comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 54 seconds ago
1. None of the officials deemed it to be a handball despite the technology afforded to them and the pictures shown
how can you say this and then say they lied when they claimed it was cause of the offside?
you are literally saying they didn't think it was a handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They lied about the reason it wasn't given. They said they didn't give it because Sima was offside. That's not why they didn't give it was it?
That's the definition of lying, no?
For renegade and smid-I think the communication of this is more the issue. I’m more inclined to think they’ve said ‘he was also offside btw’. Again, I don’t know how true it is, but while the VAR-in this case Collum-is checking the initial incident, the AVAR-whoever that was-starts checking the build up. There’s every chance that’s when they’ve noticed the offside and decided to show it to cement the argument that the penalty wouldn’t have been given anyway. They’ve decided to run with that being the reason.
Again, I’m positive I’ve read that Collum has held his ground as the reason for the penalty not being awarded is that he didn’t think it was handball.
I don’t think the offside but is the explanation, more a supplement. They didn’t need to and shouldn’t have bothered. It’s just caused confusion.
you're saying they don't think the penalty warrantys a handball, surely thats the main reason its not been given.
do you think they would give the penalty if they didn't think it was a handball.
i think the offside is simply further information as a "btw..."
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 13 seconds ago
For renegade and smid-I think the communication of this is more the issue. I’m more inclined to think they’ve said ‘he was also offside btw’. Again, I don’t know how true it is, but while the VAR-in this case Collum-is checking the initial incident, the AVAR-whoever that was-starts checking the build up. There’s every chance that’s when they’ve noticed the offside and decided to show it to cement the argument that the penalty wouldn’t have been given anyway. They’ve decided to run with that being the reason.
Again, I’m positive I’ve read that Collum has held his ground as the reason for the penalty not being awarded is that he didn’t think it was handball.
I don’t think the offside but is the explanation, more a supplement. They didn’t need to and shouldn’t have bothered. It’s just caused confusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i think so, in any event the correct decision was made.
i'm all for full transparancy with var decisions. crack on.
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 8 seconds ago
the reason was given for no pen for handball.... initially.... it was then changed to VAR offside later on.
-----------
was it changed, or was it a "btw..."?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky confirmed it was given as offside. during the game no free kick was given for offside, no signal of offside was given by the ref as per procedure. during the game Sky confirmed it was disallowed for offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no harm but you have had umpteen opportunities to mention this the last few days and haven't.
you have only started since smid said
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Na iv said from the get go that it wasnt a penalty , plenty of quotes to back that up...
Iv said the reason given was nonsense from the get go and that it was wrong. feel free to post anything that contradicts that.
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 3 minutes ago
what is it you guys want?
everytime a decision goes against you you attack the sfa.
clancy, collum.
it would have been an injustice to get the penalty, i doubt you would care if that happened?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the same thing you wanted when you called for the ref strike, clarification, honesty and consistency from refs. again it should be fairly obvious why we wouldnt want refs giving different reasons or changing in hindsight to that that were given during the game.
so to be clear, you think they got it right on all fronts?
because he said he didn't think it was a handball
so, good job willie?
Any club trying to dictate who can and who cannot officiate their games is out of order.
We're not talking about banning pundits under the pretense of H&S here.
so you want to be like neil lennon?
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 3 minutes ago
you're saying they don't think the penalty warrantys a handball, surely thats the main reason its not been given.
do you think they would give the penalty if they didn't think it was a handball.
i think the offside is simply further information as a "btw..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no its not the handball shouldne have been a decision to decide on had the refs done their job right.... and they confirmed they didnt do their job right after they changed the decision for it being denied so that it falls within the rules.
They have to release the audio to clear it up and tbh that should be par for the course like it is in England.
If he didn't give it because he thought it wasn't a handball, give him a couple weeks off and an eye test. Then he should cover diddy games for a while.
If he mentions it was offside (which Rangers say does not happen) then we need to shut our holes and accept it.
If they went looking for the offside to cover it up after they realised he made a huge fook up then he should be sacked.
Fundamentally the most important thing this can achieve is the releasing of VAR audio for contentious decisions as part of the process. Let the fans understand how it was made.
Ideally live tbh but if not then shortly after the game.
