Match Thread [FT] Celtic 2 - 1 Rangers (Tavernier 88)

[Bluedell 5,329]

2 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

 

I'm just repeating what Dermot Gallagher said on Ref Watch. 

But dB's post suggests he's wrong, so maybe it should have been a penalty?

 

I know we can become entrenched in our views on things like this but there's a strong argument to say it should have been given. 

[Rousseau 9,361]

3 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

But dB's post suggests he's wrong, so maybe it should have been a penalty?

 

I know we can become entrenched in our views on things like this but there's a strong argument to say it should have been given. 

Like I said, I trust Dermot over a 'journalist'. 

 

I'm not convinced it was a stonewaller - it was accidental, but he does move his hand towards the ball - but I do think the Referee should have given it. It would then have been overturned because he was offside in the build-up. 

[Bill 13,717]

This time it's a little different. In the great debate between incompetence or cheating, incompetence has been removed from the list of options. 

 

I've seen many previous examples over the years that have hinted at institutional cheating in Scottish football. In this case however, no persuasion is necessary and the sordid conspiracy has been laid bare for all to see. It will of course be covered up and buried.

 

[Bill 13,717]

1 minute ago, Rousseau said:

Like I said, I trust Dermot over a 'journalist'. 

 

I'm not convinced it was a stonewaller - it was accidental - but I do think the Referee should have given it. It would then have been overturned because he was offside in the build-up. 

The offside issue is pure distraction. The issue here isn't whether Rangers were denied a possible goal but the manner in which a critical decision was taken by officials who came to a decision by all the wrong means and subsequently covered up their 'crime'.

 

Whether or not a penalty kick would subsequently have been over-ruled, the real issue is the non-award of a valid penalty with no reference to any offside issue and the award of a bye kick rather than a free kick for offside. It's clear from this that offside was never considered in the decision not to award a penalty, despite clear video evidence of a hand ball offence. Offside only became an issue after the event and is a purely hypothetical consideration.

[CammyF 6,779]

10 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Like I said, I trust Dermot over a 'journalist'. 

 

I'm not convinced it was a stonewaller - it was accidental, but he does move his hand towards the ball - but I do think the Referee should have given it. It would then have been overturned because he was offside in the build-up. 

But the rules state offside is irrelevant, if he is even offside. 

 

If he was clearly offside, why did it take over half an hour for this line to be trotted out and a dubious still to be shown? 

 

The narrative is moved on from "no penalty" to " no penalty as he's offside". 

 

If VAR had NOT released the still and the offside narrative, this would have blown over, but by changing the narrative they have dug a hole for themselves that they'll struggle to get out off. 

[Bluedell 5,329]

9 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Like I said, I trust Dermot over a 'journalist'. 

 

I'm not convinced it was a stonewaller - it was accidental, but he does move his hand towards the ball - but I do think the Referee should have given it. It would then have been overturned because he was offside in the build-up. 

Let's ignore the IFAB rules because they're quoted by a journalist? 😂

 

I'm not sure of the relevance that it was accidental. 

[rbr 1,247]

We will never know if it was offside or not as the still that was shown was not the correct image that should have been used , however at the end of the day we should have done better . 

 

Given how poor we are upfront in the main striking dept , its a miracle imho that IF we win our games in hand we will only be 2 behind , PC has worked wonders with a squad that cant finish chances are are down to the bare bones in midfield .

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,473]

2 minutes ago, rbr said:

We will never know if it was offside or not as the still that was shown was not the correct image that should have been used , however at the end of the day we should have done better . 

 

Given how poor we are upfront in the main striking dept , its a miracle imho that IF we win our games in hand we will only be 2 behind , PC has worked wonders with a squad that cant finish chances are are down to the bare bones in midfield .

How we performed and this refereeing debacle are two totally separate issues. Even if we had won this game I would still be very angry at how this has played out. 

[Rousseau 9,361]

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

The offside issue is pure distraction. The issue here isn't whether Rangers were denied a possible goal but the manner in which a critical decision was taken by officials who came to a decision by all the wrong means and subsequently covered up their 'crime'.

 

Whether or not a penalty kick would subsequently have been over-ruled, the real issue is the non-award of a valid penalty with no reference to any offside issue and the award of a bye kick rather than a free kick for offside. It's clear from this that offside was never considered in the decision not to award a penalty, despite clear video evidence of a hand ball offence. Offside only became an issue after the event and is a purely hypothetical consideration.

What crime?   

 

I agree a penalty should have been awarded, but I'm not of the opinion that it's a stonewall penalty; it's partly accidental.

 

This morning, Dermot thought it was a penalty, yet Jay Boothroyd, who was in the discussion, thought it wasn't. It's not an egregious decision not to award a penalty. 

[rbr 1,247]

9 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

How we performed and this refereeing debacle are two totally separate issues. Even if we had won this game I would still be very angry at how this has played out. 

No I agree with you 100%