When are the rules, not the rules?

[Frankie 8,210]

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=251:when-are-the-rules-not-the-rules&catid=1:articles&Itemid=67

 

Another tight Rangers win, another game in which sections of the Scottish football fraternity highlight a decision which benefits the champions elect.

 

This time, Rangers are supposedly lucky to undeservedly win against lowly Hamilton - despite missing three sitters, hitting the post , having the bulk of possession (52:48) and restricting Hamilton to just one shot on goal. Of course, the balance of play is ignored to concentrate on the disallowed goal Hamilton 'scored' late in the game and portray the loss as unjust.

 

Basically, as one can see from the BBC highlights, James McCarthur 'scored' from an Alex Neil cross but the goal was disallowed because Joel Thomas was clearly offside. Obviously, modern rules state a player must be in an 'active' role interfering with play during the 'active' phase of the game so quite often it is difficult to judge just what phase is happening and just who is active. However, as any 'fair-minded' viewer will attest (thanks to Celtic FC for that adjective) there is only one phase of play and Thomas is clearly active given he tried to head the ball before it struck McCarthur - affecting the reactions of Allan McGregor.

 

One can then only ask why the BBC's neutral and informed commentator Liam McLeod thinks the goal should have stood? Anything for a good conspiracy, Liam?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8602903.stm

 

:robbo:

Edited April 5, 2010 by Frankie

[rbr 1,247]

I have to agree , either the journalists haven't seen the incident , Kenny Clark in the Sun definetly cant have seen it , or else they are just out to court controvesy . there was no way in the world the goal would have stood in any league , in fact if you wanted to show how the rule works then this is exactly the incuident to use , unless you count a player being inactive even after jumping for a ball that then hits a player 3 feet away . Very strange NOT

[metlika 0]

Anything and everything to taint this title. It was offside, deal with it.

[26th of foot 5,912]

I listened to Liam McLeod's hysterical outpouring over a clearly offside goal and the thought struck me that his team, Aberdeen are up next at Ibrox.

 

When he first appeared on BBC Scotland, 3-4 years past; his brother had to delete his Bebo page rather quickly. It was full of all the usual Rangers-hating stuff from your typical Aberdeen supporter. A group of scum obsessed with the Ibrox Disaster

[Frankie 8,210]

So Mr McLeod is a contemporary of Richard 'I was brought up to hate Rangers' Gordon?

[Zappa 0]

I hope we stroll on to win this title asap, because the sooner the Rangers haters are all sickened by our victory, the better. They can try and take the sheen off it all they like, but they won't be taking the trophy off us any time soon if we win it.

[Super_Ally 0]

What was their view of Celtic's soft, soft penalty this weekend after Hibs were denied a better claim when Nish was wrestled to the ground?

[craig 5,199]

The reality of the situation is we have supposedly respected journalists and, it would seem, ex-referees, who simply don't understand the rules.

 

I have the online season ticket and Jock Broon (who commentates, who knows why we use that muppet) also was salivating over the "goal" and how it should have stood because McArthur was onside.

 

Then you even have Billy Reid (who I actually respect because, unlike many of his peers, he seems to be quite even-handed and objective) stating that McArthur was 3 yards onside and it should have stood.

 

Which part are these morons not getting about a player interfering with play ? There is absolutely NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that Thomas was offside and there was absolutely no doubt that he was interfering with play too.

 

Conspiracies are for the Tims, and they are welcome to them (Zappa aside ..... ) but you really do have to wonder when hardly any of these so called journalists can actually pick up the rules and run with the reality of how they should be applied.

[Frankie 8,210]

I can understand journalists wanting to increase the coverage to sell copy but when pressed there is no credible way any viewer can say it should have been allowed.

[Zappa 0]

Maybe it's just me, but from the highlights it actually looks like the offside is called because the linesman thought that Thomas had caught the ball and managed to flick it on to McCarthur, which would definitely have been a correct decision if Thomas had touched it. Either way, thankfully it was chalked off.