Rangers FC On Field Gossip & Rumour Thread 2017 Mod Note in OP(Updated 14/08)

Jelle1880 · 10-03-2014 01:07AM

Absolutely nothing wrong with that goal.

Have a look at the Burnley equaliser today, almost identical situation where a goalkeepers is too late or misjudges the ball and then gets hit by the striker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9K6-Hf6Nf0

As for 'flailing arms around the keeper's head. ':

Dempsey · 10-03-2014 01:07AM

His arms up that high means he knows the keeper is coming and trying to be a complete nuisance. He's entitled to go for the ball as much as the keeper is to come out to catch. Both jump into each other, I dont see why the keeper should get a free. if the keeper was doing a standing jump then ya he'd get a free for being taken out but thats not the case here. Also going for a punch rather than to catch would have been the better choice

Lennonist · 10-03-2014 02:26AM

Dempsey wrote: »

His arms up that high means he knows the keeper is coming and trying to be a complete nuisance. He's entitled to go for the ball as much as the keeper is to come out to catch. Both jump into each other, I dont see why the keeper should get a free. if the keeper was doing a standing jump then ya he'd get a free for being taken out but thats not the case here. Also going for a punch rather than to catch would have been the better choice

The point was made that 9 times out of 10 a ref would blow and award a free out for that.

Lennonist · 10-03-2014 02:34AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Absolutely nothing wrong with that goal.

Have a look at the Burnley equaliser today, almost identical situation where a goalkeepers is too late or misjudges the ball and then gets hit by the striker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9K6-Hf6Nf0

As for 'flailing arms around the keeper's head. ':

That Burnley equaliser isn't remotely comparable to the the Rangers' goal today.

Nice assist by Lee McCulloch for Albions goal.

Dempsey · 10-03-2014 08:32AM

Lennonist wrote: »

The point was made that 9 times out of 10 a ref would blow and award a free out for that.

Scottish referees probably would cos they are useless.

CSF · 10-03-2014 08:40AM

Dempsey wrote: »

His arms up that high means he knows the keeper is coming and trying to be a complete nuisance. He's entitled to go for the ball as much as the keeper is to come out to catch. Both jump into each other, I dont see why the keeper should get a free. if the keeper was doing a standing jump then ya he'd get a free for being taken out but thats not the case here. Also going for a punch rather than to catch would have been the better choice

This.

Lennonist · 10-03-2014 09:26AM

Dempsey wrote: »

Scottish referees probably would cos they are useless.

I think that would've likely been given as a free out in England and in a European game as well to be fair.

Dempsey · 10-03-2014 09:41AM

Lennonist wrote: »

I think that would've likely been given as a free out in England and in a European game as well to be fair.

Speculative at best. Its a 50:50, both are doing running jumps to win the ball and the keeper chose to try catch when a striker is challenging for the ball which is his mistake. Show me the rule that says he should get a free

PauloMN · 10-03-2014 10:03AM

Dempsey wrote: »

His arms up that high means he knows the keeper is coming and trying to be a complete nuisance. He's entitled to go for the ball as much as the keeper is to come out to catch. Both jump into each other, I dont see why the keeper should get a free. if the keeper was doing a standing jump then ya he'd get a free for being taken out but thats not the case here. Also going for a punch rather than to catch would have been the better choice

Have to disagree, the keeper is moving backwards. If the keeper was coming out for it then fair enough, but Mohsni takes him out. Not intentional by any means on Mohsni's part, it's clear he doesn't even know where the keeper is, but it's a free out - it definitely wasn't a 50/50 situation.

Lennonist · 10-03-2014 10:12AM

Dempsey wrote: »

Speculative at best. Its a 50:50, both are doing running jumps to win the ball and the keeper chose to try catch when a striker is challenging for the ball which is his mistake. Show me the rule that says he should get a free

Are Scottish refs worse than other refs, have you got a league table on that with a quantifiable measuring system? That incident yesterday is one of those that they put in the file "I've seen those given". In this instance I would concur with some of those who were paid to analyse the game yesterday that this is one of those that would be given more often than not, 9 times out of 10 was mentioned. Goalkeepers usually get the benifit of the doubt in such instances, its always been that way, right or wrong. For Albion Rovers it's particularly unfortunate that they didn't get that decision that normally goes to the keeper, and it cost them an historic win.

