Sportscene's take on the disallowed "goal"

[Zappa 0]

Not sure what you mean Danny. I listen to Sportsound quite often, but never Snyde or Real Radio. I was just commenting that I was a bit surprised to hear Pat Nevin was saying that Conroy got the Fortune goal/foul decision right. Obviously he was being a bit more unbiased on Sportsound than he was on Sportscene!

[craig 5,199]

Not sure what you mean Danny. I listen to Sportsound quite often, but never Snyde or Real Radio. I was just commenting that I was a bit surprised to hear Pat Nevin was saying that Conroy got the Fortune goal/foul decision right. Obviously he was being a bit more unbiased on Sportsound than he was on Sportscene!

 

Or maybe he had seen ReadyTeddy's slowmo clip

[John Barr 0]

Pat Nevin carefully shows how Fortune's arm knocks McGregor's arm, preventing him from catching the ball, but then says if he was the ref he would have allowed it to stand. No bias there then, Pat?

 

Richard Gordon then says that th fact that Fortune was higher than McGregor meant that the goal should have stood.

 

Very strange "analysis". They are so bitter that they can't bring themselves to say that the goal was disallowed correctly. Typical BBC Scotland.

 

Pat Nevin's word doesnt mean a thing to be honest, and you would have been aswell banging your head against a brick wall that giving your time to hear his "Professional analysis".

 

Richard Gordon actually is fairly imaprtial in my opinion, for an Aberdonian. I listen to his opinions a lot on Radio Scotland and he always calls it as he sees it and fairly. He never seems to take sides, even if it is 50/50 for Aberdeen.

 

On this call though it is a fairly soft decison to disalow the goal, i don't think theres any getting away from that. But, at the same time TECHNICALLY it Was a foul and even if it was a soft foul, it was a foul nonetheless and therefore as i said elsewhere Conroy was right and the linesman got it wrong.

[Zappa 0]

On this call though it is a fairly soft decison to disalow the goal, i don't think theres any getting away from that.

.

John, I can't for the life of me see how it was a 'soft decision'!! I think we'd have been very hard done by if the goal had been allowed. You can't do that to a keeper. There's some rules in today's football that I'd like to see changed, but that's certainly not one of them. If fouls like that on keepers were allowed, they'd be getting battered all over the shop. The older guys can say what they like about it not being the same these days & on some counts I agree. Some of the things fouls & penalties are given for is just breeding the divers & play actors in the game, but fouling the goalie is a different kettle of fish. Goals like Fortune's aren't goals if the striker or player has fouled the keeper & that's what he did.

[andy steel 0]

Ah. come on. COME ON COME ON COME ON!! We caught a break there and any pundit, or fan for that matter, who says otherwise is kidding themselves on a bit. Pat Nevin or that other wallah saying so hardly confirms BBC Scotland prejuidice, even though it certainly exists.

[maineflyer 0]

The keeper was fouled. The ref awarded a free kick to Rangers. Those are the facts of the matter. It's of no fukking interest at all whether the worst celtic signing in years thinks he should have had a goal, every feenyan lowlife south of Baffin Island thinks they should have had a goal but what's new?

[ian1964 10,444]

The keeper was fouled. The ref awarded a free kick to Rangers. Those are the facts of the matter. It's of no fukking interest at all whether the worst celtic signing in years thinks he should have had a goal, every feenyan lowlife south of Baffin Island thinks they should have had a goal but what's new?

 

Agreed,I think keepers are far too protected,however thems the rools so NO GOAL

[Bluedell 5,354]

Ah. come on. COME ON COME ON COME ON!! We caught a break there and any pundit, or fan for that matter, who says otherwise is kidding themselves on a bit. Pat Nevin or that other wallah saying so hardly confirms BBC Scotland prejuidice, even though it certainly exists.

 

In what way am I kidding myself on a bit? McGregor could not catch the ball because he was fouled.

 

If a player is prevented from kicking a ball because someone knocks his leg away then it;s a foul. Likewise it's foul if a keeper is prevented from catching a ball because someone knocks his arm away.

 

I genuinely don't see why we caught a break.

[John Barr 0]

.

John, I can't for the life of me see how it was a 'soft decision'!! I think we'd have been very hard done by if the goal had been allowed. You can't do that to a keeper. There's some rules in today's football that I'd like to see changed, but that's certainly not one of them. If fouls like that on keepers were allowed, they'd be getting battered all over the shop. The older guys can say what they like about it not being the same these days & on some counts I agree. Some of the things fouls & penalties are given for is just breeding the divers & play actors in the game, but fouling the goalie is a different kettle of fish. Goals like Fortune's aren't goals if the striker or player has fouled the keeper & that's what he did.

 

What i am getting at is it was a fairly soft dunt in the arm. Although, as i infered, a dunt nonetheless and therefore was a foul.

 

I have a problem with the pansyness of football nowadays and would love to see it the way it was when i grew up as a boy.

 

I'm not saying it was a goal, it wasn't. But it was a softish challenge but one which nowadays does draw a foul and therefore, as i said it was correct to disalow it.

 

I have to say though, that view may be fuelled by myself enjoying seeing Celtic thinking they scored when they didn't.

But, if Boyd went up with Buruc and he did what Fortune done to Boruc, i'd be pissed off too.

[Bluedell 5,354]

But, if Boyd went up with Buruc and he did what Fortune done to Boruc, i'd be pissed off too.

 

Broadfoot did, and we didn't hear this hoo-hah.