Match Thread [FT] Rangers 3 (Tavernier 55' pen; Sima 86'; Matondo 90+3') - 3 Celtic

[Bluedell 5,679]

50 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

It was a goal

 

Var can only be used for fouls in the current phase of play. Two Celtic defenders had played the ball before Dessers scores. The ‘foul’ was committed in an earlier phase of play 

 

var can only return to previous phases for red cards, violent conduct & mistake identity I believe. 

2 defenders and the keeper played the ball.

 

Stevie Clifford argued that attempted blocks and clearances doesn't change the phase of play. so the ref was correct to overturn the goal. I've not seen any references to rules that state that, but I think he did a bit of reffing, so he may know better than us, but I'd tend to agree with you.

[Rousseau 10,819]

14 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

2 defenders and the keeper played the ball.

 

Stevie Clifford argued that attempted blocks and clearances doesn't change the phase of play. so the ref was correct to overturn the goal. I've not seen any references to rules that state that, but I think he did a bit of reffing, so he may know better than us, but I'd tend to agree with you.

 

1 hour ago, RANGERRAB said:

It was a goal

 

Var can only be used for fouls in the current phase of play. Two Celtic defenders had played the ball before Dessers scores. The ‘foul’ was committed in an earlier phase of play 

 

var can only return to previous phases for red cards, violent conduct & mistake identity I believe. 

Dermot couldn't bring himself to say so, but his explanation suggests that he thought it was virtually re-refereeing the game, which should not be (is not?) allowed. It's the subjectivity of where the phase of play ends and begins. 

 

Of course, with the standard of our referees it's going to go against us. 

 

(He did think - as we all do - that it was a foul, but the referee played on in the moment.) 

[CammyF 8,382]

37 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

 

Dermot couldn't bring himself to say so, but his explanation suggests that he thought it was virtually re-refereeing the game, which should not be (is not?) allowed. It's the subjectivity of where the phase of play ends and begins. 

 

Of course, with the standard of our referees it's going to go against us. 

 

(He did think - as we all do - that it was a foul, but the referee played on in the moment.) 

I don't think it is re-reffing the game. Beaton missed a clear and obvious foul, so was correctly advised to go to the screen. It's a tough one to take, but ultimately I think it's the correct decision. If the ball had gone "dead" then we scored, it's  different argument in my opinion. 

 

The VAR team correctly identified another clear and obvious error from Beaton and again correctly got him to review the Silva "dive" and he then rightly awarded us a penalty.

Edited April 8 by CammyF

[RANGERRAB 3,732]

Whether or not it was a foul by Lawrence on iwata I think is debatable. He cuts across the front of Lawrence & looking to go down. Beaton has a perfect view of the incident 5yards away & plays on

 

what I would say if the same thing happened to us at Celtic park(Rangers player fouled) & one of the gang of 4 refereeing( Collum, Clancy, Robertson or Walsh) then the goal would stand

[CammyF 8,382]

3 hours ago, RANGERRAB said:

Whether or not it was a foul by Lawrence on iwata I think is debatable. He cuts across the front of Lawrence & looking to go down. Beaton has a perfect view of the incident 5yards away & plays on

 

what I would say if the same thing happened to us at Celtic park(Rangers player fouled) & one of the gang of 4 refereeing( Collum, Clancy, Robertson or Walsh) then the goal would stand

How do you explain VAR team giving us a penalty? The foul on Silva was very similar to the foul committed by Lawrence. If ones a foul, so is the other. 

[RANGERRAB 3,732]

1 hour ago, CammyF said:

How do you explain VAR team giving us a penalty? The foul on Silva was very similar to the foul committed by Lawrence. If ones a foul, so is the other. 

They gave a penalty because it was a penalty. That’s what they’re there to do.

Was there a foul committed by Lawrence? Beaton was yards away when it happened. He didn’t give a foul 

[MacK1950 2,399]

1 hour ago, RANGERRAB said:

Beaton was yards away when it happened. He didn’t give a foul 

He actually waved play on which I noted at the time.Was amazed at the VAR even looking at it before realising the scum players were in Beaton's face as usual.

[CammyF 8,382]

8 hours ago, RANGERRAB said:

They gave a penalty because it was a penalty. That’s what they’re there to do.

Was there a foul committed by Lawrence? Beaton was yards away when it happened. He didn’t give a foul 

Beaton was yards away from both penalties and didn't give them. They were both given by VAR.

 

There was a foul committed by Lawrence, it was the same type of tackle made by Johnston for our penalty. So either both or neither are fouls? 

 

It's a tough one to take, but it was a foul. 

[CammyF 8,382]

7 hours ago, MacK1950 said:

He actually waved play on which I noted at the time.Was amazed at the VAR even looking at it before realising the scum players were in Beaton's face as usual.

At the game, I said it would be brought back when we scored. I was amazed Beaton allowed the game to continue. 

 

Celtic players in Beatons face is irrelevant, it was VAR who highlighted Beatons error.

[Fa1833 238]

Talk about Sutton blaming tick tok Todd for his actions after full time, I think he needs to look more closely at the game to get the full picture before making any kind of judgements. 
 

https://www.footballscotland.co.uk/spfl/scottish-premiership/inside-callum-mcgregor-todd-cantwell-28957276