AJF
-
Posts
8,021 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by AJF
-
-
“Oh wouldn’t it just be hilarious if we absolutely gubbed you, Dundee. But no, seriously, great season you’re having, lads”
2 -
36 minutes ago, Stylish Kid said:
Hahahahahah. No. Seriously. Get a grip
Even being charitable and saying that's the issue, you don't fling your arms up if you're sorting your feet. You use them to regain balance rather than further put your gravity off-center and falling.
How broken must your brain must be as a striker if your first reaction is to dive rather than try and finish it.
13 minutes ago, DG.Roma said:It's the arms that are the giveaway. If you are naturally falling, your arms instinctively go down to break your fall, they never ever go up unless it's to help you regain balance, something a diving footballer never does. This is something that I wish referees (and now VARs) would think about when deciding on penalty decisions
Like I said, from seeing it in real time perhaps as he never claimed for a foul is what led me to think it wasn’t an attempt to con the referee.
If it genuinely was, it would be ridiculous in the extreme considering nobody was near him.
0 -
12 minutes ago, KnightswoodBear said:
Sorry to say it looks to me like he's anticipating a touch from a Hearts defender and goes down.
He's probably not anticipating the Hearts defenders to be in a different postcode to him, tbf.
Daft dive aside, i'm more angry that our striker who was on a hat trick in a semi final at Hampden has decided to square it. Useless c*nt.
Fair enough. If so, it’s a ridiculous decision considering there didn’t appear to be anyone near him to anticipate a touch from.
0 -
18 minutes ago, MariusZaliukas said:
Not a chance you have watched the clip back and thought he was sorting out his feet. Wild take.
I’ve not watched it back though. I was basing it on seeing it at the game. It looked as though the ball was played at him rather than in front for him to take it in his stride and It didn’t seem like Silva was claiming for anything. He just seemed to lie on the deck after it with his hands on his head as if he’d fucked up a sitter.
0 -
This will either provide us the opportunity to seal a cup double and put a little bit of shine on what may ultimately be a disappointing season should we lose out on the league title, or it will give us the opportunity to complete a domestic treble.
Fine margins on how a win here will be viewed.
0 -
1 hour ago, alta-pete said:
Someone more technically minded than me needs to get Silva’s late dive onto a .gif
Clean through on goal, no one within 5 yards and he goes down looking for a penalty instead of taking the shot. A total fraud.
Was it not just a case of him failing to sort his feet out as the pass from Dessers was kind of straight at him instead of in front of him to take in his stride rather than a dive looking for a penalty? At the match he didn’t seem to be appealing for anything, he just had his head in his hands for presumably spurning a great opportunity to score.
0 -
8 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:
Your number 42 was the best performance on the park he was doing to Hearts what we usually expect Hearts to do to other teams
Aye that was Diomande. He played well, just felt he faded a little in the second half and was blowing a bit before he was subbed.
0 -
49 minutes ago, Nutz_the_Squirrel said:
Anything to say about the playlist?
Eh, I think Bennett covered it well earlier in the thread. Nothing more I can say really or that is worth repeating other than condemning it.
2 -
Thought Balogun was excellent today. Best player on the park after a big call from Clement to drop Goldson.
Cantwell, Diomande and Sterling also pretty decent and Butland makes two great saves when called upon.
Really need to be more clinical though, particularly late on where we created a good two or three opportunities to get a third but we lack a real killer instinct.
Relatively even game, I just felt we turned the screw a bit more in the periods we were on top than Hearts could manage in the periods they were.
Sima going off so early is a concern and I hope it’s not a recurrence of his previous thigh injury.
1 -
1 minute ago, 54_and_counting said:
What @RandomGuy.Is saying i think is that Robertson should have awarded the penalty but asked for a check on the free kick at the same time (would have happened anyway)
By awarding the free kick, there was absolutely no chance it was being overturned as it wouldnt come close to a clear and obvious error so VAR would just go with refs initial decision
If he believes it was a foul on Johnston he was 100% correct to award that foul rather than award the penalty.
0 -
The ref has done the correct thing here. I remember a cup tie earlier in the season we had against Morton. I think Dessers tackled a defender to win the ball then proceeded to round the keeper and score, however the ref had already blown his whistle before he put it in. Given that the foul seemed soft I was pretty annoyed he never let it run for a few seconds, as he should have, to at least allow the option of the foul to be reviewed.
In this instance, the ref has done just that. The debate as to whether it was a foul on Johnston can be had, but it was simply good refereeing in my opinion.
0 -
23 minutes ago, Leith Green said:
My sentiments exactly
1 -
1 hour ago, still_game said:
i dont see anyone commenting on Kyogos kick out at the Aberdeen player and that not being reviewed? Yet again VAR is only being used when the need to help the ugly sisters occurs.
In fairness, just because it hasn’t been mentioned on TV or replays of it shown, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been reviewed.
In all likelihood it would’ve been reviewed while play was ongoing and deemed not a clear and obvious error.
