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

[Rousseau 9,361]

19 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

In what way?

do you think we got a fair deal from the officials on Saturday?

To suggest they are doctoring images is mental. 

 

Par for the course. 

 

It wasn't a penalty. (It should have been given by the Referee, but would have been ruled out for offside.) 

 

Johnstone should have been sent off for three bookable offences. 

 

Bernardo was lucky to stay on the pitch, but it wasn't bad. I don't have an issue with it. 

[RANGERRAB 3,255]

6 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

To suggest they are doctoring images is mental. 

 

Par for the course. 

 

It wasn't a penalty. (It should have been given by the Referee, but would have been ruled out for offside.) 

 

Johnstone should have been sent off for three bookable offences. 

 

Bernardo was lucky to stay on the pitch, but it wasn't bad. I don't have an issue with it. 

It’s debatable if sima can be called offside if he doesn’t touch the ball

 

what about the Dessers penalty? Bug eyes doesn’t touch the ball but brings him down. Penalty & a red card in my opinion

[Rousseau 9,361]

4 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

It’s debatable if sima can be called offside if he doesn’t touch the ball

 

what about the Dessers penalty? Bug eyes doesn’t touch the ball but brings him down. Penalty & a red card in my opinion

He's active; he's offside. 

 

I don't recall clearly, to be honest. Soft. I was more annoyed at Dessers not cutting across the defender and giving him the opportunity to get back. 

[Bill 13,717]

We need to ignore the possible offside that was never actually tested. The only reference to offside in that incident was as a subsequent determination that played absolutely no part in the denial of a penalty.

 

The issue here is that the referee either failed to notice the handball or chose not to act on it .... then that VAR either failed to see that a handball offence had occurred or did notice it but decided the handball didn't amount to a punishable offence. These are the ONLY issues that should be debated and only the audio conversation between VAR and the referee will clarify what happened and who played what part. 

 

The fact a bye kick was awarded following the decision not to award a penalty makes it clear that both VAR and the referee both decided the ball did not come off the defender's hand or body ... again, that is the ONLY conclusion. The upshot is that VAR, having the luxury of examining the video footage, did one of two things ..... it either made a complete hash of interpreting the video or it deliberately ignored the evidence to hand.

 

The subsequent and rather dubious business of the possible offside is utterly irrelevant to whether or not there was either gross incompetence or deliberate corruption at play.

[RANGERRAB 3,255]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

We need to ignore the possible offside that was never actually tested. The only reference to offside in that incident was as a subsequent determination that played absolutely no part in the denial of a penalty.

 

The issue here is that the referee either failed to notice the handball or chose not to act on it .... then that VAR either failed to see that a handball offence had occurred or did notice it but decided the handball didn't amount to a punishable offence. These are the ONLY issues that should be debated and only the audio conversation between VAR and the referee will clarify what happened and who played what part. 

 

The fact a bye kick was awarded following the decision not to award a penalty makes it clear that both VAR and the referee both decided the ball did not come off the defender's hand or body ... again, that is the ONLY conclusion. The upshot is that VAR, having the luxury of examining the video footage, did one of two things ..... it either made a complete hash of interpreting the video or it deliberately ignored the evidence to hand.

 

The subsequent and rather dubious business of the possible offside is utterly irrelevant to whether or not there was either gross incompetence or deliberate corruption at play.

For the offside to have been investigated there would need to have been a VAR review(play halted, referee puts finger to ear) as opposed to a VAR check( background check by VAR ref  play not stopped)

In this instance I believe all there was only a VAR check which missed the handball.

A VAR review (assuming it saw the handball) would maybe have meant lines drawn across the pitch from the 2nd last defender & sima using VAR’s Hawkeye as opposed to the SKY image we got midway thro the second half which was nothing more than a photo from a camera with thick lines drawn across the pitch from defender & sima

Totally inconclusive 

[Sutton_blows_goats 4,178]

I dont understand the lack of providing the evidence and offside whataboutery here. The SFA and Collum just double down, stick to 'arm in natural position' they said was the reason and we all move on. This rubbish about an 'offside' is needless and the lack of providing the audio provides a worrying lack of transparency and 'sporting integrity'.

[Bill 13,717]

11 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

I dont understand the lack of providing the evidence and offside whataboutery here. The SFA and Collum just double down, stick to 'arm in natural position' they said was the reason and we all move on. This rubbish about an 'offside' is needless and the lack of providing the audio provides a worrying lack of transparency and 'sporting integrity'.

I agree it's beyond annoying that so many Rangers supporters have been drawn into the offside trap. Why are we doing the authorities' job for them instead of pursuing the clear and obvious cover up.

 

If it really was "arm in a neutral position" then why award a bye kick instead of a corner? Basically, none of it adds up at all.

Edited January 2 by Bill

[CammyF 6,779]

 

 

[CammyF 6,779]

11 minutes ago, Bill said:

I agree it's beyond annoying that so many Rangers supporters have been drawn into the offside trap. Why are we doing the authorities' job for them instead of pursuing the clear and obvious cover up.

 

If it really was "arm in a neutral position" then why award a bye kick instead of a corner? Basically, none of it adds up at all.

Correct. The SFA are trying to muddy the waters here but we must stick to the facts. We are refereed differently to them. 

 

However, what are the odds that we get a ridiculous decision in our favour today so the narrative can change again (I.e VAR and refs favour Rangers).

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,473]

13 minutes ago, CammyF said:

 

 

The Morelos one is a joke. If anything Johnston is fouling Alfie, realises he is losing the battle and simply falls over.