.
I've a big issue with it being called for both a foul and an offside, one I could live with just about but the other is an absolute scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside and interfering with play
Very tight but ultimately imo correct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you class it as interfering with play its with a shot the keeper isn't saving anyway. So the result is no interference in the game imo.
If he stopped him diving or something fair enough, if he could save it then fair enough.
It's a better call than foul but I still don't agree with it.
Fuming the bastirts got a second goal as well, at least 1-0 or 2-1 we would have got our of there with top spot in our hands.
On VAR. They need to get them fookers mic'd up if we're keeping it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn’t matter if he could have saved it or not
Is a player who is offside and standing on the keepers toes interfering?
Come on
And watch it back and take the Scotland player out the equation
The ball passes within a foot of the keeper
He still might not save it but it’s far from conclusive
However it’s irrelevant as you can’t stand on the keepers goes while offside then claim the shot was so good it doesn’t matter
The keeper made no move to get the ball though. I’d take the interfering of Hendry was obstructing his view or stopped him getting to the ball, but the keeper completely misjudged it and just made an ar5e of it.
He wasn’t standing on the keeper’s toes either. That’s just exaggeration and embellishing what happened. He did put his hand on the keeper, but not enough for a foul ffs.
Sign in if you want to comment
Spain v Scotland live
Page 5 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 13/10/23
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 21 minutes ago
Change in reason is a farce but can see why offside would be given. Rules are rules, as we were told when it came to Roofe’s goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is they don't know why they disallowed it. They initially said it was for a foul, and then changed their mind.
For the roofe goal, if you look back, Robertson doesn't initially signal that it was a goal, so he clearly knew that there was something amiss.
Mental comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And as I said the change in reasoning is a farce…
But he is interfering with the keeper.
posted on 13/10/23
The keeper didn’t move. He didn’t even claim for it. Considering everything else they claimed for, if he felt there was interference he would have been shouting about it from the rooftops.
Even the officials don’t know what they disallowed it for.
posted on 13/10/23
‘The keeper didn’t move. He didn’t even claim for it. Considering everything else they claimed for, if he felt there was interference he would have been shouting about it from the rooftops. ‘
Exactly why I’m comparing it to the Roofe incident. No claims were made by Celtic defenders in that case. But we were told the rules are rules. Clearly can see why he’s interfering in play.
posted on 13/10/23
Surely scotland can ask for the audio of the var?
But the ref doesnt point for a foul and if that has now been changed then the game should be replayed.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 44 minutes ago
‘The keeper didn’t move. He didn’t even claim for it. Considering everything else they claimed for, if he felt there was interference he would have been shouting about it from the rooftops. ‘
Exactly why I’m comparing it to the Roofe incident. No claims were made by Celtic defenders in that case. But we were told the rules are rules. Clearly can see why he’s interfering in play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's not rewrite history - Lagerbielke was shouting at the ref for a foul as he knew he had been fouled
posted on 13/10/23
comment by Call Sign (U3627)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 44 minutes ago
‘The keeper didn’t move. He didn’t even claim for it. Considering everything else they claimed for, if he felt there was interference he would have been shouting about it from the rooftops. ‘
Exactly why I’m comparing it to the Roofe incident. No claims were made by Celtic defenders in that case. But we were told the rules are rules. Clearly can see why he’s interfering in play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's not rewrite history - Lagerbielke was shouting at the ref for a foul as he knew he had been fouled
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite incredible how this nonsense has taken root. As you say he was claiming straight away.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Call Sign (U3627)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 44 minutes ago
‘The keeper didn’t move. He didn’t even claim for it. Considering everything else they claimed for, if he felt there was interference he would have been shouting about it from the rooftops. ‘
Exactly why I’m comparing it to the Roofe incident. No claims were made by Celtic defenders in that case. But we were told the rules are rules. Clearly can see why he’s interfering in play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's not rewrite history - Lagerbielke was shouting at the ref for a foul as he knew he had been fouled
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite incredible how this nonsense has taken root. As you say he was claiming straight away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And he wasn’t the only one. Even the ref knew it was a foul-that’s why he never signalled for a goal straight away.
