comment by System-Addict ••• ••&... (U9239)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum... (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 13 seconds ago
just to be clear if thats a penalty does that mean that everytime a player wins the ball but knocks over the man thats a free kick?

is that what we are saying aye?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope

If the challenge is reckless it doesn't matter if to catch the ball. Was a kick to the knee, that's pretty reckless.

Also he doesn't disposses Silva or gain control of ball. If there is no contact with Silva then Silva still has control of the ball.

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

Exactly this.

No surprise ref watch say it is 100% a penalty.

Only in Scotland would this decision be talked about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reckless Kicking! 🤣 Why stop there? Brutal assault? Attempted murder?

A falling defender (in mid air) stupidly left a dangling leg in and allowed Silva to take advantage of contact.

If you are quoting Ref Watch they clearly stated it wasn’t “Reckless”
----------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you leave a dangling leg in when it’s up at his knee

see the Johnston booking in the first half?

I assume this was given by the assistant referee as I'm fairly certain Beaton didn't give a foul?

and VAR can't advise the ref to book a player

comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 40 seconds ago
if they are fouls then they should be given as such no?

its never a foul man, this is a tribalism penalty shout tbh, flip the switch and attitudes change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue appears to be that there’s contact in the AJ challenge and the foul on Iwata. The difference is in the force used. It was a clear foul on Iwata with the force that was used-AJ having contact with Silva’s right knee seemed to cause his left leg to decide not to continue making contact with the ground.

There’s little similarity in the challenges. AJ didn’t ‘foul’ Silva. He didn’t impede his progress. Silva deciding to fall when he felt contact was the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He kicked his knee, how does that not impede him?

I agree Silva was rolling about a lot but that one wasn't a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn’t kick his knee though. He did lift his leg up and there was contact, but he didn’t kick his knee. To justify the decision, folk are resorting to hyperbole over what happened. There was contact on his right knee-why did that make his left foot not make contact with the ground?

comment by Ghod#18 (U9390)
posted 3 minutes ago
and VAR can't advise the ref to book a player
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It can't but the ref can decide to after viewing

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 13 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/ScotlandSky/status/1777292491386986547

So the only controversial decision is the decision to disallow the Rangers goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that and ccv not getting early booking.

For what it's worth on the disallowed goal I'd say it was still same phase of play but I'm not a ref.

He didn’t kick his knee though. He did lift his leg up and there was contact, but he didn’t kick his knee. To justify the decision, folk are resorting to hyperbole over what happened. There was contact on his right knee-why did that make his left foot not make contact with the ground?


if you see the replay from behind Silva (where the fans in the background are telling him to get up) it's clear he doesn't kick him

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by System-Addict ••• ••&... (U9239)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum... (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 13 seconds ago
just to be clear if thats a penalty does that mean that everytime a player wins the ball but knocks over the man thats a free kick?

is that what we are saying aye?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope

If the challenge is reckless it doesn't matter if to catch the ball. Was a kick to the knee, that's pretty reckless.

Also he doesn't disposses Silva or gain control of ball. If there is no contact with Silva then Silva still has control of the ball.

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

Exactly this.

No surprise ref watch say it is 100% a penalty.

Only in Scotland would this decision be talked about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reckless Kicking! 🤣 Why stop there? Brutal assault? Attempted murder?

A falling defender (in mid air) stupidly left a dangling leg in and allowed Silva to take advantage of contact.

If you are quoting Ref Watch they clearly stated it wasn’t “Reckless”
----------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you leave a dangling leg in when it’s up at his knee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you watch the game caller?
Have you played the game? 😉

As I said, AJ was basically horizontal (falling) when his foot was near Silvas knee. You don’t need to be a professor of anatomy to answer your question.

I appreciate Fabio resembles a horse but his knee wasn’t 4 foot off the ground for the “reckless kicking” to occur, as you are now describing it.

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 40 seconds ago
if they are fouls then they should be given as such no?

its never a foul man, this is a tribalism penalty shout tbh, flip the switch and attitudes change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue appears to be that there’s contact in the AJ challenge and the foul on Iwata. The difference is in the force used. It was a clear foul on Iwata with the force that was used-AJ having contact with Silva’s right knee seemed to cause his left leg to decide not to continue making contact with the ground.

