Celtic v Aberdeen 19th October

[Girth]

Celtic fans seemingly losing the plot here. Delightful. 

Thank you. 

[bennett]

49 minutes ago, Girth said:

Celtic fans seemingly losing the plot here. Delightful. 

Thank you. 

It's probably just Willy.

[Senor Bairn]

I’ve seen the highlights a couple of times now. I’m of the opinion Aberdeen are actually very unlucky with that goal being disallowed, it’s been headed down onto Duks arm which is by his side and went in the net. 
 

Also the lack of media coverage regarding this game was standard from the people who run the game in this country. Absolute tinpot. 

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

1 hour ago, Senor Bairn said:

I’ve seen the highlights a couple of times now. I’m of the opinion Aberdeen are actually very unlucky with that goal being disallowed, it’s been headed down onto Duks arm which is by his side and went in the net. 
 

Also the lack of media coverage regarding this game was standard from the people who run the game in this country. Absolute tinpot. 

It's no really unlucky,  it's a standard decision - you can't score with your arm,  intentionally or not. 

I did enjoy Michael Stewart trying to suggest it would have counted if Kyogo had got the last touch.  That boy has zero grasp of the rules

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Glad to see Celtic taking a stand against racism before the match.

Especially on such a windy day.

[Enrico Pallazzo]

On 18/10/2024 at 12:32, Enrico Pallazzo said:

I think it was the 2 wins at Parkhead in April 1980 that really changed Aberdeen FC's trajectory. There was a real belief within the squad after those games that took the club on to the next level.

As much as the new management team have turned things around in the last few months, I just don't see how we could possibly go from the recent history of insipid performances and heavy defeats, to emulating those kinds of results in one fell swoop. It will be a gradual process, but on Saturday I'd like to see evidence that, at long last, the process has actually begun.

It's fairly safe to say that The Dons provided me with all the evidence that I had hoped for, and more.

Generally, it was a cracking game of football, right up there with the Scottish Cup semi last April, and a whole other level to the game on show yesterday lunchtime.

[strichener]

2 hours ago, Senor Bairn said:

I’ve seen the highlights a couple of times now. I’m of the opinion Aberdeen are actually very unlucky with that goal being disallowed, it’s been headed down onto Duks arm which is by his side and went in the net. 
 

Also the lack of media coverage regarding this game was standard from the people who run the game in this country. Absolute tinpot. 

I'll preface this by saying I don't think it should have stood.  However, my gripe is that had that been a defenders arm then not for one minute would VAR have indicated a penalty.  That's the infuriating interpretation of the rules that football now finds itself with.

[stressball]

I presume at some point Brendan Rodgers shat in Willys kettle…

[Game of throw-ins]

4 hours ago, strichener said:

I'll preface this by saying I don't think it should have stood.  However, my gripe is that had that been a defenders arm then not for one minute would VAR have indicated a penalty.  That's the infuriating interpretation of the rules that football now finds itself with.

I think most would agree that a ball that wouldn't have gone into the net if it hadn't been redirected by an arm should be chalked off, even if the handball was accidental.  That is presumably the reason for the interpretation.  But a ball that would have gone into the net anyway, even there's an accidental ricochet against an arm on the way in,  should surely be  a goal, and if the new interpretation says it isn't then I think it's a bad rule change.  A lot of the problem with recent interpretations of the rules is that they create new injustices while supposedly addressing old ones.

Edited Monday at 17:03 by Game of throw-ins

[MikeAFC94]

7 hours ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

It's no really unlucky,  it's a standard decision - you can't score with your arm,  intentionally or not. 

I did enjoy Michael Stewart trying to suggest it would have counted if Kyogo had got the last touch.  That boy has zero grasp of the rules

Michael Stewart was right. An accidental hand ball followed up by contact from another player into the net would have counted according to Dermot Gallagher on Sky.

[kingjoey]

7 hours ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

It's no really unlucky,  it's a standard decision - you can't score with your arm,  intentionally or not. 

I did enjoy Michael Stewart trying to suggest it would have counted if Kyogo had got the last touch.  That boy has zero grasp of the rules

An accidental handball by Duk, which it was, which was then turned into the net by Kyogo, would have stood as a goal. Unfortunately, Kyogo wellied the ball after it had crossed the line. Presumably that’s why it took so long for the VAR check, to make sure Kyogo was over the line.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

Bested by Michael Stewart.  That's me retiring from the WWW.Web

[Greenlantern]

Intentional or unintentional doesn’t really factor anymore. They look at the phase of play and unnatural positions. 

[Dons_1988]

1 hour ago, Game of throw-ins said:

I think most would agree that a ball that wouldn't have gone into the net if it hadn't been redirected by an arm should be chalked off, even if the handball was accidental.  That is presumably the reason for the interpretation.  But a ball that would have gone into the net anyway, even there's an accidental ricochet against an arm on the way in,  should surely be  a goal, and if the new interpretation says it isn't then I think it's a bad rule change.  A lot of the problem with recent interpretations of the rules is that they create new injustices while supposedly addressing old ones.

I’m not sure I would agree with the first part. I don’t feel particularly strongly about it but fundamentally ‘we think accidental handball is fine unless the random ricochet causes a very specific outcome’ is a flawed logic. I would rather in principle they just agreed accidental handball was not an offence. 

Im not grumpy about what happened on Saturday though. 

[VincentGuerin]

1 hour ago, Game of throw-ins said:

I think most would agree that a ball that wouldn't have gone into the net if it hadn't been redirected by an arm should be chalked off, even if the handball was accidental. 

Nah. I think the blanket rule should be that no offence has been committed if the ball is handled accidentally. Just deal with it.

I'd be fine with that being a goal.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

9 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Nah. I think the blanket rule should be that no offence has been committed if the ball is handled accidentally. Just deal with it.

I'd be fine with that being a goal.

Fully on board with that tbh.  Handball should only be a foul if it's deliberate

[Dons_1988]

11 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Nah. I think the blanket rule should be that no offence has been committed if the ball is handled accidentally. Just deal with it.

I'd be fine with that being a goal.

Stop stealing my thoughts. 

I think this all started with man city going out of the champions league against spurs to this exact type of incident and couldn’t deal with it. 

[MikeAFC94]

15 minutes ago, Greenlantern said:

Intentional or unintentional doesn’t really factor anymore. They look at the phase of play and unnatural positions. 

And it didn't fit the criteria to be a foul.

[LuboMoravcik]

On 20/10/2024 at 15:37, kingjoey said:

The draw pleased us after being 2-0 down at half time.

 

Loser mentality.

[Thenorthernlight]

8 hours ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

It's no really unlucky,  it's a standard decision - you can't score with your arm,  intentionally or not. 

I did enjoy Michael Stewart trying to suggest it would have counted if Kyogo had got the last touch.  That boy has zero grasp of the rules

Michael Stewart would be right & you’d be wrong