0 -
Excellent game of football to be fair. Had a lot of action packed in. Defensive catastrophes, 6 goals, a penalty shootout and some talking points.
3 -
27 minutes ago, Cutty Old said:
I'm not convinced that you have an understanding of the word 'precedent'. Previous penalty awards, or any other decision made on a football pitch, don't set precedents.
If we want consistency, would we not expect an earlier almost identical foul to be considered in subsequent instances of pretty much the exact same foul?
0 -
Just now, LuboMoravcik said:
A lot of Celtic fans are Irish folk, mate.
But criticising one doesn’t equate to criticising the other
1 -
2 minutes ago, LuboMoravcik said:
"half arsed connection to a country they've never been to" is exactly the type of thing a bigot would say.
Sorry, but it’s clearly a dig at Celtic fans rather than Irish folk.
4 -
1 hour ago, Jives Miguel said:
I know people are desperate for Celtic to lose, but you can't just stick your leg in front of someone in the action of kicking the ball and claim it's a foul. Hoilett is one initiating the contact, if anyone is making a foul there its him.
1 hour ago, LuboMoravcik said:Aberdeen player makes no attempt to play the ball, CCV does. Aberdeen player hasn't touched the ball. He only gets hurt because he moves into CCV's space. If you think that's a penalty you're an absolute moron.
1 hour ago, stressball said:Because there’s a foul on Celtic before it even happens.
And Hoilett impedes CCV who is in the action of playing the ball. If Hoilett actually touches the ball before CCV makes contact it is then a penalty.
Celtic got a pretty similar penalty awarded for them against Hearts when Kyogo threw his leg across the front of the defender without trying to play the ball and initiated contact. So there is precedent there for that type of challenge being a penalty.
I’d even go as far as saying the one today is more of a penalty as Hoilett actually plays the ball by the looks of it
You can see it at around the 1:20 mark in the video below
0 -
9 minutes ago, Beckford said:
So make singing sectarian songs against the rules and have the power to rid our game of the embarrassing shamefull shite that we have to endure????
That’s up to the clubs to vote on. The SPFL is made up of the clubs and if there is enough that want it then it can get voted through.
0 -
1 hour ago, DukDukGoose said:
Your club could at least attempt to stop it, as could the league.
I think you’ve misunderstood my point. I didn’t say Rangers tackling sectarianism was outwith their control. I was explaining why clubs in general are reluctant to vote for strict liability as a whole.
The strict liability bill that was previously debated wasn’t solely aimed at tackling sectarianism. It was aimed at tackling all offensive or criminal behaviour. This would include things like pyro, offensive language, missiles being thrown, pitch encroachments etc. all things that many clubs have issues with and largely cannot prevent despite what measures they may put in place.
And this isn’t just my own opinion, it was considered by the Law Society of Scotland who said just as much:
QuoteIt would seem inequitable that under the bill, a football club could take some considerable steps to try to make sure their fans behave appropriately but through no fault of theirs they could find themselves facing a fine or other sanction
0 -
8 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:
He doesn’t want to talk about that. He’s been permitted to talk about geography only.
Christ, I was just responding to what was actually said, mate.
0 -
Just now, Dons_1988 said:
Ok, so neutrality isn’t solely defined by geography. Any other pearls of wisdom?
On 18/04/2024 at 15:07, kennie makevin said:The real scandal is why it's played in Glasgow at all. A totally full Tannadice would be both fairer geographically and more atmospheric than a three quarter full Hampden.....and making Hampden exclusively the venue for the final only adds to the day.
This is what I was responding to, which only made reference to geography as regarding it not being neutral. I was simply responding to the point that was actually made with my opinion, which is just because the national stadium is in Glasgow does not mean it isn’t neutral. Hence my example of Queens Park and Partick.
0 -
6 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:
It’s ok, no one expects you to get it.
I get that other fanbases are inconvenienced by it being in Glasgow, but being there does not make it any less neutral just because Rangers and Celtic are also based in Glasgow. That was the original claim I was responding to.
-2 -
41 minutes ago, Aylo vanal said:
What end will celtic be in tomorrow?
What part of the country is the referee and governing body from?
How many refs are from outside Glasgow and Renfrewshire?
What city are celtic from?
They have the advantages before a ball is kicked, Having more fans there is another one but that's not their fault
But my point being, Hampden is still a neutral venue. That doesn't change just because Celtic and Rangers happen to be in the same city. A team's proximity to a stadium doesn't make it any less neutral for them nor does who is refereeing it nor does what section the fans sit in.
Nobody would be crying it's a scandal if Queens Park and Partick Thistle were playing in place of Celtic and Rangers this weekend.
0
Chasing VAR out of Scotland
in Scottish Premiership General Chatter
Posted · Edited by AJF
Can’t recall if it was the same incident, but yeah, I think I remember it being explaining that due to issues with accurately measuring offside due to limited frames per second, they make the lines thicker and if the attackers line and the defenders line overlap, then it is deemed onside.