SantryRed · 10-03-2014 10:15AM

IT was never, ever a free out in a million years, and this is coming from a keeper himself.

The keeper made the situation for himself as he didn't attack the ball, you never catch the ball in a stationary position like he did, he should have caught it at its highest point, which would have been out beyond the Rangers player. Fair play to the referee tbh, but if it was up the other end, I wonder if he'd have the bottle to make the same decision?

Dempsey · 10-03-2014 10:20AM

PauloMN wrote: »

Have to disagree, the keeper is moving backwards. If the keeper was coming out for it then fair enough, but Mohsni takes him out. Not intentional by any means on Mohsni's part, it's clear he doesn't even know where the keeper is, but it's a free out - it definitely wasn't a 50/50 situation.

He comes across and out from goal to meet the ball but realises he's positioned himself wrong and takes two steps back and tries to catch. The keeper should not get a free for making a balls of it. The attacking player makes a better attempt to win the ball.

Dempsey · 10-03-2014 10:24AM

Lennonist wrote: »

Are Scottish refs worse than other refs, have you got a league table on that with a quantifiable measuring system? That incident yesterday is one of those that they put in the file "I've seen those given". In this instance I would concur with some of those who were paid to analyse the game yesterday that this is one of those that would be given more often than not, 9 times out of 10 was mentioned. Goalkeepers usually get the benifit of the doubt in such instances, its always been that way, right or wrong. For Albion Rovers it's particularly unfortunate that they didn't get that decision that normally goes to the keeper, and it cost them an historic win.

You really going to defend scottish referees and the standard of training they get? ill dig out that report on their competence when I get home. im fairly sure you were berating them off the back of said report at the time

Lennonist · 10-03-2014 10:45AM

Dempsey wrote: »

You really going to defend scottish referees and the standard of training they get? ill dig out that report on their competence when I get home. im fairly sure you were berating them off the back of said report at the time

The point I'm making is most refs would give the benifit to the goalie in that situation not just Scottish refs. Of course there is also the element that the stronger, bigger club would more likely get the benifit as well in such decisions, that's not a cut at the Rangers, they just happen to be the bigger club in this contest. I'm talking about the culture of the game. Refs do not just make decisions solely based on the letter of the law, they often make decisions based on the conventional thing to do in certain circumstances. Even taking into account that the bigger club often get a "home" town decision, I reckon looking at the incident and how keepers usually get the benifit of doubt, Albion Rovers got a raw deal. If that incident yesterday happened at a crucial stage at the other end of the pitch, it would've been a free out.

Kess73 · 10-03-2014 11:07AM

Mod Post: A reminder to folks that trying to bait supporters by posting alternate names for a football club may lead to a yellow card.

Folk are welcome to post in any superthread they wish to, but nobody is free to use superthreads or this forum in general as somewhere to try and bait/flame/troll other posters.

Dempsey · 10-03-2014 11:22AM

Kess73 wrote: »

Mod Post: A reminder to folks that trying to bait supporters by posting alternate names for a football club may lead to a yellow card.

Folk are welcome to post in any superthread they wish to, but nobody is free to use superthreads or this forum in general as somewhere to try and bait/flame/troll other posters.

Care to clarify what has prompted this "reminder"?

smackbunnybaby · 10-03-2014 11:46AM

Delighted for Albion Rovers :-)

We're not gone yet!

Was a superb performance by every single one of them. Thought the goal was extremely lucky to be honest, those are rarely given, especially when the goalie ends up in the net as well. We can post pictures and look at replays all day to determine was it a goal or not, but in reality, in the heat of the action, the referee blows for a free out 99.999% of the time. This time he didn't....

First goal that The Vers conceded in the cup as well :-)

Lennonist · 10-03-2014 12:52PM

smackbunnybaby wrote: »

Delighted for Albion Rovers :-)

We're not gone yet!

Was a superb performance by every single one of them. Thought the goal was extremely lucky to be honest, those are rarely given, especially when the goalie ends up in the net as well. We can post pictures and look at replays all day to determine was it a goal or not, but in reality, in the heat of the action, the referee blows for a free out 99.999% of the time. This time he didn't....

