coprolite Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 2 hours ago, East Calder Lion said: Not much doubt about it. Can see daylight between the ball and the line. That looks on the line. How can you see daylight when it's on the ground? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 2 hours ago, East Calder Lion said: Not much doubt about it. Can see daylight between the ball and the line. Not much doubt it might be over but don’t tell me you can objectively conclude anything from that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiviLion Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, East Calder Lion said: Not much doubt about it. Can see daylight between the ball and the line. You've just tried to prove the ball is over the line, by posting a picture with the full ball clearly not over the line. Edited January 31, 2021 by LiviLion 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 Equally if had been given nae c**t could say with certainty it wasn't over the line, seen them given when they weren't as much over the line as that one too, but Aberdeen got the break this time and it went their way on it not being a goal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 4 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said: Equally if had been given nae c**t could say with certainty it wasn't over the line, seen them given when they weren't as much over the line as that one too, but Aberdeen got the break this time and it went their way on it not being a goal. True but the officials should assume it hasn’t crossed the line unless they are absolutely sure. So for such a marginal call it is right not to give the goal unless the linesman has an angle that none of the rest of us do (he might have). In conclusion, let’s be honest, Pittman should’ve buried it and it wouldn’t be a debate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiviLion Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 5 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said: Equally if had been given nae c**t could say with certainty it wasn't over the line, seen them given when they weren't as much over the line as that one too, but Aberdeen got the break this time and it went their way on it not being a goal. How did Aberdeen "get the break"? Lewis has clearly saved it before it's crossed the line, surely you're not saying they've got away with one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 3 hours ago, East Calder Lion said: Not much doubt about it. Can see daylight between the ball and the line. The six yard line? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said: True but the officials should assume it hasn’t crossed the line unless they are absolutely sure. So for such a marginal call it is right not to give the goal unless the linesman has an angle that none of the rest of us do (he might have). In conclusion, let’s be honest, Pittman should’ve buried it and it wouldn’t be a debate. Yeah I'm not that upset about it tbh, it was a close game which Aberdeen just shaved on chances created, but they're lacking a decent striker, as were we this time. As good as Robbo has been for us this last wee while, he's an attacking mid playing as a striker, and he's been the best we've had this season. But Aberdeen's defenders easily dealt with him, and cut off any ball we played over the top for him to run onto. So i'm happy with the point, and hoping we get Mullin and Forrest on against you on Tues to add width, with players that can cut inside and score goals. Would expect you to have a striker signed by then too, so will be an unpredictable call. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 3 minutes ago, LiviLion said: How did Aberdeen "get the break"? Lewis has clearly saved it before it's crossed the line, surely you're not saying they've got away with one? We'll disagree on it LL, i think it was in and haven't been convinced otherwise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjoey Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 Kerr and McFadyen pussyfooting around Roofe’s shocking challenge on Murray Davidson so they don’t get labelled as having a go at Rangers. “No intent to injure the player”, “ yellow card sufficed”, “ don’t expect any retrospective action”. Even more obvious red card than Morelos stamp. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, kingjoey said: Kerr and McFadyen pussyfooting around Roofe’s shocking challenge on Murray Davidson so they don’t get labelled as having a go at Rangers. “No intent to injure the player”, “ yellow card sufficed”, “ don’t expect any retrospective action”. Even more obvious red card than Morelos stamp. Gerrard has called for consistency 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie McSquackle Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 Sportscene not even bothering to look at Fuchs blootering McGinley's nose because "he won the ball ". Yeah, with his foot, 6 feet in the air as McGinley tries to head it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G51 Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 11 minutes ago, ropy said: Gerrard has called for consistency Yes, in the retrospective disciplinary system. We already have consistency with our referees - they aren't good. With the possible exception of Beaton, Madden and Collum (when he doesn't decide he wants to be back page news). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Stanton Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 Great finish by McKay for RC's winner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cptn Hooch Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 Yes, in the retrospective disciplinary system. We already have consistency with our referees - they aren't good. With the possible exception of Beaton, Madden and Collum (when he doesn't decide he wants to be back page news).You've used 3 of the worst offenders for cock ups as the exception to referees being "not good" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjoey Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 9 minutes ago, Archie McSquackle said: Sportscene not even bothering to look at Fuchs blootering McGinley's nose because "he won the ball ". Yeah, with his foot, 6 feet in the air as McGinley tries to head it. That was incredible for a foul not to be given. Anywhere else on the pitch outside the box and that is given as a foul. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G51 Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 1 minute ago, Cptn Hooch said: 7 minutes ago, G51 said: Yes, in the retrospective disciplinary system. We already have consistency with our referees - they aren't good. With the possible exception of Beaton, Madden and Collum (when he doesn't decide he wants to be back page news). You've used 3 of the worst offenders for cock ups as the exception to referees being "not good" I don't think Beaton and Madden are bad tbh. They're average to good referees. Madden probably better than Beaton. Collum tends to be okay, but if you put him in a situation with a loud crowd and a pressure match, he has a tendency to just lose his fucking mind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 29 minutes ago, kingjoey said: Kerr and McFadyen pussyfooting around Roofe’s shocking challenge on Murray Davidson so they don’t get labelled as having a go at Rangers. “No intent to injure the player”, “ yellow card sufficed”, “ don’t expect any retrospective action”. Even more obvious red card than Morelos stamp. Aye right, have you suddenly developed a sense of humour? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 9 minutes ago, Cptn Hooch said: 16 minutes ago, G51 said: Yes, in the retrospective disciplinary system. We already have consistency with our referees - they aren't good. With the possible exception of Beaton, Madden and Collum (when he doesn't decide he wants to be back page news). You've used 3 of the worst offenders for cock ups as the exception to referees being "not good" He left out Greg Aitken for the full set. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 45 minutes ago, kingjoey said: Kerr and McFadyen pussyfooting around Roofe’s shocking challenge on Murray Davidson so they don’t get labelled as having a go at Rangers. “No intent to injure the player”, “ yellow card sufficed”, “ don’t expect any retrospective action”. Even more obvious red card than Morelos stamp. It was as dangerous a challenge as you see - straight leg lunge and the absolute definition of a red card. Murray Davidson is no stranger to a bad tackle himself but that could have been a season ender. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.