That’s an all you can eat word salad right there.

OK, to simplify matters, Cornelius was very fortunate to escape a straight red at 11 vs 11. You don’t think that was a game changer decision then? If I had to be on the receiving end of that 2-footed, out of control, studs up lunge, or a skiff on the face from the side of Trusty’s boot, I’m choosing the latter all day long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any decision can be a game changer

Is it being seen as big of a game changer as the Trusty incident...no, it's not.

Why?

Because Rangers went down to 10 soon after and the Trusty incident would have evened things up at 10v10..

If Rangers had went down to 9, it would have been game over at that point probably, and I'd argue the Trusty incident, if it still happened, would have been given less focus, as both the Rangers red cards would have been seen as the major game changing moments...the Cornelius one out of them both pretty much being the only contentious one

Don't know why you've told me you'd rather take a boot to the face that have someone lunge in on you but hey ho

I think you’ve changed your stance somewhat from your first comment, which is fair enough. Your language was a bit more direct and a tad more aggressive until it was pointed out that not only did I see it during the game, I’ve commented about it since as well.

It’s a game changing decision and is as worthy as discussing as any of the other talking points during the game. The fact that it was dismissed so quickly during the game by the ref and by the commentators probably helped it fly under the radar more. Rangers fans have wanted to talk solely about the decisions that they’ve felt were against them unjustly (there wasn’t any btw), and here we have a point in the game that’s been missed and absolutely went in rangers favour.

And you’ve pretty much agreed that the only reason it’s not getting the airtime it should is because Celtic won.

I’m pretty certain that if it happened to a rangers player at 2-1 in extra time it wouldn’t have escaped anyone’s notice.

"And you’ve pretty much agreed that the only reason it’s not getting the airtime it should is because Celtic won.

I’m pretty certain that if it happened to a rangers player at 2-1 in extra time it wouldn’t have escaped anyone’s notice."

If the roles were reversed things would be pretty much the same, it would be brought up by Rangers fans in a similar manner to yourself, but anyone expecting the entire narrative of the game to be changed as a result of it would be kidding themselves on

You made a sly comment about it being brought up by Rangers at the meeting with Collum.

I've only ever put reason across as to why it wouldn't be....because it's not being seen as important...which is true

Whether it is important or not is a whole different ball game....I've agreed it's a mistake, and all mistakes have the potential to change games.....but that one is certainly not being seen that way

A possible penalty for rangers at 2-1 down in the first half of extra time-and you think it would be treated as the same way if it happened to a rangers player?! You’re having a laugh, surely?! We’ve got Bobby Madden apparently asking 7 FIFA officials about an incident with Maeda that was clearly at worst a yellow card! He’s not wanting an opinion on a possible penalty in a cup final?

It’s being classed as ‘not important’ because Celtic eventually won, and because it wouldn’t fit the argument about rangers being hard done by. That’s my opinion.

‘For the benefit of our supporters and the wider game in the country, we will continue to hold the Scottish FA to account and expect them to lead meaningful progress that delivers lasting improvement.’

That was why I put in the dig about rangers bringing it up. If Celtic had got the penalty and if they scored, I think most would have felt that the game was done at that point. That’s pretty massive, as it kept rangers in the game. I don’t expect rangers to mention it, but let’s not have this as rangers somehow caring about Scottish football. It was an attempt at appeasement for the fans, and it doesn’t look like it went the way they wanted to.

All these ‘game changing’ decisions rest on ifs and buts btw. The Hatate incident merits as much attention, whether the media want it to or not.

I said if the roles were reversed...meaning if we were 2-1 up with 11 men etc, as I thought that's what you meant.

If it happened to a Rangers player as you suggest, then yes of course I think it would have been given a bit more focus, coz again, it would have been seen as a chance for a 10 man Rangers side to get back into the game having gone 2-1 down.

Again....massively game changing, and having a far bigger impact outcome on the game (ie who won and lost) than 11 man Celtic going 3-1 up.

But I don't think it would have been given more focus than the Trusty incident.

You keep making your points about how the penalty would have done this or that.....and yes it would have.....but how much of an impact on the game would Trusty seeing red have had?

You simply cannot argue that this incident, had it gone the other way, would have had more of an impact on the game

I’m not going to keep it going any longer-said earlier you’ve changed your stance since I first brought it up but only because I had to show I hadn’t missed it first time round and then since.