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 3 minutes ago
you're saying they don't think the penalty warrantys a handball, surely thats the main reason its not been given.
do you think they would give the penalty if they didn't think it was a handball.
i think the offside is simply further information as a "btw..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was additional info, why have they not just said that…
Can’t remember seeing that in any other game either.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
For renegade and smid-I think the communication of this is more the issue. I’m more inclined to think they’ve said ‘he was also offside btw’. Again, I don’t know how true it is, but while the VAR-in this case Collum-is checking the initial incident, the AVAR-whoever that was-starts checking the build up. There’s every chance that’s when they’ve noticed the offside and decided to show it to cement the argument that the penalty wouldn’t have been given anyway. They’ve decided to run with that being the reason.
Again, I’m positive I’ve read that Collum has held his ground as the reason for the penalty not being awarded is that he didn’t think it was handball.
I don’t think the offside but is the explanation, more a supplement. They didn’t need to and shouldn’t have bothered. It’s just caused confusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's absolutely possible. The SFA could clear that up within minutes however and avoid nearly a week long pressure build up on Collum and others. By not doing so, they are running away from taking any responsibility.
I would say however that there are others who have disputed that version of events could have happened but I'm open to any explanation the SFA can provide to clear the situation up.
I'm also fine with Colum continuing to think it wasn't a penalty. He would be at odds with just about everyone else on the planet but that's his right and wouldn't be the first time. I can accept everyone can look at the same incident with a different interpretation and sometimes unfortunately you don't get the rub of the green with decisions.
But, as it stands right now the official reason the penalty wasn't given is that Sima was offside. Yet as you say yourself Collum maintains he just didn't think it was a penalty. Those messages are at odds with each other and it would be ridiculously easy to clear that up yet the SFA appear to have no desire to do so. That's a problem for me.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 3 minutes ago
what is it you guys want?
everytime a decision goes against you you attack the sfa.
clancy, collum.
it would have been an injustice to get the penalty, i doubt you would care if that happened?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the same thing you wanted when you called for the ref strike, clarification, honesty and consistency from refs. again it should be fairly obvious why we wouldnt want refs giving different reasons or changing in hindsight to that that were given during the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you going to honour our name change bet dumbtit? I think it's safe to say you can't find the comment?
You really are an embarrassment. Bet welching, mouthy slimy weasel.
i don't think they have said anything to be fair, other than to say the version of events rangers fed out last night doesn't match theirs?
be curious to hear how the sfa's version of events compares to rangers tbh.
mad how you hate the sfa despite them trying to fast track you into the league when you went t1ts up. such a "do you know who i am" club
‘ But, as it stands right now the official reason the penalty wasn't given is that Sima was offside.’
You’ll be able to point me in the direction of this official decision then?
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 28 seconds ago
i don't think they have said anything to be fair, other than to say the version of events rangers fed out last night doesn't match theirs?
be curious to hear how the sfa's version of events compares to rangers tbh.
mad how you hate the sfa despite them trying to fast track you into the league when you went t1ts up. such a "do you know who i am" club
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well this is another issue I have. The SFA actually haven't said anything. Rangers put a statement out and then an hour or so later someone at the SFA briefed the Record saying they dispute the events. No one however willing to put their name to it or offer any official quotes. It was a PR brief and offered no clarity.
Equally, within the Record piece they didn't actually dispute what Rangers said.
The Record reported that the SFA said the call was subjective and that an offside was being checked in the background.
No one disagrees that it was subjective. Rangers haven't said anything about this.
And being checked in the background more or less confirms it wasn't discussed. I'm sure the offside was being checked in the background hence why we later got this explanation. But unless Walsh is a mind reader he had no knowledge of a background offside check being made and its not why he then gave no penalty. By saying it was being checked in the background it more or less confirms that it was never actually discussed between Walsh and Collum, in which case that could not have been the reason for no penalty being awarded.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
‘ But, as it stands right now the official reason the penalty wasn't given is that Sima was offside.’
