Match Thread [FT] Rangers 2 (Kent 47; Tavernier pen 52) - 2 Celtic

[buster. 5,186]

3 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

I haven't seen an angle which shows it hitting his hands clearly. There are 2 angles I have seen, from front on and from the side and neither are conclusive. The ball doesnt seem to change its trajectory as it goes past Goldson from what i've seen. On that basis no VAR official can overturn the original decision as there is no clear and obvious error. Perhaps there is another angle which shows it hitting him. Just because Andy Walker says it definitely hits his hand doesn't make it so!

There are stills going around that show it did hit his hand.

 

The irony is that we were up in arms re. Willie Collum in August (he was on VAR Monday)and now it is tuther side of city that are chasing him.

 

He has gone from being Brother Wilfred (blindness) to a Grandmaster at LOL 1872 in only 4 months.

 

It is a predictable and fairly pathetic circus.

 

 

 

 

[Gonzo79 15,293]

Celtc fans are incapable of accepting dropped points.  

 

I thought the referee was okay during the match.  Bit late with the cards but not much to grumble about really.  

[Sutton_blows_goats 5,335]

10 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Celtc fans are incapable of accepting dropped points.  

 

I thought the referee was okay during the match.  Bit late with the cards but not much to grumble about really.  

Should have booked O'Reilly for that challenge on Lundstram after a minute or so and bottled it. 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Sutton_blows_goats

[Devil's advocaat 1,541]

48 minutes ago, buster. said:

There are stills going around that show it did hit his hand.

 

Stills are completely unreliable in such situations, has been proven before.

[Gonzo79 15,293]

Here was me thinking VAR is infallible.   🤣

[buster. 5,186]

8 minutes ago, Devil's advocaat said:

Stills are completely unreliable in such situations, has been proven before.

In this case, if they show the ball in contact with a hand, ie. touching. Then they are relevant to the conversation.

 

However, the conversation is academic because there was no penalty and however much they scream, it won't change.

 

IMO, a penalty being awarded at that point in the game would have actually favoured us. It would have given us more time to go for the win and make the appropriate subs.

 

 

[Rousseau 10,607]

When you see it... 👀

 

[onevision 1,569]

1 hour ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

Should have booked O'Reilly for that challenge on Lundstram after a minute or so and bottled it. 

Agree and failed to book the wee jap late on for trying to trip similar to what he booked Jack for minutes before.

[Uilleam 5,932]

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

Here was me thinking VAR is infallible.   🤣

Nah; only the Bishop of Rome is infallible, and that, formally, only since 1870, or thereabouts. 

Now, if he -and its always a he, did you know?- could be persuaded to sub-contract, on a temporary basis, that infallibility, to VAR officials in Scotland, then the slavering, maniacal, down trodden, hordes might be assuaged.........

Papal infallibility could not be mis-used, could it?

 

 

 

 

[Uilleam 5,932]

1 hour ago, buster. said:

In this case, if they show the ball in contact with a hand, ie. touching. Then they are relevant to the conversation.

 

However, the conversation is academic because there was no penalty and however much they scream, it won't change.

 

IMO, a penalty being awarded at that point in the game would have actually favoured us. It would have given us more time to go for the win and make the appropriate subs.

 

 

There are too many problems with depth of field, and angle of the shot for the photograph to be definitive.  It's a  2 dimensional representation of  3 dimensional situation.