You’re having a mare here, renegade.
I doubt any neutral observer would have agreed with that call last night-it was a shocker of a decision.
posted on 13/10/23
Have seen a few neutrals that agreed with the decision last night, Paddy Kenny was one. Whereas we had actual refs disagreeing with the foul given in the old firm.
Rules are rules.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
Have seen a few neutrals that agreed with the decision last night, Paddy Kenny was one. Whereas we had actual refs disagreeing with the foul given in the old firm.
Rules are rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You brought up the defenders🤣🤣🤣🤣
posted on 13/10/23
Did the player move from an already offside position to a position where he could be deemed to be interfering with play ?
Standing more or less on the keepers toes while making even minimal contact might be seen as an interference
Even the opinion that he wouldn’t have been able to save it anyway I don’t think is relevant
It’s a very tight call
posted on 13/10/23
Had he been onside and made the move towards the keeper I thinks it’s a goal as it’s really not much of a foul imo
Had he been offside but not made the move to the keeper then it’s a goal as he then would have not interfered
It’s only when you combine the 2 it’s questionable imo
Very tight
posted on 13/10/23
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 14 minutes ago
Have seen a few neutrals that agreed with the decision last night, Paddy Kenny was one. Whereas we had actual refs disagreeing with the foul given in the old firm.
Rules are rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*former refs…
Was Paddy Kenny not a bit of a spoofer? And he was a goalie-if anyone was going to stick up for a another goalie…
No idea why the Roofe situation is relevant-even allowing for ‘rules are rules’ to be given as an argument. The issue is that they haven’t applied rules. They’ve said it was for a foul, and the changed it to offside. That negates any ‘rules are rules’ argument, as they’ve clearly made a roaring cvnt of it.
I can agree with Duke that it could be classed as a tight call, it’s been left open to interpretation-but to change the reason why?
posted on 13/10/23
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 8 minutes ago
Had he been onside and made the move towards the keeper I thinks it’s a goal as it’s really not much of a foul imo
Had he been offside but not made the move to the keeper then it’s a goal as he then would have not interfered
It’s only when you combine the 2 it’s questionable imo
Very tight
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but it looks like the ref gave the foul and not the offside last night.
He doesn't indicate offside but that it was a foul and they didn't draw the lines when checking it only afterwards.
posted on 13/10/23
As gutted as I was at ti getting ruled out, in the end it was prob the right call.
wasnt a foul, but did look like he was offside and is in contact with the keeper so he is interfering 100%.
Gutter though cos I was running about like a madman screaming.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 8 minutes ago
Had he been onside and made the move towards the keeper I thinks it’s a goal as it’s really not much of a foul imo
Had he been offside but not made the move to the keeper then it’s a goal as he then would have not interfered
It’s only when you combine the 2 it’s questionable imo
Very tight
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but it looks like the ref gave the foul and not the offside last night.
He doesn't indicate offside but that it was a foul and they didn't draw the lines when checking it only afterwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As said it’s a combination
I don’t think it that relevant whether he gives a direct or indirect free kick
Though he probably should have given offside
If someone scores a 30 yard shot and a player is standing offside on the keepers toes
He would give offside
posted on 13/10/23
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 30 minutes ago
Have seen a few neutrals that agreed with the decision last night, Paddy Kenny was one. Whereas we had actual refs disagreeing with the foul given in the old firm.
Rules are rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You said no defenders claimed for a foul. Are you changing the subject now?
Rangers very own Bobby Madden came out on social media straight away and backed up the foul on Lagerbielke
posted on 13/10/23
on a separate note how bad a commentator is Michael Stewart, he is even rotten when he is being biased towards your team. without doubt one of the worst commentators Iv heard.
posted on 13/10/23
I think Michael Stewart is a very good commentator. Very passionate and knows the game
posted on 13/10/23
Do we know yet what the official reason for ruling out the goal was?