There’s little similarity in the challenges. AJ didn’t ‘foul’ Silva. He didn’t impede his progress. Silva deciding to fall when he felt contact was the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He kicked his knee, how does that not impede him?

I agree Silva was rolling about a lot but that one wasn't a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn’t kick his knee though. He did lift his leg up and there was contact, but he didn’t kick his knee. To justify the decision, folk are resorting to hyperbole over what happened. There was contact on his right knee-why did that make his left foot not make contact with the ground?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So what your saying is that Johnston just ‘dangled’ his leg at knee level, rather than it being the follow through of his kick?

If you dangle a leg at knee level, make contact and trip someone up it’s a foul.

comment by System-Addict ••• ••&... (U9239)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum... (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 13 seconds ago
just to be clear if thats a penalty does that mean that everytime a player wins the ball but knocks over the man thats a free kick?

is that what we are saying aye?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope

If the challenge is reckless it doesn't matter if to catch the ball. Was a kick to the knee, that's pretty reckless.

Also he doesn't disposses Silva or gain control of ball. If there is no contact with Silva then Silva still has control of the ball.

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

Exactly this.

No surprise ref watch say it is 100% a penalty.

Only in Scotland would this decision be talked about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reckless Kicking! 🤣 Why stop there? Brutal assault? Attempted murder?

A falling defender (in mid air) stupidly left a dangling leg in and allowed Silva to take advantage of contact.

If you are quoting Ref Watch they clearly stated it wasn’t “Reckless”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hadn't seen ref watch at that point, but have no. They don't say that at all.

They say it's a foul but not a yellow card. Nothing about reckless or not

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 40 seconds ago
if they are fouls then they should be given as such no?

its never a foul man, this is a tribalism penalty shout tbh, flip the switch and attitudes change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue appears to be that there’s contact in the AJ challenge and the foul on Iwata. The difference is in the force used. It was a clear foul on Iwata with the force that was used-AJ having contact with Silva’s right knee seemed to cause his left leg to decide not to continue making contact with the ground.

There’s little similarity in the challenges. AJ didn’t ‘foul’ Silva. He didn’t impede his progress. Silva deciding to fall when he felt contact was the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He kicked his knee, how does that not impede him?

I agree Silva was rolling about a lot but that one wasn't a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn’t kick his knee though. He did lift his leg up and there was contact, but he didn’t kick his knee. To justify the decision, folk are resorting to hyperbole over what happened. There was contact on his right knee-why did that make his left foot not make contact with the ground?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it unbalanced him?

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 40 seconds ago
if they are fouls then they should be given as such no?

its never a foul man, this is a tribalism penalty shout tbh, flip the switch and attitudes change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue appears to be that there’s contact in the AJ challenge and the foul on Iwata. The difference is in the force used. It was a clear foul on Iwata with the force that was used-AJ having contact with Silva’s right knee seemed to cause his left leg to decide not to continue making contact with the ground.

There’s little similarity in the challenges. AJ didn’t ‘foul’ Silva. He didn’t impede his progress. Silva deciding to fall when he felt contact was the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He kicked his knee, how does that not impede him?

I agree Silva was rolling about a lot but that one wasn't a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn’t kick his knee though. He did lift his leg up and there was contact, but he didn’t kick his knee. To justify the decision, folk are resorting to hyperbole over what happened. There was contact on his right knee-why did that make his left foot not make contact with the ground?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So what your saying is that Johnston just ‘dangled’ his leg at knee level, rather than it being the follow through of his kick?

If you dangle a leg at knee level, make contact and trip someone up it’s a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, it’s hyperbolic to suggest he tripped him if you read what I typed. What force would you need to apply to the right knee to cause the left foot not to make contact with the ground?

I genuinely hope there’s a similar penalty given against rangers in the coming weeks just to see the reaction. It was daft of AJ, but still not enough contact or force for Silva to have dived the way he did.

Interesting watching the ref watch on Sky there.

Unanimous agreement on all 3 VAR calls. Think the only ones who don't think it was a penalty are some Celtic supporters and Michael Stewart.

