Sky saying it was a harsh red card

[sr1983]

You two are sad

Miller was absolutely drumming up controversy around it

Pair of sad acts

Jumping into threads being raging where others are not raging and accusing others of the same

Hypocritical sad acts

The Rangers fans on here who delight in digging up posters for asking legitimate questions are a right collection of odd balls

He's slapped the ball off the line

No need to suggest anything was harsh about a 100% correct decision where no comment would have been made had we not been involved

Pair of weirdos

Trio if you include Miller

Calm down sulky.

Rangers won comfortably in the end today, I'm a long way from being sad. Maybe you should stop being so angry and enjoy the last few hours of the weekend.

 

[Jonathan E]

They're hypocrites.

If it was one of our players there would be zero debate.

 

[SIRBLUE]

See that's the problem right there. Why are they discussing the laws on that one? Where was the discussion of the fairness of a laws when we were trawling back through time to find an offside to excuse punching the ball in the box? The 'offside' they eventually found as an excuse was harsh but the law. I don't recall a debate on the offside law on that occasion.

This thread is fkn ludicrous.
There was no discussion.
They all said it was a stonewall penalty but that particular rule is harsh because there was no intent.
End of story.
I'm out

 

[temperance]

Miller went on and on and on about it

So much so, that I actually thought it was Michael Stewart.

 

[Gazza1872]

Red card all day, every day.

Again, we needed VAR to make the decision because the ref gave offside initially

Flag up instantly as well, does this happen in other games? I don't watch much other football outwith us these days but when I do the flag never really goes up instantly, happens alot to us though.

 

[LJ50]

He stuck his hand up to block a ball heading into the goal, less than 2 yards from the line.

If someone is looking for an incident to include in an instruction video on the current laws, then they could use that incident to show a nailed on, unquestionable red card.

Anyone saying otherwise is a fucking moron.

 

[Cooper68]

The only thing dubious was the penalty not being retaken. The keeper clearly came off his line

Watched it after the game, one his feet was behind the line. Laws of the game, it is a definite red card.
Laws need to be updated, like rugby, if the ball is definitely going in, a penalty goal should be given and a yellow rather than a red card given. It is a bit like Suarez for Uraguay, he deliberately stopped the ball going in the net in the World Cup in the last minute of normal time against I think it was Ghana, keeper saved the penalty and Uruagauy managed to get through extra time, winning the penalty shoot out.
They were effectively rewarded for cheating. With VAR available, it should be easy to determine a penalty goal situation or not, even if it means the team awarded it has to knock the ball in unopposed from 2 yards.

 

[BarestOfMargins]

This thread is fkn ludicrous.
There was no discussion.
They all said it was a stonewall penalty but that particular rule is harsh because there was no intent.
End of story.
I'm out

Storm out and take your imaginary high road all you like, the fact is, they are debating the laws fairness, not the decision. It xcreates that doubt in their minds, as well as neutrals, and it all adds up - no matter how much you think it doesnt - to a world where PENATLY TO RANGERS is met with "oh typical", and penalty to celtic is met with "fully deserved".

Where are the debates on the laws of football in the scenario Ive given which is one of dozens I would imagine? Absolutely nowhere. Where was the discussion on laws of football after the hearts/celtic game?

Why is Rodgers on the back pages of paper commending SPFL backtrack on decisions in that game, while their penalty in same game, goes ignored.

 

[SIRBLUE]

He stuck his hand up to block a ball heading into the goal, less than 2 yards from the line.

If someone is looking for an incident to include in an instruction video on the current laws, then they could use that incident to show a nailed on, unquestionable red card.

Anyone saying otherwise is a fucking moron.

Thankfully no one is

 

[Mollysblackcoat]

Is there not some stupid double punishment thing?

No, not when you've blatantly handled on the line to stop a certain goal.
Only if you make a genuine attempt for the ball and commit a foul.

 

[insanicdrunk]

He clearly doesn’t mean it so aye it is a harsh rule. If he means it then 100% a red card. Pretty sure you and the majority on here would be saying otherwise if it’s the other way about.

So if hes not red carded today, they deny a goal and then the penalty is saved, means there is a reward for players making their bodies bigger on the line.

 

[QueensferryCR3Bear]

Harsh? If he was a keeper it would have been a great save!

 

[km_2083]

It’s blatant, stopped a certain goal , we missed the resulting penalty, if that was in 90th minute he’d be a hero. Nothing harsh about it at all

 

[SIRBLUE]

Storm out and take your imaginary high road all you like, the fact is, they are debating the laws fairness, not the decision. It xcreates that doubt in their minds, as well as neutrals, and it all adds up - no matter how much you think it doesnt - to a world where PENATLY TO RANGERS is met with "oh typical", and penalty to celtic is met with "fully deserved".