Have Scotland asked for the VAR transcript, that needs to be done.
I've a big issue with it being called for both a foul and an offside, one I could live with just about but the other is an absolute scandal.
posted on 13/10/23
I've been in the VAR camp since it's introduction but we are now some years down the line and is it really helping?
It was supposed to improve the game and for some it has but it's also having the opposite effect on many others plus delaying the game.
I wouldn't argue if they wanted to bin it now.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted less than a minute ago
Do we know yet what the official reason for ruling out the goal was?
Have Scotland asked for the VAR transcript, that needs to be done.
I've a big issue with it being called for both a foul and an offside, one I could live with just about but the other is an absolute scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside and interfering with play
Very tight but ultimately imo correct
posted on 13/10/23
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted less than a minute ago
Do we know yet what the official reason for ruling out the goal was?
Have Scotland asked for the VAR transcript, that needs to be done.
I've a big issue with it being called for both a foul and an offside, one I could live with just about but the other is an absolute scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside and interfering with play
Very tight but ultimately imo correct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you class it as interfering with play its with a shot the keeper isn't saving anyway. So the result is no interference in the game imo.
If he stopped him diving or something fair enough, if he could save it then fair enough.
It's a better call than foul but I still don't agree with it.
Fuming the bastirts got a second goal as well, at least 1-0 or 2-1 we would have got our of there with top spot in our hands.
On VAR. They need to get them fookers mic'd up if we're keeping it.
posted on 13/10/23
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted less than a minute ago
Do we know yet what the official reason for ruling out the goal was?
Have Scotland asked for the VAR transcript, that needs to be done.
I've a big issue with it being called for both a foul and an offside, one I could live with just about but the other is an absolute scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside and interfering with play
Very tight but ultimately imo correct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you class it as interfering with play its with a shot the keeper isn't saving anyway. So the result is no interference in the game imo.
If he stopped him diving or something fair enough, if he could save it then fair enough.
It's a better call than foul but I still don't agree with it.
Fuming the bastirts got a second goal as well, at least 1-0 or 2-1 we would have got our of there with top spot in our hands.
On VAR. They need to get them fookers mic'd up if we're keeping it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is giving the keeper something else to think about, Hendrys hand is even on his chest. the keeper needs to then consider if the defender can get to the ball and has to adjust his position accordingly
it was a farce cos it was given as a foul which it wasnt, it was offside however. It was nice of the governing body to come in half way thro' the 2nd half to let the refs all know however !!
posted on 13/10/23
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by HB Maybe Beale wasn't the mastermind (U21935)
posted less than a minute ago
Do we know yet what the official reason for ruling out the goal was?
Have Scotland asked for the VAR transcript, that needs to be done.
I've a big issue with it being called for both a foul and an offside, one I could live with just about but the other is an absolute scandal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside and interfering with play
Very tight but ultimately imo correct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you class it as interfering with play its with a shot the keeper isn't saving anyway. So the result is no interference in the game imo.
If he stopped him diving or something fair enough, if he could save it then fair enough.
It's a better call than foul but I still don't agree with it.
Fuming the bastirts got a second goal as well, at least 1-0 or 2-1 we would have got our of there with top spot in our hands.
On VAR. They need to get them fookers mic'd up if we're keeping it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn’t matter if he could have saved it or not
Is a player who is offside and standing on the keepers toes interfering?
Come on
And watch it back and take the Scotland player out the equation
The ball passes within a foot of the keeper
He still might not save it but it’s far from conclusive
However it’s irrelevant as you can’t stand on the keepers goes while offside then claim the shot was so good it doesn’t matter
posted on 13/10/23
The keeper made no move to get the ball though. I’d take the interfering of Hendry was obstructing his view or stopped him getting to the ball, but the keeper completely misjudged it and just made an ar5e of it.
He wasn’t standing on the keeper’s toes either. That’s just exaggeration and embellishing what happened. He did put his hand on the keeper, but not enough for a foul ffs.
Page 5 of 8
6 | 7 | 8