You’ll be able to point me in the direction of this official decision then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, go to your Sky box, rewind to Ian Crocker confirming to the audience that this is the official line from the VAR officials and view the lines then presented by the VAR team to the audience watching at home
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 11 minutes ago
i don't think they have said anything to be fair, other than to say the version of events rangers fed out last night doesn't match theirs?
be curious to hear how the sfa's version of events compares to rangers tbh.
mad how you hate the sfa despite them trying to fast track you into the league when you went t1ts up. such a "do you know who i am" club
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fast track?
They changed the rules so that clubs could vote on whether we could simply transfer membership of the league to the new company. Pretty sure rules were changed right back after to
so they gave your special treatment then?
cool.
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 11 minutes ago
i don't think they have said anything to be fair, other than to say the version of events rangers fed out last night doesn't match theirs?
be curious to hear how the sfa's version of events compares to rangers tbh.
mad how you hate the sfa despite them trying to fast track you into the league when you went t1ts up. such a "do you know who i am" club
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fast track?
They changed the rules so that clubs could vote on whether we could simply transfer membership of the league to the new company. Pretty sure rules were changed right back after to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They also gave us a punishment that wasn't available to them with the transfer ban. Despite Rangers overturning this in court they gave us it anyway as a condition of re-entering the league.
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
The lie is that the penalty wasn't given because of an offside. The offside wasn't checked.
The cover up is making up an excuse for why the penalty wasn't given when you know its not true and refusing to release the audio to validate their version of events.
Those are public matters of fact, I don't need minutes of any meetings for that to be validated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the penalty could still not have been given as collum didnt think it was a pen but then they released the offside at half time to show that it would not have been given regardless.
Until we hear the audio then its all speculation.
Considering rangers previous for stirring the pot I will go with the SFA on this one.
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
‘ But, as it stands right now the official reason the penalty wasn't given is that Sima was offside.’
You’ll be able to point me in the direction of this official decision then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, go to your Sky box, rewind to Ian Crocker confirming to the audience that this is the official line from the VAR officials and view the lines then presented by the VAR team to the audience watching at home
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only official reason I’ve seen is the one given at the time. I’ve watched the game back, but can’t remember exactly what Crocker says. But, seeing as they had the whole of half time for the panel to talk about it, and then waited until well after the second half had kicked off before mentioning it, then I would take that as being the ‘official’ reason with a pinch of salt. Like I’ve said numerous times-the BBC discussed it at half time during their commentary about there also being an offside, and also had it on their live feed. Sky-who apparently get texts from VAR-opted not to. They had a chance to clarify it much earlier than they chose to and didn’t. I think that’s a bit odd-don’t you?
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
The lie is that the penalty wasn't given because of an offside. The offside wasn't checked.
The cover up is making up an excuse for why the penalty wasn't given when you know its not true and refusing to release the audio to validate their version of events.
Those are public matters of fact, I don't need minutes of any meetings for that to be validated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the penalty could still not have been given as collum didnt think it was a pen but then they released the offside at half time to show that it would not have been given regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that would be VAR doing their job wrong hence why the changed the reason for denying the penalty.
the debate isnt over whether its a penalty or not, dunno why your failing to grasp that?
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
‘ But, as it stands right now the official reason the penalty wasn't given is that Sima was offside.’
You’ll be able to point me in the direction of this official decision then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, go to your Sky box, rewind to Ian Crocker confirming to the audience that this is the official line from the VAR officials and view the lines then presented by the VAR team to the audience watching at home
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only official reason I’ve seen is the one given at the time. I’ve watched the game back, but can’t remember exactly what Crocker says. But, seeing as they had the whole of half time for the panel to talk about it, and then waited until well after the second half had kicked off before mentioning it, then I would take that as being the ‘official’ reason with a pinch of salt. Like I’ve said numerous times-the BBC discussed it at half time during their commentary about there also being an offside, and also had it on their live feed. Sky-who apparently get texts from VAR-opted not to. They had a chance to clarify it much earlier than they chose to and didn’t. I think that’s a bit odd-don’t you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
there is no apparently ... the officially have a direct communication route to the VAR room.
Are you not also curious as to why BBC waited til half time to disclose that reason and not at the time they found out?.
Sign in if you want to comment
Another Ref strike?
