Sevco vs Dundee Hibernian

[Guest]

Last week the ball hits Goldsons hand in the box, no penalty. Same thing happens a week later but its Rangers opposition at Ibrox, penalty.

[DMCs]

4 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Same ref different decision Celtic get a corner Sevco get a penalty.

Yaaaaas willy

[gaz5]

It’s about as stonewall a penalty as it gets. 

You seem to be arguing with yourself. I said it was a penalty by today's rules.

Even with your blue blinkers on you can't for a second be suggesting that was intentional handball though, all the same, which was what I actually said.

[gaz5]

Last week the ball hits Goldsons hand in the box, no penalty. Same thing happens a week later but its Rangers opposition at Ibrox, penalty.

This is an excellent point.

Both identical, both penalties by today's shite rules, neither intentional handball.

1 given, 1 not.

[Highlandmagar]

Rangers got a penalty? I don't believe it!!. Must have been a stonewaller like all their's are!

Edited December 18, 2021 by Highlandmagyar Tier 3

[G51]

1 minute ago, gaz5 said:

You seem to be arguing with yourself. I said it was a penalty by today's rules.

Even with your blue blinkers on you can't for a second be suggesting that was intentional handball though, all the same, which was what I actually said.

Whether it was intentional or not, it doesn’t matter. He made himself unnaturally bigger. His arm was at full stretch and his hand blocked the cross. It’s a penalty 100 times out of 100.

The difference between that and Goldson’s one at Tynecastle is that Goldson has his hand at his side and didn’t make himself unnaturally bigger, nor did he stop a shot at goal. Therefore intent comes into the equation, and because it wasn’t intentional, it wasn’t a penalty.

Its pretty straightforward.

[Dundee Hibernian]

Don't think the two incidents are even comparable regarding Muir and his recent  penalty decisions. I've only seen the McMann incident sparingly, but he didn't appear to be looking at the ball at the time, and was moving at speed, while in Wednesday's match Dominic Samuel was facing the shot at goal.

But as I've written, I'd have been shouting for a penalty today had a United cross into the box hit a Rangers' defender arm, although hitting an arm isn't the definitive reason for awarding a spot kick.

[Guest]

Whether it was intentional or not, it doesn’t matter. He made himself unnaturally bigger. His arm was at full stretch and his hand blocked the cross. It’s a penalty 100 times out of 100.
The difference between that and Goldson’s one at Tynecastle is that Goldson has his hand at his side and didn’t make himself unnaturally bigger, nor did he stop a shot at goal. Therefore intent comes into the equation, and because it wasn’t intentional, it wasn’t a penalty.
Its pretty straightforward.

Other than the fact that Goldsons arm is away from his body when the ball hits his hand therefore definitely making himself bigger, deliberate or not.

[G51]

1 minute ago, Empty It said:

4 minutes ago, G51 said:

Whether it was intentional or not, it doesn’t matter. He made himself unnaturally bigger. His arm was at full stretch and his hand blocked the cross. It’s a penalty 100 times out of 100.
The difference between that and Goldson’s one at Tynecastle is that Goldson has his hand at his side and didn’t make himself unnaturally bigger, nor did he stop a shot at goal. Therefore intent comes into the equation, and because it wasn’t intentional, it wasn’t a penalty.
Its pretty straightforward.

Other than the fact that Goldsons arm is away from his body when the ball hits his hand therefore definitely making himself bigger, deliberate or not.

Well because people don’t walk around with their arms fixed to their sides, the fact that his arm was slightly apart from his body doesn’t mean he made himself unnaturally bigger.

 

[wastecoatwilly]

Allan Muir at his best.

[gaz5]

Whether it was intentional or not, it doesn’t matter. He made himself unnaturally bigger. His arm was at full stretch and his hand blocked the cross. It’s a penalty 100 times out of 100.
The difference between that and Goldson’s one at Tynecastle is that Goldson has his hand at his side and didn’t make himself unnaturally bigger, nor did he stop a shot at goal. Therefore intent comes into the equation, and because it wasn’t intentional, it wasn’t a penalty.
Its pretty straightforward.