Where are the debates on the laws of football in the scenario Ive given which is one of dozens I would imagine? Absolutely nowhere. Where was the discussion on laws of football after the hearts/celtic game?

Why is Rodgers on the back pages of paper commending SPFL backtrack on decisions in that game, while their penalty in same game, goes ignored.

Who'd have thought it? Kris Boyd being part of that conspiracy.
Can't trust anyone

 

[lou riccios chipshop]

Calm down sulky.

Rangers won comfortably in the end today, I'm a long way from being sad. Maybe you should stop being so angry and enjoy the last few hours of the weekend.

Humour goes over some people's head.

 

[Artful Dodger]

He’s getting worse every week.

You’re bang on pal. He’s slipped right into the uncle tom routine just like he slipped right into their strip. Tadger of a man

 

[WinkieWATP]

Stopping a goal with your arm on the goal line has been a red card as long as I can remember.

Unless your the Celtic right back of course

 

[TNT]

Us going on to miss the penalty is exactly why that rule is there, you can't have a situation where a player can stop a certain goal with their hand and not be punished for it or you'd have players doing it all the time.

It will never happen. But, I thought before that if there is a pen given like we got today then, if it's scored then a yellow. If missed, then a red.

Remember when we beat Celtic in 2002/3, Sutton scored within the first minute. Mo Ross handled the ball on the line - but couldn't stop it from going in. O'Neill was moaning after the game that as well as the goal - he wanted a red card!

 

[strider]

Is Miller thick?he aknowledged it was within the rules but then questioned the rules,he's starting to do my head in with his supposed impartiality.and that fukn accent.

That's a Michael Stewart special.

 

[Gonzo86]

Nope, the Rangers haters will pretend there is but by the letter of the law the decision was 100% correct. Much like the penalty at Love Street earlier in the season

This is the issue, pundits come on and make out the ref has made an error when actually what they are saying is I don’t agree with the rule. Unfortunately you canny just change the rules to suit yer agenda!

 

[BigBadJohn]

Stonewall penalty. Stonewall red card.

Don't think he means it but the rules say he has to go. I think that's what they were getting at on Sky.

No issue with it for me. Correct decision.

 

[104Bear]

There’s always an adjective when it’s Rangers involved.

 

[Chris the Bandito]

Just curious as never seen a good angle but what if Killie's goal never went in - was it heading in when hit Tav on the hand and if so would that have been a penalty (or was his hands in a normal position) and a red card?

Their player cut it back so it would probably have been a pen, at least in the spfl as any arm not inside the silhouette seems to get penalised (except the one in the first couple of minutes) but not a red unless they had a player getting on the cross, which didn't seem to be the case.

 

[Bordersbear]

Sky are only following the same line that referees have in Scotland, yes there are rules and regulations within the game but discretion can be applied when Rangers are involved. The game does not need to be played on an even playing field.

 

[Bigbluebear]

Their player cut it back so it would probably have been a pen, at least in the spfl as any arm not inside the silhouette seems to get penalised (except the one in the first couple of minutes) but not a red unless they had a player getting on the cross, which didn't seem to be the case.

There was a suggestion it hit the killies players hand, which would have meant no go but they didn't dwell on that much.

 

[Slide Away]

Stonewall red card. Ridiculous it took so long.

 

[Arkanoid]

Suits their narrative and all based on opinion and not the rules of the game, even the opposing manager was more diplomatic and accepting of the ref card being an actual ref card under the laws.
Bizarre the lack of knowledge ex pros and Managers have on this phantom double jeapordy law in Scottish football

 

[GableEnder1872]

Stonewall penalty. Stonewall red card.

Don't think he means it but the rules say he has to go. I think that's what they were getting at on Sky.

No issue with it for me. Correct decision.

totally agree with this.
couldn't be anymore of a stonewall red card but in the same way its also harsh. I think they were getting at it was the correct decision but harsh on the killie player, or you'd like to think thats what they were getting at.

 

[Clementime]

Just back from the game watching it back and they are saying it was a harsh red card he stopped the ball on the line its the reddist of reds

There is not another decision that can legally be given, they are trolling.
Plain and simple.