Page 3 of 13
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 4/1/24
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 54 seconds ago
1. None of the officials deemed it to be a handball despite the technology afforded to them and the pictures shown
how can you say this and then say they lied when they claimed it was cause of the offside?
you are literally saying they didn't think it was a handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They lied about the reason it wasn't given. They said they didn't give it because Sima was offside. That's not why they didn't give it was it?
That's the definition of lying, no?
posted on 4/1/24
For renegade and smid-I think the communication of this is more the issue. I’m more inclined to think they’ve said ‘he was also offside btw’. Again, I don’t know how true it is, but while the VAR-in this case Collum-is checking the initial incident, the AVAR-whoever that was-starts checking the build up. There’s every chance that’s when they’ve noticed the offside and decided to show it to cement the argument that the penalty wouldn’t have been given anyway. They’ve decided to run with that being the reason.
Again, I’m positive I’ve read that Collum has held his ground as the reason for the penalty not being awarded is that he didn’t think it was handball.
I don’t think the offside but is the explanation, more a supplement. They didn’t need to and shouldn’t have bothered. It’s just caused confusion.
posted on 4/1/24
you're saying they don't think the penalty warrantys a handball, surely thats the main reason its not been given.
do you think they would give the penalty if they didn't think it was a handball.
i think the offside is simply further information as a "btw..."
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 13 seconds ago
For renegade and smid-I think the communication of this is more the issue. I’m more inclined to think they’ve said ‘he was also offside btw’. Again, I don’t know how true it is, but while the VAR-in this case Collum-is checking the initial incident, the AVAR-whoever that was-starts checking the build up. There’s every chance that’s when they’ve noticed the offside and decided to show it to cement the argument that the penalty wouldn’t have been given anyway. They’ve decided to run with that being the reason.
Again, I’m positive I’ve read that Collum has held his ground as the reason for the penalty not being awarded is that he didn’t think it was handball.
I don’t think the offside but is the explanation, more a supplement. They didn’t need to and shouldn’t have bothered. It’s just caused confusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i think so, in any event the correct decision was made.
i'm all for full transparancy with var decisions. crack on.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 8 seconds ago
the reason was given for no pen for handball.... initially.... it was then changed to VAR offside later on.
-----------
was it changed, or was it a "btw..."?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky confirmed it was given as offside. during the game no free kick was given for offside, no signal of offside was given by the ref as per procedure. during the game Sky confirmed it was disallowed for offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no harm but you have had umpteen opportunities to mention this the last few days and haven't.
you have only started since smid said
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Na iv said from the get go that it wasnt a penalty , plenty of quotes to back that up...
Iv said the reason given was nonsense from the get go and that it was wrong. feel free to post anything that contradicts that.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 3 minutes ago
what is it you guys want?
everytime a decision goes against you you attack the sfa.
clancy, collum.
it would have been an injustice to get the penalty, i doubt you would care if that happened?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the same thing you wanted when you called for the ref strike, clarification, honesty and consistency from refs. again it should be fairly obvious why we wouldnt want refs giving different reasons or changing in hindsight to that that were given during the game.
posted on 4/1/24
so to be clear, you think they got it right on all fronts?
because he said he didn't think it was a handball
so, good job willie?
posted on 4/1/24
Any club trying to dictate who can and who cannot officiate their games is out of order.
We're not talking about banning pundits under the pretense of H&S here.
posted on 4/1/24
so you want to be like neil lennon?
posted on 4/1/24
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 3 minutes ago
you're saying they don't think the penalty warrantys a handball, surely thats the main reason its not been given.
do you think they would give the penalty if they didn't think it was a handball.
i think the offside is simply further information as a "btw..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no its not the handball shouldne have been a decision to decide on had the refs done their job right.... and they confirmed they didnt do their job right after they changed the decision for it being denied so that it falls within the rules.
posted on 4/1/24
They have to release the audio to clear it up and tbh that should be par for the course like it is in England.
If he didn't give it because he thought it wasn't a handball, give him a couple weeks off and an eye test. Then he should cover diddy games for a while.
If he mentions it was offside (which Rangers say does not happen) then we need to shut our holes and accept it.
If they went looking for the offside to cover it up after they realised he made a huge fook up then he should be sacked.
Fundamentally the most important thing this can achieve is the releasing of VAR audio for contentious decisions as part of the process. Let the fans understand how it was made.