First goal that The Vers conceded in the cup as well :-)

careful now:pac:

Coillte_Bhoy · 10-03-2014 01:07PM

Kess73 wrote: »

Mod Post: A reminder to folks that trying to bait supporters by posting alternate names for a football club may lead to a yellow card.

Folk are welcome to post in any superthread they wish to, but nobody is free to use superthreads or this forum in general as somewhere to try and bait/flame/troll other posters.

I've just read the last few pages and am confused, i didnt see any derogatory references? In the same light will be also an offence to call Newcastle the geordies or Liverpool scousers???

Lennonist · 10-03-2014 01:58PM

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

I've just read the last few pages and am confused, i didnt see any derogatory references? In the same light will be also an offence to call Newcastle the geordies or Liverpool scousers???

I have to admit I'm a bit confused as well. Obviously someone has sent in a complaint. It could be about Broxi Bear referring to Celtic as the Tic, but I think he nearly always does that. It could be about posters calling The Rangers The The Rangers or calling them Sevco?

LiamoSail · 10-03-2014 06:57PM

Reading about the goal on kds etc, you'd think moshini molested the keeper before carrying the ball in and celebrated with the ref with a Masonic handshake. The reaction is ridiculous

It was certainly a questionable goal, and one which I don't think should have stood, but its nothing like what is being made out, and if anything, reactions such as this cheapen any legitimate gripes about other issues

bobbysands81 · 10-03-2014 08:44PM

Lennonist wrote: »

I have to admit I'm a bit confused as well. Obviously someone has sent in a complaint. It could be about Broxi Bear referring to Celtic as the Tic, but I think he nearly always does that. It could be about posters calling The Rangers The The Rangers or calling them Sevco?

Surely nobody would complain about us being called the Tic? If so they should be ignored.

bobbysands81 · 10-03-2014 08:58PM

Kess73 wrote: »

Mod Post: A reminder to folks that trying to bait supporters by posting alternate names for a football club may lead to a yellow card.

Folk are welcome to post in any superthread they wish to, but nobody is free to use superthreads or this forum in general as somewhere to try and bait/flame/troll other posters.

Any chance this can actually be debated?

Rangers fans made a huge deal that the company and club were two separate entities, if that's the case then what's the issue with using these names as it clearly can't be termed trolling, baiting etc... if that's what Rangers fans insist is the truth.

Celtic fans often refer to the "plc" of our own club, are we going to receive a ban if we do that now?

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 12-03-2014 08:53PM

Rangers v Airdrie tonight
A win for the Gers see's the League 1 title wrapped up

Rangers take the lead in two minutes from a penalty given for a tackle on little and scored by Jig

RANGERS: Bell; Foster, McCulloch, Mohsni, Wallace; Aird, Law, Black, Templeton; Little, Daly
SUBS: Simonsen, Crawford, Peralta, Smith, Clark, Faure, Shiels

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 12-03-2014 09:10PM

Big Jig makes it 2-0 from another penalty after Templeton sells the defender and he leaves a leg in

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 12-03-2014 09:29PM

Big Jig gets his hat trick after a nice bit of lead up play after he stayed up for a corner kick to Rangers.

Title done and dusted

LiamoSail · 12-03-2014 09:36PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Big Jig gets his hat trick after a nice bit of lead up play after he stayed up for a corner kick to Rangers.

Title done and dusted

Don't think alternative names are allowed anymore, supposed to use the full name.

Anyway, good hatrick by McCulloch-pen :pac:

Broxi_Bear_Eire · 12-03-2014 09:41PM

LiamoSail wrote: »

Don't think alternative names are allowed anymore, supposed to use the full name.

Anyway, good hatrick by McCulloch-pen :pac:

Depends what these alternative names are I presume

RoryMac · 12-03-2014 09:45PM

Will the league being wrapped up keep McCoist in the job or is there a feeling among bears that hes not the man to lead the team back to the SPL?

Dempsey · 12-03-2014 09:47PM

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Depends what these alternative names are I presume

I'm very upset over this. Wont someone please think of the children!!

Rangers FC On Field Gossip & Rumour Thread 2017 Mod Note in OP(Updated 14/08)

Comments