Honest Mistakes Thread 2016/17 onwards.

The momentum caught Sakalas foot ffs haha.
Never a penalty and anyone trying to justify it being a penalty to the Hun needs a word.

Starfelt slide past the Hun, the hun plants his foot on Starfelts boot. The hun then spreads his legs and done a con job on the Hun ref. You seen the hun giving it the big yin on the ground while faking injury. Job done, mission accomplished.
Life, death, tax, penalty to Rangers.

 

This is yet another one of these Scottish pub phrases that has worked it's way into the football lexicon. I remember in school we used to say 'it was ball to hand' and it depended on how big/popular the kid was whether the call stood or not.

The fact is that phrase isn't in the rules. You are not allowed to handle the ball to protect yourself. The main part of the rule which applies to this situation is;
- deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
And
- touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised

Which is pretty much the entirety of the rule out with scoring with your hand and goalkeeper handling.

So it was absolutely 100% nailed on. So much so that were it a goalie I reckon people would be saying it was a world class point blank save.

 

Your verbose language of 'lunged at him' and 'wiped him out' is pretty laughable when compared to the moment of contact.

It is fairly obvious that starfelt went to ground early in anticipation of a cross and sakala stood on his foot. Starfelt standing up or being on the ground doesn't mean an entirely new rulebook applies which is full to the brim with verbs and pub lexicon.

 

Claims like this doesn't help us when he have genuine issues with decisions.

I've posted an image to help. Sakala's foot comes down in his normal stride at the other side of the ball. There is no planting it on Starfelt. He isin control of the ball.

He had stopped the ball and Starfelt made zero contact with the ball. Starfelt catches Sakala's foot and causes his leg to slip. It kept slipping in the grass after contact stopped.

He didn't plant his foot on Starfelt or con the ref by spreading his legs. His foot was clearly taken away from him.

 

Having seen the Starfelt challenge a few times in slow motion I can just about see the contact and see why it was given. Amazing vision from Beaton to see it in real time though.
Shame his vision wasn’t so sharp when it came to Goldson using his 2 hands to stop the ball. Why he didn’t even look at the VAR needs to be explained but we all know it won’t be. Time for the club to be asking questions.

 

Laughable?

You accuse me of being laughable then post a picture of the contact long before the contact happened. My post above has a screenshot when the contact was about to happen.

Secondly I did not say he "lunged at him".

If you want a discussion please don't make things up.

 

The sun are now looking for any reason to justify not giving Celtic a penalty after the Goldshun handball.

Rules rules rules bollocks.

If that was up the other end its given.

 

Got to agree with you here. If that tackle is outside the box I’d expect Starfelt to be awarded a foul against him.

This reminds me of the penalty shout in the 4-0 earlier in the year that Abada didn’t get when one of their players catches Abada’s leg from behind when he shoots. That was a penalty to me because it’s on the defender to not make contact, not the attacking player.

 

'If you want a discussion please don't make things up'

Could you explain that with reference to the phrase you used 'wiped him out'?

And fair enough, if you want to use your picture in reference to my post then go ahead, I had about four or five frames to choose from including the one you posted (which again instead of using objective language like '1 second' or 'four frames' you whip out the bestestest verb to obfuscate the point, 'long'. How long is a piece of string?).

 

Kent taking outAbada was a stonewall penalty.

 

It was as stonewall as Starfelt giving this one away.

 

You had four or five frames of the contact, but used an image well before the contact to demonstrate the contact?

He wiped him out as he missed the ball and caught Sakala.

 

Your opinion is wrong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There was one given by VAR for the exact same thing only a few games ago

 

On Goldson, I would have said that shouldn't be a pen in the not so distant past. He was right infront of the ball played, if it missed his hands it would have ricocheted off his big heid and wouldn't have been so different. These days though, that's a stonewaller. Would have 100% been gave to them.

They havent had a single controversial decision against them with VAR and we have had major ones in nearly every game. They have "lucked out" a few times though.


The fact they arent even pretending to check incidents with us speaks volumes. That pen against hearts was teally something, the refs could smell us dropping points and wanted to facilitate that.

 

Just another decision to go along with all the other decisions favouring the huns and penalising us. What will it take for our club to actually grow a pair and challenge the blatant cheating in our game.

 

Still no contact,at this point all his body weight is on his left leg ,so the notion that the only place he could put his foot was onto starfelt is false

 

Do you honestly, honestly believe there’s no contact between the players there?

 

I know there is no contact there as the other camera angle showed he was nowhere near him,this image shows it was an unnatural fall / dive

 

Mate there was clearly contact. Sakala’s on top of his foot there man. Ye canny honestly think the two players didn’t touch each other at all?