Ideally live tbh but if not then shortly after the game.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 3 minutes ago
you're saying they don't think the penalty warrantys a handball, surely thats the main reason its not been given.
do you think they would give the penalty if they didn't think it was a handball.
i think the offside is simply further information as a "btw..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was additional info, why have they not just said that…
Can’t remember seeing that in any other game either.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
For renegade and smid-I think the communication of this is more the issue. I’m more inclined to think they’ve said ‘he was also offside btw’. Again, I don’t know how true it is, but while the VAR-in this case Collum-is checking the initial incident, the AVAR-whoever that was-starts checking the build up. There’s every chance that’s when they’ve noticed the offside and decided to show it to cement the argument that the penalty wouldn’t have been given anyway. They’ve decided to run with that being the reason.
Again, I’m positive I’ve read that Collum has held his ground as the reason for the penalty not being awarded is that he didn’t think it was handball.
I don’t think the offside but is the explanation, more a supplement. They didn’t need to and shouldn’t have bothered. It’s just caused confusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's absolutely possible. The SFA could clear that up within minutes however and avoid nearly a week long pressure build up on Collum and others. By not doing so, they are running away from taking any responsibility.
I would say however that there are others who have disputed that version of events could have happened but I'm open to any explanation the SFA can provide to clear the situation up.
I'm also fine with Colum continuing to think it wasn't a penalty. He would be at odds with just about everyone else on the planet but that's his right and wouldn't be the first time. I can accept everyone can look at the same incident with a different interpretation and sometimes unfortunately you don't get the rub of the green with decisions.
But, as it stands right now the official reason the penalty wasn't given is that Sima was offside. Yet as you say yourself Collum maintains he just didn't think it was a penalty. Those messages are at odds with each other and it would be ridiculously easy to clear that up yet the SFA appear to have no desire to do so. That's a problem for me.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 3 minutes ago
what is it you guys want?
everytime a decision goes against you you attack the sfa.
clancy, collum.
it would have been an injustice to get the penalty, i doubt you would care if that happened?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the same thing you wanted when you called for the ref strike, clarification, honesty and consistency from refs. again it should be fairly obvious why we wouldnt want refs giving different reasons or changing in hindsight to that that were given during the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you going to honour our name change bet dumbtit? I think it's safe to say you can't find the comment?
You really are an embarrassment. Bet welching, mouthy slimy weasel.
posted on 4/1/24
i don't think they have said anything to be fair, other than to say the version of events rangers fed out last night doesn't match theirs?
be curious to hear how the sfa's version of events compares to rangers tbh.
mad how you hate the sfa despite them trying to fast track you into the league when you went t1ts up. such a "do you know who i am" club
posted on 4/1/24
‘ But, as it stands right now the official reason the penalty wasn't given is that Sima was offside.’
You’ll be able to point me in the direction of this official decision then?
posted on 4/1/24
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 28 seconds ago
i don't think they have said anything to be fair, other than to say the version of events rangers fed out last night doesn't match theirs?
be curious to hear how the sfa's version of events compares to rangers tbh.
mad how you hate the sfa despite them trying to fast track you into the league when you went t1ts up. such a "do you know who i am" club
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well this is another issue I have. The SFA actually haven't said anything. Rangers put a statement out and then an hour or so later someone at the SFA briefed the Record saying they dispute the events. No one however willing to put their name to it or offer any official quotes. It was a PR brief and offered no clarity.
Equally, within the Record piece they didn't actually dispute what Rangers said.
The Record reported that the SFA said the call was subjective and that an offside was being checked in the background.
No one disagrees that it was subjective. Rangers haven't said anything about this.
And being checked in the background more or less confirms it wasn't discussed. I'm sure the offside was being checked in the background hence why we later got this explanation. But unless Walsh is a mind reader he had no knowledge of a background offside check being made and its not why he then gave no penalty. By saying it was being checked in the background it more or less confirms that it was never actually discussed between Walsh and Collum, in which case that could not have been the reason for no penalty being awarded.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
‘ But, as it stands right now the official reason the penalty wasn't given is that Sima was offside.’
