BBC Scotland and Rangers to resume coverage

[Frankie 8,562]

Yeah, I didn't see the coverage as all that surprising really.

 

We have to remember that all media platforms will look to manufacture some sort of controversy and, as Scotland's premier team, we'll bear the brunt of that.

 

It's important to pick the right battles when complaining about this stuff or you just look desperate.

[Gonzo79 15,293]

I get the impression some Rangers fans won't be content unless Sportscene focuses on every debatable decision that doesn't go our way. 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

I get the impression some Rangers fans won't be content unless Sportscene focuses on every debatable decision that doesn't go our way. 

You think it's ok to debate one teams chopped off goal and not the other. Especially as only ours was really contentious. 

 

dear oh dear 

[Gonzo79 15,293]

2 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

You think it's ok to debate one teams chopped off goal and not the other. Especially as only ours was really contentious. 

 

dear oh dear 

I don't have a TV.  😜

[buster. 5,186]

2 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

You think it's ok to debate one teams chopped off goal and not the other. Especially as only ours was really contentious. 

 

dear oh dear 

The Colak offside was in the highlight package (HP) but wasn't discussed post-match.

The disallowed Livingston goal wasn't in the HP but was discussed post-match.

Both were tight/contentious.

 

The offside wouldn't have changed the actual end result.

The disallowed goal would have.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

2 minutes ago, buster. said:

The Colak offside was in the highlight package (HP) but wasn't discussed post-match.

The disallowed Livingston goal wasn't in the HP but was discussed post-match.

Both were tight/contentious.

 

The offside wouldn't have changed the actual end result.

The disallowed goal would have.

yeah but not if the off side was called correctly. 

 

One without the other just makes it look like they could get a draw. That being the point of course and you are falling for it. 

 

Of course that's before you get into the physics of it all. Who knows what happens if the goal is given. Perhaps we should be grateful it was chopped off. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by the gunslinger

[buster. 5,186]

2 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

yeah but not if the off side was called correctly. 

 

One without the other just makes it look like they could get a draw. That being the point of course and you are falling for it. 

 

Of course that's before you get into the physics of it all. Who knows what happens if the goal is given. Perhaps we should be grateful it was chopped off. 

I don't see the offside call being conclusively shown to be wrong, IMO it looks very tight.

If you have footage or an angle that does, please show me the link.

 

It almost looked like a trade off

Highlights package show Colak offside call

Post match speak about Livingston disallowed goal

 

 

I think Kenny Miller (pundit BBC) got it spot on when he said that we got away with one (you don't always get those calls) but we fully desereved the three points.

 

 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Just now, buster. said:

I don't see the offside call being conclusively shown to be wrong, IMO it looks very tight.

If you have footage or an angle that does, please show me the link.

 

It almost looked like a trade off

Highlights package show Colak offside call

Post match speak about Livingston disallowed goal

 

 

I think Kenny Miller (pundit BBC) got it spot on when he said that we got away with one (you don't always get those calls) but we fully desereved the three points.

 

 

I may not have it but the BBC do that's the point. 

 

Every yahoo out there will be claiming they have never seen anything to prove it was onside. 

 

Given we plan to introduce VAR and that it was being tested at our game it is unbelievable they didn't look at it. VAR would have done nothing at their goal. Has to be a clear error and the guy has his hand on Goldsons back. The BBC know this of course. 

[buster. 5,186]

11 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

I may not have it but the BBC do that's the point. 

 

Every yahoo out there will be claiming they have never seen anything to prove it was onside. 

 

Given we plan to introduce VAR and that it was being tested at our game it is unbelievable they didn't look at it. VAR would have done nothing at their goal. Has to be a clear error and the guy has his hand on Goldsons back. The BBC know this of course. 

I don't think the VAR folk will be keen to share or show up descrepancies with their process.

 

I don't think they'll have a different camera angle to any the BBC showed and if that were the case, then you could find that call (offside) to be in the 1% (without VAR 8% decisions wrong../..with VAR 1%*)

 

*something I heard an SFA rep saying.

Edited August 2, 2022 by buster.

[Bluedell 5,624]

27 minutes ago, buster. said:

The Colak offside was in the highlight package (HP) but wasn't discussed post-match.

The disallowed Livingston goal wasn't in the HP but was discussed post-match.

Both were tight/contentious.

 

The offside wouldn't have changed the actual end result.

The disallowed goal would have.

The Colak goal was discussed in the Sunday version of the show and they drew lines which appeared to show that he was offside. I'm not sure if the still used was exactly when the ball was crossed though, so who knows whether he was offside or not.