Falkirk v The Glorious Glasgow Rangers

[ToonBairn]

Warburton now starting to act like a manager of the Old Firm with his post match comments yesterday. Is he starting to crack?

Having watched the game back, of course both penalties are wrong decisions. However, Collums incompetence is deflecting away the credit that my team are due. Tactically superb yesterday

[Monkey Tennis]

Go away and read laws 12 and 13.

Tedi and Co are correct when they say people will blindly argue just because Rangers are involved.

Collum fucked up as he does, twice at least in that match. That is all there is to it.

No thanks. Can you just tell me what they say?

I think on balance, that the penalty call was wrong, but it was extremely close and it's easy to see why a penalty was given.

If my plan was simply to go against Rangers, I'd have been screaming about the injustice of Rangers' penalty, but I've not done that. I've said that the angle is thoroughly inconclusive and conceded that a Rangers player does appeal for it, even though it was claimed on here that none had.

I'm perfectly capable of viewing decisions objectively, thanks.

[stonedsailor]

No thanks. Can you just tell me what they say?I think on balance, that the penalty call was wrong, but it was extremely close and it's easy to see why a penalty was given.If my plan was simply to go against Rangers, I'd have been screaming about the injustice of Rangers' penalty, but I've not done that. I've said that the angle is thoroughly inconclusive and conceded that a Rangers player does appeal for it, even though it was claimed on here that none had.I'm perfectly capable of viewing decisions objectively, thanks.

They say that a direct free kick should be taken from where the offense occurred.

Surely viewing decisions objectively requires a knowledge of the laws which govern those decisions?

[Monkey Tennis]

They say that a direct free kick should be taken from where the offense occurred.

Surely viewing decisions objectively requires a knowledge of the laws which govern those decisions?

I knew that bit. I thought you were going to come up with some revelation about where contact is first made. You didn't.

I was thoroughly in possession of knowledge of what you did cite. I have been since the age of around six.

[stonedsailor]

I knew that bit. I thought you were going to come up with some revelation about where contact is first made. You didn't. I was thoroughly in possession of knowledge of what you did cite. I have been since the age of around six.

So...when the video clearly shows that the initial foul was committed miles outside the box do you insist that it is a penalty?

[strichener]

They say that a direct free kick should be taken from where the offense occurred.

Surely viewing decisions objectively requires a knowledge of the laws which govern those decisions?

If you read on then the rules also state that if the offense occurs in the box then it is a penalty. There is nothing in the rules that state that an offense which is continued into the box should be anything other than a penalty.

I am not sure if the ref thinks that the initial challenge happened in the box or carried on into the box and without such knowledge, there is no way to determine the basis for the decision.

[strichener]

So...when the video clearly shows that the initial foul was committed miles outside the box do you insist that it is a penalty?

Show me in the rules you quoted where the word initially is used.

[weirdcal]

To me it seems like the contact was entirely outside the box. Perhaps the officials thought there was additional contact when he hurdled Wilson.

Anyway it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. We had plenty of time to make up for it.

I posted that was my thoughts earlier. Challenge outside but Wilsons leg lifts as the player foot plants in the box and hits the deck.

Bennett seemed to have thought entire incident was outside.

At full speed you wouldn't expect a ref not up with play to see that exactly as is with where both players ended up. However the linesman should have helped out

I'm still at a loss with the other penalty. As far as I can see miller fresh airs it and then the ball drops and it's a pen. No close up, no slow mo replay to show it striking an arm.

[stonedsailor]

Show me in the rules you quoted where the word initially is used.

We will agree to disagree.

Collum is shocking and the result stands. I will look at the video again from a better angle when it is online but I recall there being no contact after the contact outside the box. I am accepting of being wrong if the contact continued inside the box.

[ajwffc]

According to former ref Keith Hackett in one of his You are the Ref columns

If a foul starts outside the area and continues into it, you have the option to play advantage from the initial foul and penalise the “continued offence” inside the area. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/oct/30/you-are-the-ref-no346-david-de-gea

So if Collum and his assistant thought the foul continued into the box he was correct to award a penalty.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

So...when the video clearly shows that the initial foul was committed miles outside the box do you insist that it is a penalty?

To be fair I don't think MT at any point "insists" that it's a penalty, just that he can understand why it was given.

I'm sure can probably all agree on the undeniable fact that Willie Collum is an absolute shambles of a referee and that Rangers both having a dodgy penalty awarded against them, then missing a dodgy one given to them in stoppage time was fucking comical.

[Ned Nederlander]

I've seen 'Rangers' penalty claim now and it looks like the ball does indeed strike Alston's arm, or more likely hits his hand.

There's absolutely no intent though and his arms are in a natural position - it's an unavoidable accident IMO.

Collum, incidentally, can't see the actual handball from his angle but it's obvious that there is contact - do the rules make any sort of reference to this type call and if they do what's the call ?

Edited to add the

[gav-ffc]

Refs should be given go pro cameras to where on their head Imo.

[distresseduke]

Refs should be given go pro cameras to where on their head Imo.

Very good idea they do it in rugby & although they show it at every set piece it could work differently in football where they could show at ht & ft what the referee has actually seen from his angle...can't see an argument against it

[Monkey Tennis]

To be fair I don't think MT at any point "insists" that it's a penalty, just that he can understand why it was given.

I'm sure can probably all agree on the undeniable fact that Willie Collum is an absolute shambles of a referee and that Rangers both having a dodgy penalty awarded against them, then missing a dodgy one given to them in stoppage time was fucking comical.

Correct. I'm insisting nothing.

On balance I first of all thought it was a penalty, but the latest video has me thinking on balance it probably wasn't.

Although that Keith Hackett thing has me wondering again.

In fact, I'm doing the opposite of insisting. I think it's terribly close and even with various angles, replays and pauses, I'm still undecided.

[ShaggerG]

Wilson fouls Vaulks both outside and inside the box.

Baird was level when O'Hara hit the ball.

I can't see the ball hitting Alston's hand and, if it did, it was unintentional with his arms in a natural position.

We completely deserved the win anyway.

[Monkey Tennis]

I've seen 'Rangers' penalty claim now and it looks like the ball does indeed strike Alston's arm, or more likely hits his hand.

There's absolutely no intent though and his arms are in a natural position - it's an unavoidable accident IMO.

Collum, incidentally, can't see the actual handball from his angle but it's obvious that there is contact - do the rules make any sort of reference to this type call and if they do what's the call ?

Edited to add the

I still think that those pictures are inconclusive.

If his hand made contact with the ball though, then I think it has to be a penalty. It's not as if the ball was belted at him from a yard away. Instead, it had looped into the air gently, then bounced up off the ground. The argument about it being unavoidable therefore doesn't stand up.

I remain unconvinced that it did hit his hand, but if it did, then a penalty is the correct call.

It might just about be that the ref got both decisions right.

[Monkey Tennis]

It's worth noting also that even that biased cretin of a commentator on Rangers TV, thought on first viewing that the Falkirk one might be a penalty, saying that the ref had a decision to make.

Right or wrong, it's bloody close.

[Rugster]

It's worth noting also that even that biased cretin of a commentator on Rangers TV, thought on first viewing that the Falkirk one might be a penalty, saying that the ref had a decision to make.

Right or wrong, it's bloody close.

Just a few more posts and you'll be the highest poster on this thread.

[Monkey Tennis]

Just a few more posts and you'll be the highest poster on this thread.

Is that a problem?