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

[rbr 1,247]

2 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

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. 

To be fair its either a penalty or its not , offside is either offside or its not , personal opinions are creeping more and more into the game , every live game you watch its the same , the rules should be clear cut , at the moment the game is a farce 

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,473]

4 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

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. 

There's no debate for me. It's clear as day in terms of whether it's a penalty.

[Rousseau 9,361]

18 minutes ago, CammyF said:

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. 

The narrative has moved because you don't agree with the Referee's decision. He made the decision, rightly or wrongly, yet you seem to think there's a crime (Bill's word, not yours) involved. I agree it's the wrong decision, but it's not egregious - I'd be furious if that went against our defender. 

 

The offside stuff shows that it doesn't matter what the Referee decided. It would have been ruled out if it had been given.  

 

The offside stuff has come from SKY, if I'm not mistaken, which is not wrong.  

[Bill 13,717]

4 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

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. 

I didn't call it a crime. I called it a 'crime'.

 

I don't know or care who Dermot is, or Jay Boothroyd. I speak for myself and I'm happy to form my own opinions based on what my eyes have seen. 

 

You seem quite confused in your arguments ... first you say a penalty should have been awarded, then you back off quoting something called a stonewall penalty, which apparently is something other than a penalty. Then you appear to enter the head of the Celtic defended to discover he was acting partly accidentally. I think you're seeing what you want to see.

[Rousseau 9,361]

6 minutes ago, rbr said:

To be fair its either a penalty or its not , offside is either offside or its not , personal opinions are creeping more and more into the game , every live game you watch its the same , the rules should be clear cut , at the moment the game is a farce 

It's offside or it's not, yes, but the penalty decision has a level of subjectivity to it - hence the reason why some think it was a penalty (Dermot Gallagher) and some think it wasn't (Jay Boothroyd).

 

There's always a level of subjectivity in many decisions; that will never change.  

[rbr 1,247]

Just now, Rousseau said:

It's offside or it's not, yes, but the penalty decision has a level of subjectivity to it - hence the reason why some think it was a penalty (Dermot Gallagher) and some think it wasn't (Jay Boothroyd).

 

There's always a level of subjectivity in many decisions; that will never change.  

But the hand ball rule is now a complete lottery, and its affecting the outcomes of games in a way that other  decisions dont.

[Rousseau 9,361]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

I didn't call it a crime. I called it a 'crime'.

 

I don't know or care who Dermot is, or Jay Boothroyd. I speak for myself and I'm happy to form my own opinions based on what my eyes have seen. 

 

You seem quite confused in your arguments ... first you say a penalty should have been awarded, then you back off quoting something called a stonewall penalty, which apparently is something other than a penalty. Then you appear to enter the head of the Celtic defended to discover he was acting partly accidentally. I think you're seeing what you want to see.

I must have worded it poorly. 

 

I believe a penalty should have been 'awarded' (given on the pitch), but it's subjective, as it is for the Referee, because it's not a stonewaller, hence the reason why many have opposing opinions. 

 

I also believe it is partly accidental, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be awarded - I might be mistaken, there. 

[Bill 13,717]

2 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

It's offside or it's not, yes, but the penalty decision has a level of subjectivity to it - hence the reason why some think it was a penalty (Dermot Gallagher) and some think it wasn't (Jay Boothroyd).

 

There's always a level of subjectivity in many decisions; that will never change.  

What you seem to be saying is that the decision to award a penalty for handball is purely subjective and down to the whim of the officials, irrespective of video evidence. That would certainly seem to have been the case on Saturday right enough. I'd call that cheating.

[Rousseau 9,361]

4 minutes ago, rbr said:

But the hand ball rule is now a complete lottery, and its affecting the outcomes of games in a way that other  decisions dont.

The hand ball rules should definitely be improved, yes. 

[Bill 13,717]

3 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I must have worded it poorly. 

 

I believe a penalty should have been 'awarded' (given on the pitch), but it's subjective, as it is for the Referee, because it's not a stonewaller, hence the reason why many have opposing opinions. 

 

I also believe it is partly accidental, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be awarded - I might be mistaken, there. 

Neither you nor I can say it was accidental unless we have special powers to read the mind of the defender.

 

In any case, no one can be partly accidental. It's either wholly accidental or it's deliberate.

Edited January 1 by Bill