Interestingly the 2 main discussion points were on CCV not being booked for kicking the ball away, with the argument that whilst the ref was probably trying to use common sense it is the law and should be applied consistently. The other one being the Rangers disallowed goal with the time that passed along with the chain of events before we scored meaning it leans towards rerefereeing the game.

But ultimately I think the right decisions were made which is all you want in these big games and wasn't the reason for the end result.

It can't but the ref can decide to after viewing

I'm fairly certain they can't, they can only downgrade a red to a yellow.

Collum or the asst ref has told Beaton to book him because Beaton was telling Silva to get up

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 40 seconds ago
if they are fouls then they should be given as such no?

its never a foul man, this is a tribalism penalty shout tbh, flip the switch and attitudes change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue appears to be that there’s contact in the AJ challenge and the foul on Iwata. The difference is in the force used. It was a clear foul on Iwata with the force that was used-AJ having contact with Silva’s right knee seemed to cause his left leg to decide not to continue making contact with the ground.

There’s little similarity in the challenges. AJ didn’t ‘foul’ Silva. He didn’t impede his progress. Silva deciding to fall when he felt contact was the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He kicked his knee, how does that not impede him?

I agree Silva was rolling about a lot but that one wasn't a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn’t kick his knee though. He did lift his leg up and there was contact, but he didn’t kick his knee. To justify the decision, folk are resorting to hyperbole over what happened. There was contact on his right knee-why did that make his left foot not make contact with the ground?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So what your saying is that Johnston just ‘dangled’ his leg at knee level, rather than it being the follow through of his kick?

If you dangle a leg at knee level, make contact and trip someone up it’s a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, it’s hyperbolic to suggest he tripped him if you read what I typed. What force would you need to apply to the right knee to cause the left foot not to make contact with the ground?

I genuinely hope there’s a similar penalty given against rangers in the coming weeks just to see the reaction. It was daft of AJ, but still not enough contact or force for Silva to have dived the way he did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no such thing as enough contact or force. You can't make up rules for individual games.

The other one being the Rangers disallowed goal with the time that passed along with the chain of events before we scored meaning it leans towards rerefereeing the game.

what does that mean?

the reason the Rangers goal was disallowed was because the defensive team never had control of the ball

not sure why that would be contentious

comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 40 seconds ago
if they are fouls then they should be given as such no?

its never a foul man, this is a tribalism penalty shout tbh, flip the switch and attitudes change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue appears to be that there’s contact in the AJ challenge and the foul on Iwata. The difference is in the force used. It was a clear foul on Iwata with the force that was used-AJ having contact with Silva’s right knee seemed to cause his left leg to decide not to continue making contact with the ground.

There’s little similarity in the challenges. AJ didn’t ‘foul’ Silva. He didn’t impede his progress. Silva deciding to fall when he felt contact was the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He kicked his knee, how does that not impede him?

I agree Silva was rolling about a lot but that one wasn't a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn’t kick his knee though. He did lift his leg up and there was contact, but he didn’t kick his knee. To justify the decision, folk are resorting to hyperbole over what happened. There was contact on his right knee-why did that make his left foot not make contact with the ground?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it unbalanced him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Really? AJ is hardly Bruce Lee in the scenario that played out.

On CCV not being booked-Scotland appear to be the only country that kicking the ball away and getting a booking isn’t enforced. Seen it multiple times from the opposition playing Celtic this season and it’s never happened, and can’t think of any similar booking in Scotland for it this season.

Anyone got any examples of it happening in Scotland this season?

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 40 seconds ago
if they are fouls then they should be given as such no?

its never a foul man, this is a tribalism penalty shout tbh, flip the switch and attitudes change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue appears to be that there’s contact in the AJ challenge and the foul on Iwata. The difference is in the force used. It was a clear foul on Iwata with the force that was used-AJ having contact with Silva’s right knee seemed to cause his left leg to decide not to continue making contact with the ground.

There’s little similarity in the challenges. AJ didn’t ‘foul’ Silva. He didn’t impede his progress. Silva deciding to fall when he felt contact was the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He kicked his knee, how does that not impede him?