You’ll be able to point me in the direction of this official decision then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, go to your Sky box, rewind to Ian Crocker confirming to the audience that this is the official line from the VAR officials and view the lines then presented by the VAR team to the audience watching at home
posted on 4/1/24
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 11 minutes ago
i don't think they have said anything to be fair, other than to say the version of events rangers fed out last night doesn't match theirs?
be curious to hear how the sfa's version of events compares to rangers tbh.
mad how you hate the sfa despite them trying to fast track you into the league when you went t1ts up. such a "do you know who i am" club
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fast track?
They changed the rules so that clubs could vote on whether we could simply transfer membership of the league to the new company. Pretty sure rules were changed right back after to
posted on 4/1/24
so they gave your special treatment then?
cool.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 11 minutes ago
i don't think they have said anything to be fair, other than to say the version of events rangers fed out last night doesn't match theirs?
be curious to hear how the sfa's version of events compares to rangers tbh.
mad how you hate the sfa despite them trying to fast track you into the league when you went t1ts up. such a "do you know who i am" club
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fast track?
They changed the rules so that clubs could vote on whether we could simply transfer membership of the league to the new company. Pretty sure rules were changed right back after to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They also gave us a punishment that wasn't available to them with the transfer ban. Despite Rangers overturning this in court they gave us it anyway as a condition of re-entering the league.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
The lie is that the penalty wasn't given because of an offside. The offside wasn't checked.
The cover up is making up an excuse for why the penalty wasn't given when you know its not true and refusing to release the audio to validate their version of events.
Those are public matters of fact, I don't need minutes of any meetings for that to be validated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the penalty could still not have been given as collum didnt think it was a pen but then they released the offside at half time to show that it would not have been given regardless.
Until we hear the audio then its all speculation.
Considering rangers previous for stirring the pot I will go with the SFA on this one.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
‘ But, as it stands right now the official reason the penalty wasn't given is that Sima was offside.’
You’ll be able to point me in the direction of this official decision then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, go to your Sky box, rewind to Ian Crocker confirming to the audience that this is the official line from the VAR officials and view the lines then presented by the VAR team to the audience watching at home
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only official reason I’ve seen is the one given at the time. I’ve watched the game back, but can’t remember exactly what Crocker says. But, seeing as they had the whole of half time for the panel to talk about it, and then waited until well after the second half had kicked off before mentioning it, then I would take that as being the ‘official’ reason with a pinch of salt. Like I’ve said numerous times-the BBC discussed it at half time during their commentary about there also being an offside, and also had it on their live feed. Sky-who apparently get texts from VAR-opted not to. They had a chance to clarify it much earlier than they chose to and didn’t. I think that’s a bit odd-don’t you?
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
The lie is that the penalty wasn't given because of an offside. The offside wasn't checked.
The cover up is making up an excuse for why the penalty wasn't given when you know its not true and refusing to release the audio to validate their version of events.
Those are public matters of fact, I don't need minutes of any meetings for that to be validated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the penalty could still not have been given as collum didnt think it was a pen but then they released the offside at half time to show that it would not have been given regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that would be VAR doing their job wrong hence why the changed the reason for denying the penalty.
the debate isnt over whether its a penalty or not, dunno why your failing to grasp that?
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
‘ But, as it stands right now the official reason the penalty wasn't given is that Sima was offside.’
You’ll be able to point me in the direction of this official decision then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, go to your Sky box, rewind to Ian Crocker confirming to the audience that this is the official line from the VAR officials and view the lines then presented by the VAR team to the audience watching at home
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only official reason I’ve seen is the one given at the time. I’ve watched the game back, but can’t remember exactly what Crocker says. But, seeing as they had the whole of half time for the panel to talk about it, and then waited until well after the second half had kicked off before mentioning it, then I would take that as being the ‘official’ reason with a pinch of salt. Like I’ve said numerous times-the BBC discussed it at half time during their commentary about there also being an offside, and also had it on their live feed. Sky-who apparently get texts from VAR-opted not to. They had a chance to clarify it much earlier than they chose to and didn’t. I think that’s a bit odd-don’t you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
there is no apparently ... the officially have a direct communication route to the VAR room.
Are you not also curious as to why BBC waited til half time to disclose that reason and not at the time they found out?.
Page 3 of 13
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10