 

[GableEnder1872]

Suits their narrative and all based on opinion and not the rules of the game, even the opposing manager was more diplomatic and accepting of the ref card being an actual ref card under the laws.
Bizarre the lack of knowledge ex pros and Managers have on this phantom double jeapordy law in Scottish football

also a good point - seen a few things on twitter etc about double jeopardy...
that only comes into it when the ref has deemed there was a genuine attempt to play the ball. Playing the ball with your hand regardless if he means it or not is not a genuine attempt to play the ball for obvious reasons so he has to go.

 

[AchtungBaby]

It's unfortunate for killie and it seemed more ball to hand than a deliberate attempt at goalkeeping but that's the rules. So tough shit.

 

[rossgers]

Which again the referee completely ignored.

He managed to miss 2 penalties for us yesterday even when watching it on TV.

 

[KazKoz]

Stopping a goal with your arm on the goal line has been a red card as long as I can remember.

Agreed it was a red card but I do remember Peter Grant handing it on the line at Parkhead as it was going into the net and it wasn’t given.
We were told it was accidental so move on.
Sure it was same season Gough had a penalty given against him at Parkhead with the bal bounced up awkwardly and hit his arm.
Again narrative changed and we were told to suck it up.

 

[wee bud's pit boots]

Agreed it was a red card but I do remember Peter Grant handing it on the line at Parkhead as it was going into the net and it wasn’t given.
We were told it was accidental so move on.
Sure it was same season Gough had a penalty given against him at Parkhead with the bal bounced up awkwardly and hit his arm.
Again narrative changed and we were told to suck it up.

I was at both games and the Gough incident you refer to was in April 89. We won 2-1 and I think it was Joe the dip who took the penalty and missed.

I think the other game you are referring to was Ne'erday, 92 and it was Mark McNulty who was on the ground and made 'the save' and the ref (Jim McCluskey I think) who ignored it. That one was never accidental.

Maybe he was scared of being accused of drinking in an Orange Hall, again.

 

[wee bud's pit boots]

also a good point - seen a few things on twitter etc about double jeopardy...
that only comes into it when the ref has deemed there was a genuine attempt to play the ball. Playing the ball with your hand regardless if he means it or not is not a genuine attempt to play the ball for obvious reasons so he has to go.

This is what gets me with the likes of Miller on Sky, and I'm only going by posters on here as I was wathcing RTV.

Miller, McInnes, Sky pundits (no sniggering at the back there) they all know the rules but are basically pedalling the lie that Rangers got the benefit of dodgy refereeing decisions yesterday, when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

Now is it a harsh rule? Maybe in some cases it is, but as it stands just now the rule is what it is.

Maybe it's up to the clubs to push for change. And I don't even know if they can do that anyway.

 

[Mreblue]

So much so, that I actually thought it was Michael Stewart.

I think he is trying to emulate his commentary complete with the terrible monotone excitement at certain moments. Plus he has added his trademarked "situaion" comment.

 

[Blue bells are blue1872]

A deliberate hand ball that prevented a goal.
Red card. There nothing much to argue about if you are fair and objective imo.
I haven't heard the comments on Sky but it comes as no surprise to see any decision that benefits us being challenged.
The BBC and Stewart have also taken that to a new low recently.

 

[wee bud's pit boots]

Watched it after the game, one his feet was behind the line. Laws of the game, it is a definite red card.
Laws need to be updated, like rugby, if the ball is definitely going in, a penalty goal should be given and a yellow rather than a red card given. It is a bit like Suarez for Uraguay, he deliberately stopped the ball going in the net in the World Cup in the last minute of normal time against I think it was Ghana, keeper saved the penalty and Uruagauy managed to get through extra time, winning the penalty shoot out.
They were effectively rewarded for cheating. With VAR available, it should be easy to determine a penalty goal situation or not, even if it means the team awarded it has to knock the ball in unopposed from 2 yards.

I never watched this game and maybe it's too early in the day or week for me. But if I'm reading your post correctly, I have to ask, why would a player deliberately stop a ball going into the net for his own team? Especially, again, if I'm reading this correctly it would have been the winning goal.

Apologies in advance for any lack of insight on my part.

 

[GovanFrontLoyal]

It’s a clear hand ball that stops the ball crossing the line, penalty and red card were correct.

Biomechanics and timmy will use this to set the narrative for the rest of the week. Yesterday suits them perfectly.

 

[RTD-BEAR]

Letter of the law its the correct decision, its one of them had it gone against us and say it was Souttar I'd be claiming the ruling was shite and harsh, defender knows very little about the ricochet that rebounds off Sterling however a clear goal was stopped due to the position of his arm, unfortunate that the ruling deems it a red through no fault of the defender deliberate or not, that being said girfuy to all those trying blindside the rulebook.