Blue glasses in full flow mate.

Point in fact, your man today didn't stop a shot at goal either, it was a cross.

There's zero difference between today and Goldson. Both were crosses, both had their arms away from their body and both interfered with the path of the ball.

You can't have this both ways I'm afraid.

By the rules, both are penalties. My original point (which you seem to have completely missed) is that today's handball rules are shite. Neither of them should be penalties IMO. But by the rules, they both are.

Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist when it comes to referees, I just think they're shite, but decisions like these give rise to the conspiracy theories of others because they're consistently given in one box, but not the other.

[Guest]

Well because people don’t walk around with their arms fixed to their sides, the fact that his arm was slightly apart from his body doesn’t mean he made himself unnaturally bigger.
 

Both should've been penalties the only difference is Rangers just happened to get away with theirs.

[G51]

3 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

Blue glasses in full flow mate.

Point in fact, your man today didn't stop a shot at goal either, it was a cross.

There's zero difference between today and Goldson. Both were crosses, both had their arms away from their body and both interfered with the path of the ball.

You can't have this both ways I'm afraid.

By the rules, both are penalties. My original point (which you seem to have completely missed) is that today's handball rules are shite. Neither of them should be penalties IMO. But by the rules, they both are.

Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist when it comes to referees, I just think they're shite, but decisions like these give rise to the conspiracy theories of others because they're consistently given in one box, but not the other.

I have no idea what kind of handball rule is possibly enforceable that wouldn’t give the one today as a penalty.

I’m inclined to think you don’t have any idea either.

[G51]

4 minutes ago, Empty It said:

8 minutes ago, G51 said:

Well because people don’t walk around with their arms fixed to their sides, the fact that his arm was slightly apart from his body doesn’t mean he made himself unnaturally bigger.
 

Both should've been penalties the only difference is Rangers just happened to get away with theirs.

Goldson didn’t make himself unnaturally bigger, so it wasn’t a penalty.

No idea what is so hard for you to understand here.

[Guest]

Goldson didn’t make himself unnaturally bigger, so it wasn’t a penalty.
No idea what is so hard for you to understand here.

He did though, his arm is outstretched away from his body.

[Grangemouth Bairn]

11 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Allan Muir at his best.

When was this match ?

[G51]

1 minute ago, Empty It said:

3 minutes ago, G51 said:

Goldson didn’t make himself unnaturally bigger, so it wasn’t a penalty.
No idea what is so hard for you to understand here.

He did though, his arm is outstretched away from his body.

As are most peoples arms, most of the time.

[gaz5]

I have no idea what kind of handball rule is possibly enforceable that wouldn’t give the one today as a penalty.
I’m inclined to think you don’t have any idea either.

Nice sidestep. [emoji6]

I'll take that as an admission that you got away with one against Saints, given the same applies verbatim.

FWIW, I'd quite happily go back to referees interpretation of "intentional". For decades, that worked a hell of a lot better than the shitshow we have now.

I'd rather less penalties (like we used to have) than more (like we do now). And that's in all football, not just when it comes to Rangers.

[Guest]

As are most peoples arms, most of the time.

So if it doesn't matter if an arm is outstretched then how is the decision today a penalty?

[G51]

2 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

Nice sidestep.

I'll take that as an admission that you got away with one against Saints, given the same applies verbatim.

FWIW, I'd quite happily go back to referees interpretation of "intentional". For decades, that worked a hell of a lot better than the shitshow we have now.

I'd rather less penalties (like we used to have) than more (like we do now). And that's in all football, not just when it comes to Rangers.

It’s not a sidestep, I just don’t think you really understand what the handball rules are.

A ruling on intentional handballs probably would have given the one today, because McMann was facing the cross and was making himself bigger to block the cross using his arms. So it seems that would be very unlikely to prevent this penalty award.

Good shout by the way. We had way less contentious handball decisions when it was just down to the referee to decide what intent was. I’m sure that would definitely placate the conspiracy theorists.