Aberdeen v 'Rangers' - Tues 20/12 - 8pm

[Drew Brees]

10 hours ago, AJF said:

The complaints regarding injury time seem odd considering the stoppages in the match. There were 8 substitutions across 3 stoppages, an Aberdeen goal and resulting celebrations, a rammy in the middle of the park that took a while to sort out, the relevant VAR checks and the treatment for Aberdeen players (their keeper feigning for non-existent contact being the main culprit).

Is everyone aware that added/injury time is for both teams? 

[Thenorthernlight]

1 hour ago, kingjoey said:

I sit in the back row of the front section of the RDS Lower, and I heard the clatter when he hit himself on the post. Certainly not minimal contact.

Aye.

The h*n is lying & talking shite. 

Imagine my surprise. 

[AJF]

19 minutes ago, Thenorthernlight said:

Aye.

The h*n is lying & talking shite. 

Imagine my surprise. 

I think suggesting the treatment required was anything other than gamesmanship to waste some time is naive to the extreme.

[Kapowzer]

Jeez, we've just had a world cup with 64 games where the average extra time added was 7-10'. FIFA obviously have a hardon for time wasting and maximising ball in play time, to find the first few domestic games back after that mimicking it shouldn't really be a surprise.

Aberdeen shat the bed but all it does is highlight how our league is a joke.

[craigkillie]

20 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

I'm no expert on the handball rule however for the first goal Sakala unintentional controls the ball with his hand. There's no doubt about it.

Goldson's is harder to tell as you are right the ball is already moving away from his body however his hand still alters the course of the ball towards Arfield. The second maybe not a handball but the first goal is a definite handball and imo shouldn't have stood. It reminds me of Teddy Jenks goal for us against St Johnstone. 

I don't think it comes off his arm, but you have just said it is unintentional, and therefore it's not a handball anyway.

[Dons_1988]

3 hours ago, craigkillie said:

I don't think it comes off his arm, but you have just said it is unintentional, and therefore it's not a handball anyway.

Has that changed? I thought an attacking player was penalised for any sort of handball intentional or not in the build up. 

FWIW I didn’t think any of the goals were much of an issue. 

[Jacksgranda]

27 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Has that changed? I thought an attacking player was penalised for any sort of handball intentional or not in the build up. 

FWIW I didn’t think any of the goals were much of an issue. 

Two of them were most certainly an issue, imho...

[Eder]

4 hours ago, craigkillie said:

you have just said it is unintentional, and therefore it's not a handball anyway.

That rule is not being consistently followed. 

One game it needs to be intentional and in another as long as a hand is out or above head it's handball.

 

 

[craigkillie]

2 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

Has that changed? I thought an attacking player was penalised for any sort of handball intentional or not in the build up. 

FWIW I didn’t think any of the goals were much of an issue. 

This only applies if the player whose hand it hits then goes on to immediately score. In the case of the first goal, the ball was played by a defender afterwards, so this wouldn't apply. In the case of the third goal, it came off Goldson's arm and then fell to Arfield, so again it wouldn't apply.

This did slightly change either last summer or the summer before, because there was a brief spell where the player setting up the goal could also be penalised, which would potentially have ruled out the winner, but not the first goal.

[Thenorthernlight]

6 hours ago, craigkillie said:

I don't think it comes off his arm, but you have just said it is unintentional, and therefore it's not a handball anyway.

Suggest you read up on the laws of the game. 

[Dons_1988]

32 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

This only applies if the player whose hand it hits then goes on to immediately score. In the case of the first goal, the ball was played by a defender afterwards, so this wouldn't apply. In the case of the third goal, it came off Goldson's arm and then fell to Arfield, so again it wouldn't apply.

This did slightly change either last summer or the summer before, because there was a brief spell where the player setting up the goal could also be penalised, which would potentially have ruled out the winner, but not the first goal.

That sounds familiar, thanks. No reflection on yourself but the handball rule really does make me lose the will to live. 

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, Thenorthernlight said:

Suggest you read up on the laws of the game. 

Thanks for the advice, very much appreciated.

[kingjoey]

8 hours ago, craigkillie said:

I don't think it comes off his arm, but you have just said it is unintentional, and therefore it's not a handball anyway.

I now that you are great one for knowing the laws of the game, but for a handball to be a foul it does not have to be intentional. You absolutely know that.

[AJF]

1 minute ago, kingjoey said:

I now that you are great one for knowing the laws of the game, but for a handball to be a foul it does not have to be intentional. You absolutely know that.

It needs to be deliberate or their arm needs to be considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger. I don’t think either of those would apply in Sakala or Goldson’s situation given their arms were in natural positions by their body.

[kingjoey]

17 minutes ago, AJF said:

It needs to be deliberate or their arm needs to be considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger. I don’t think either of those would apply in Sakala or Goldson’s situation given their arms were in natural positions by their body.

Never said anything about the handball claims from Tuesday, I was taking issue with Craigkillie who said that if a handball is unintentional then it isn’t a foul, which is wrong.

[craigkillie]

3 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

Never said anything about the handball claims from Tuesday, I was taking issue with Craigkillie who said that if a handball is unintentional then it isn’t a foul, which is wrong.

In the very clear context of the discussion of Tuesday's decision. I don't even think it hits Sakala's arm, but if it does then it is down by his side and not in an unnatural position. Therefore, the only remaining way it could possibly be a handball is if it is intentional, and even the Aberdeen fan I replied to was sure it wasn't.

[Falcor Roar]

You didn't lose because of the ref. It was your shitebag gaffer lads. 

 

[Jacksgranda]

F***, there's two of them...

[1GregStewart]

On 21/12/2022 at 13:21, lubo_blaha said:

I’m not convinced that either of those were definitely handball, possibly just with the angles I’ve seen, although Tavernier hitting the ball against his own post with his arm certainly was.

Agreed.

Very little being made of the fact that was a definite handball. 
Suppose it’s the usual agenda, focus on the other incidents which probably aren’t penalties of fouls, and keep the attention away from the stonewaller.

[afc_blockhead]

4 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Thanks for the advice, very much appreciated.

You are perhaps the smuggest poster on here despite often being wrong and talking shite.

Odd combination.