glasgowdon Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 1-1 fair result. No team tried to win it in the 2nd half. I'll look forward to tomorrow's papers with the wrongly chalked off goal. MacDonald is useless, even Smith got more stuck in than him. Wright should have came on for MacDonald sooner and we should have went for the points. Quote
baggy89 Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 Fuck referees getting demoted for getting decisions wrong these muppets on Setanta should be demoted to Camera men for the next game. WHY perpetuate the myth that the goal should have stood? Boyd was four or five yards off-side standing around about the penalty spot, so can only be seen to have been interfering with play. If he wasn't offside I fully expect Jimmy to play Darren Mackie on the oppositions penalty spot for the remainder of the season. He can continue to bea nuisance without the risk of injury. Quote
glasgowdon Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 Fuck referees getting demoted for getting decisions wrong these muppets on Setanta should be demoted to Camera men for the next game. WHY perpetuate the myth that the goal should have stood? Boyd was four or five yards off-side standing around about the penalty spot, so can only be seen to have been interfering with play. If he wasn't offside I fully expect Jimmy to play Darren Mackie on the oppositions penalty spot for the remainder of the season. He can continue to bea nuisance without the risk of injury. I thought it was Boyd that was offside anyway. I was right. Quote
??? Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 Fuck referees getting demoted for getting decisions wrong these muppets on Setanta should be demoted to Camera men for the next game. WHY perpetuate the myth that the goal should have stood? Boyd was four or five yards off-side standing around about the penalty spot, so can only be seen to have been interfering with play. If he wasn't offside I fully expect Jimmy to play Darren Mackie on the oppositions penalty spot for the remainder of the season. He can continue to bea nuisance without the risk of injury. Not offside till he touches the ball though? Quote
??? Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 How gives a fuck Well if how doesn't, neither do I Quote
glasgowdon Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 Not offside till he touches the ball though? If he's in the keepers line then he is offside. Quote
BobbyBiscuit Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 MacDonald is useless, even Smith got more stuck in than him. Wright should have came on for MacDonald sooner and we should have went for the points. Are you sure he's as good as useless? Substitutions were a bit baffling, but probably does show we were settling for a point. Quote
jmo Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 According to Walter Smith this game proves that decisions don't always go the Old Firms way. According to anyone watching the game, it proves nine out of ten times, they do. Quote
Guest swaddon Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 I've not seen the incident about the chalked off goal, but if the officials said it didn't count, then it didn't count. I always respect the decisions of the officials, they do a fine job and are deserving of their huge wages. Quote
??? Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 If he's in the keepers line then he is offside. Is that the rule? Seen loads of goals stand even though this has been the case Quote
Biggalloot Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 Loving the decision. Up the fucking huns how many times have clubs lost out on perfectly good goals against the huns. Not saying there goal is good, if Boyd is interferring with play it shouldn't count. Good call ref. About time we got some decision's our way! Quote
baggy89 Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 Not offside till he touches the ball though? I didn't realise you had to touch the ball to be offside, otherwise at freekicks why not put your tallest player to stand directly in infront of the keeper, he can unsight the keeper while in an offside position. but as long as he doesn't touch the ball he's fine? IMO you can't, not be interfering with play if your standing in the middle of the 18 yrd box, fair enough if Boyd was out on the opposite touchline or closer to the southstand than Debeasley but in the middle of the area during an attack your interfering with play. Quote
Guest Caroline B Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 One thing these dummies in the press and tv boxes have overlooked about this incident is that when the linesman flagged sharply, some of Aberdeen's defence stood down. Would the Rangers guy have had time to put the ball in the net otherwise? Quote
??? Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 I didn't realise you had to touch the ball to be offside, Technically you do, but I guess it depends on the scenario. The new offside rule is a farce. The ball can be played to a player, and he's not offside until he touches it. If he realises he's off, he can just leave it for another player. Don't even get me started on the phase of play sh*te. otherwise at freekicks why not put your tallest player to stand directly in infront of the keeper, he can unsight the keeper while in an offside position. but as long as he doesn't touch the ball he's fine? That's a different scenario than the one that took place today. IMO you can't, not be interfering with play if your standing in the middle of the 18 yrd box, fair enough if Boyd was out on the opposite touchline or closer to the southstand than Debeasley but in the middle of the area during an attack your interfering with play. IMO, if you're on the pitch you're interfering with play. The offside rule in its current state makes no sense, it's a relatively simple rule but FIFA have f*cked it up. Quote
bilbobaggins Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 Technically you do, but I guess it depends on the scenario. The new offside rule is a farce. The ball can be played to a player, and he's not offside until he touches it. If he realises he's off, he can just leave it for another player. Don't even get me started on the phase of play sh*te. That's a different scenario than the one that took place today. IMO, if you're on the pitch you're interfering with play. The offside rule in its current state makes no sense, it's a relatively simple rule but FIFA have f*cked it up. Of course you don't need to touch the ball to be offside. If a pass is played to someone and they are standing in between the final defender and the goalkeeper he is offside. Full stop. Quote
jmo Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 I'm sick of the media saying 'Rangers had a completely good goal dissalowed' as some sort of proof that Refs don't favour the Old Firm. If any of these people had watched the game they would have seen the countless freekicks unfairly given to Rangers today. It was the linesman who flagged it offside anyway, not the referee, not sure why they are talking about the referee so much in this. Quote
Andrew Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 I'm sick of the media saying 'Rangers had a completely good goal dissalowed' as some sort of proof that Refs don't favour the Old Firm. If any of these people had watched the game they would have seen the countless freekicks unfairly given to Rangers today. It was the linesman who flagged it offside anyway, not the referee, not sure why they are talking about the referee so much in this. I was thinking the same thing but there is no point getting annoyed cause things will never change and the Old Firm will always be the victims someway or another. The media will be least controversial as possible when talking against the Old firm and vice versa. Quote
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 I love that. They feel cheated. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Quote
bilbobaggins Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 I love that. They feel cheated. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Just need another 50-60 years of them to redress the balance. Quote
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 I really enjoy spawny victories over both of those cunts. As much as a 3 or 4 nil tooling would be good I love seeing the likes of Smith etc seeth at a dodgy decision that "robs" them. It is a thing that lifts my spirits. I fucking love it. Quote
jmo Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 I think that is the worst Rangers performance I've seen in my life, I'm a bit dissapointed that Aberdeen didn't win today. Quote
jmo Posted August 23, 2008 Report Posted August 23, 2008 OK, I just saw the highlights on BBC News 24, and under my understanding of the offside rule the decision was correct. Two of the Aberdeen defenders ran towards Boyd rather than Beasley, which I think means he is interfering with play due to him drawing the defenders away from the attacker. I may be wrong however...has been known to happen. Quote
??? Posted August 24, 2008 Report Posted August 24, 2008 Of course you don't need to touch the ball to be offside. If a pass is played to someone and they are standing in between the final defender and the goalkeeper he is offside. Full stop. I suggest you read the rules. You'll be surprised at what you find. Nowadays you DO need to touch the ball to be offside. Well, that's the rule in theory anyway. Quote
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.