I agree Silva was rolling about a lot but that one wasn't a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn’t kick his knee though. He did lift his leg up and there was contact, but he didn’t kick his knee. To justify the decision, folk are resorting to hyperbole over what happened. There was contact on his right knee-why did that make his left foot not make contact with the ground?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So what your saying is that Johnston just ‘dangled’ his leg at knee level, rather than it being the follow through of his kick?

If you dangle a leg at knee level, make contact and trip someone up it’s a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, it’s hyperbolic to suggest he tripped him if you read what I typed. What force would you need to apply to the right knee to cause the left foot not to make contact with the ground?

I genuinely hope there’s a similar penalty given against rangers in the coming weeks just to see the reaction. It was daft of AJ, but still not enough contact or force for Silva to have dived the way he did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it was a foul. I've seen plenty not given because the player stayed on his feet, so players go down when they feel enough contact.

I'm not sure what you are arguing about here though as you seem to accept it was a foul al be it perhaps a soft one

‘ There is no such thing as enough contact or force. You can't make up rules for individual games.’

I don’t get this-so any contact at all is a foul?

comment by Ghod#18 (U9390)
posted 2 minutes ago
It can't but the ref can decide to after viewing

I'm fairly certain they can't, they can only downgrade a red to a yellow.

Collum or the asst ref has told Beaton to book him because Beaton was telling Silva to get up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No the they absolutely can. The var has called him to view it as potential red. He has viewed it and decided no violent conduct but is worth of a yellow so can issue one

comment by Ghod#18 (U9390)
posted 39 seconds ago
The other one being the Rangers disallowed goal with the time that passed along with the chain of events before we scored meaning it leans towards rerefereeing the game.

what does that mean?


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

The debate was did enough play and time happen between the foul and the goal for it to be brought back. Its been clear VAR shouldn't be used to rereferee games and there was a question that in that case it fell in to that category given the foul arguably didn't directly lead to a goal.

Personally think the right call was made however so I've no complaints. It is frustrating as a fan though regardless of the game being played that you see goals scored then going back to review to check if its ok. I think that's a part of VAR that should be improved, its at the point where you are holding back celebrating goals to see if its ok. Even the Matondo goal at the end you see him standing waiting checking the ear piece to see if there is any reason to review it.

Watched it again and it's never a penalty.

There's 3 phases
1 Silva dives
2 AJ nicks the ball
3 there might be minimal contact.

Should have been a foul to Celtic and a card for Silva at phase one, which was probably the original decision.

Anything after that is irrelevant.

‘ But it was a foul. I've seen plenty not given because the player stayed on his feet, so players go down when they feel enough contact.

I'm not sure what you are arguing about here though as you seem to accept it was a foul al be it perhaps a soft one’

Contact doesn’t always mean a foul-surely that’s obvious?!

It was daft because it meant that Silva could try and claim for a penalty-he’d been diving the whole game for litttle to no reason. When your own fans are sick of it, then it can’t be up for questioning?!

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 40 seconds ago
if they are fouls then they should be given as such no?

its never a foul man, this is a tribalism penalty shout tbh, flip the switch and attitudes change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue appears to be that there’s contact in the AJ challenge and the foul on Iwata. The difference is in the force used. It was a clear foul on Iwata with the force that was used-AJ having contact with Silva’s right knee seemed to cause his left leg to decide not to continue making contact with the ground.

There’s little similarity in the challenges. AJ didn’t ‘foul’ Silva. He didn’t impede his progress. Silva deciding to fall when he felt contact was the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He kicked his knee, how does that not impede him?

I agree Silva was rolling about a lot but that one wasn't a dive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn’t kick his knee though. He did lift his leg up and there was contact, but he didn’t kick his knee. To justify the decision, folk are resorting to hyperbole over what happened. There was contact on his right knee-why did that make his left foot not make contact with the ground?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So what your saying is that Johnston just ‘dangled’ his leg at knee level, rather than it being the follow through of his kick?

If you dangle a leg at knee level, make contact and trip someone up it’s a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In all of my responses to you I have accepted in the modern game it’s soft, but it can be given as a foul. And I fully accept that is getting given at Ibrox.

My challenge is not whether it’s a foul, but the systematic upgrading of the offence (currently “reckless kicking&rdquo and selective mis-quoting of sources.