Similar to killies goal if it had changed direction and bounce back to butland from tavs hand instead of going in I'm pretty sure a like player was following up.

So tav would have been off

It was a freak goal the killie player seemed to kick it off himself and it ricocheted up over butland onto tavs hand and into the net

 

[Dougie Gray]

Is Miller thick?he aknowledged it was within the rules but then questioned the rules,he's starting to do my head in with his supposed impartiality.and that fukn accent.

He got every single part of the penalty move. Initially said Silva was clearly offside too!!

 

[Blue bells are blue1872]

Is Miller thick?he aknowledged it was within the rules but then questioned the rules,he's starting to do my head in with his supposed impartiality.and that fukn accent.

I havent heard Milller and only hear about his antics on here.
People tend to question rules when they go against what they want.Its a reflection of his attitudes and it appears to be a consistent.
That's probably going to keep him in a job at Sky.

 

[HandsomeHead]

Stonewall penalty. Stonewall red card.

Don't think he means it but the rules say he has to go. I think that's what they were getting at on Sky.

No issue with it for me. Correct decision.

That’s the gist of it for me.

In defence of Miller, I think he was questioning the fairness of the rule, not the actual rule itself. I don’t think the Kilmarnock lad meant to handle it, but he did and it prevented a clear goal so thems your apples.

 

[temperance]

The new Fantabaws!

I honestly thought it was him!

 

[Cooper68]

I never watched this game and maybe it's too early in the day or week for me. But if I'm reading your post correctly, I have to ask, why would a player deliberately stop a ball going into the net for his own team? Especially, again, if I'm reading this correctly it would have been the winning goal.

Apologies in advance for any lack of insight on my part.

It may not have been clear in my post, as I probably thought most people know the incident. Suarez stopped Ghana scoring in the last minute of normal time with a save (he dived like a goalkeeper to stop the ball entering the net), keeper saved penalty, Uruagauy held out to take game to penalties after extra time. Therefore, what I would call cheating in this instance, won the game for Uruaguay.

 

[Bornathepostman]

I actually think the red card hurt us more than it helped. They just camped in and put 10 men behind the ball for the full game until we took the lead. When they had 11 they were playing football against us and we would have had more space

 

[Madmax]

It is harsh that it is a rule, it is not harsh it was given. Correct decision.

One thing I have noticed recently x players are always coming out with this pish I know it’s the rules but!!

 

[CrunchBear]

It’s blatant, stopped a certain goal , we missed the resulting penalty, if that was in 90th minute he’d be a hero. Nothing harsh about it at all

Exactly, he gained an advantage. I can’t understand the argument it’s harsh one. If he hadn’t handled it we would have equalised, nobody us talking about how they saved the penalty and basically had an edge in the game because of the handball.

 

[HillsBill]

The goal for Sky is not to provide intelligent, reasonable and insightful coverage of games. The goal is to generate clips and social media posts that will be liked, shared, commented on, that will lead to days of media coverage on "here's what Neville/Carragher/Michael Stewart said about a penalty/VAR decision." Then Sky uses those engagement stats to attract advertisers.

Controversy and rage-posting generates far more engagement than honest discussion. So it's virtually written into the Sky script before a match even kicks off that there must be at least one refereeing or VAR call that their pundits will label as unjust or controversial. No matter how embarrassing it is for pundits to pretend they think the Killie player was hard done by, they are going to tell you that's what happened.

Spot on! Competition in the media is fierce and everyone involved is trying to create controversy and argument. Sky now has BT, Viaplay and to a limited degree Amazon Prime chipping at parts of their market. Not to mention the use of VPNs etc. The same applies to the newspapers where circulation is rapidly declining. It’s why commentators such as Sutton, Stewart and even Boydie are so outspoken and given so much exposure. I would rather be a target of the media than be ignored. I don’t give a jot what they say or how they say it. There are many more important things in life than whether a commentator thinks a decision harsh or not.

 

[Madmax]

I think it’s a harsh rule, he clearly didn’t mean it. But by the letter of the law it’s a red because it stops the ball going into the net.

But if it was up to me if think he clearly doesn’t mean it and I’m the referee I should have the decision to say it’s a penalty and penalty only.

I think it’s a harsh rule, he clearly didn’t mean it. But by the letter of the law it’s a red because it stops the ball going into the net.

But if it was up to me if think he clearly doesn’t mean it and I’m the referee I should have the decision to say it’s a penalty and penalty only.

You can’t expect a referee to make a decision whether a player ment it or not rules need to be as black or white as possible it’s hard enough without trying to make a referee decide who ment it as everyone has their own interpretation.