Only thing I’ll say is that in your last sentence, I’ve never made that point in any shape, way or form. Despite what others might think, I don’t believe that Trusty merited a red according to the rules. I’ve not said if I agree with the rule, just that he didn’t meet the criteria for it.

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 31 seconds ago
I’m not going to keep it going any longer-said earlier you’ve changed your stance since I first brought it up but only because I had to show I hadn’t missed it first time round and then since.

Only thing I’ll say is that in your last sentence, I’ve never made that point in any shape, way or form. Despite what others might think, I don’t believe that Trusty merited a red according to the rules. I’ve not said if I agree with the rule, just that he didn’t meet the criteria for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you have mentioned that the entire narrative is built a certain way...and I'm trying to say to you that this is because the Trusty incident is the one that's being seen as the one that had the biggest influence on the outcome of the game.

There's plenty of ways to look at the game...the pen was potentially a lucky award for us and other things.

The majority are looking at this game, and seeing Rangers go down to 10 in the first half...and Celtic not when they potentially should have.

People would expect the game to go a certain way after that point...and guess what..it did...hence why that decision is being given the gravitas...by many people
..not just Rangers and their fans

Let's be honest, there's fack all gravitas about any of this.

POV and I are keeping these boards alive here ffs

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 5 minutes ago
POV and I are keeping these boards alive here ffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Admin is very grateful

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 59 minutes ago
Let's be honest, there's fack all gravitas about any of this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The bears generate their own.

Oh wait.

Coming back in to this dicscussion

Maeda - debatable offisde even with VAR - decision in favour of Rangers
Aasgard - clear red no debate
Trusty - could argue for a red, I'd be shouting for it - decision in favour of Celtic
Penalty - ridiculous decision to award it - decision in favour of Rangers
Cornelius - straight red not given - decision in favour of Rangers
Diomande knee to players head while down - not given decision in favour of Rangers

Then there were Celtic taking quick free kicks and breaking away pulled back for no reason apart to prevent an advantage. Barges into Celtic players ignored while awarded the other way

We can both say the ref was poor. Contentious decision went in favour of 4 to 1. Aasgard was not a contentious decision

You missed the Hatate barge. Wait, doesn't count, there was only 15 to go.

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 9 minutes ago
You missed the Hatate barge. Wait, doesn't count, there was only 15 to go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Behave yersel you

I expect a bit more gravitas from you in such situations

<The bears generate their own>



Same mass as one of Saturn's moons.

Suspect all this is doing St3vie's mindfulness a world of good.

Not sure about the rest of us.

Where the absolute fvk do you get the time for all this?

comment by Call Sign (U3627)
posted 19 minutes ago
Coming back in to this dicscussion

Maeda - debatable offisde even with VAR - decision in favour of Rangers
Aasgard - clear red no debate
Trusty - could argue for a red, I'd be shouting for it - decision in favour of Celtic
Penalty - ridiculous decision to award it - decision in favour of Rangers
Cornelius - straight red not given - decision in favour of Rangers
Diomande knee to players head while down - not given decision in favour of Rangers

Then there were Celtic taking quick free kicks and breaking away pulled back for no reason apart to prevent an advantage. Barges into Celtic players ignored while awarded the other way

We can both say the ref was poor. Contentious decision went in favour of 4 to 1. Aasgard was not a contentious decision
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Aye, and as has been said you can add in the stonewaller pen not given on Hatate at the end of the first half of ET, with the game still up for grabs at 2-1 … and the stonewaller 2nd yellow for Cornelius very late on (wouldn’t have affected the result, but would’ve meant a future ban). So multiple contentious decisions in Rangers favour, and one (Trusty) in our favour … yet they were hard done by? It’s a fecking laughable narrative.

comment by Call Sign (U3627)
posted 27 minutes ago
Coming back in to this dicscussion

Maeda - debatable offisde even with VAR - decision in favour of Rangers
Aasgard - clear red no debate
Trusty - could argue for a red, I'd be shouting for it - decision in favour of Celtic
Penalty - ridiculous decision to award it - decision in favour of Rangers
Cornelius - straight red not given - decision in favour of Rangers
Diomande knee to players head while down - not given decision in favour of Rangers

Then there were Celtic taking quick free kicks and breaking away pulled back for no reason apart to prevent an advantage. Barges into Celtic players ignored while awarded the other way

We can both say the ref was poor. Contentious decision went in favour of 4 to 1. Aasgard was not a contentious decision
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I love your take, I really do.....and the final 4-1 verdict as if nothing else happened in the game and everything you say is absolutely how it all was and should be taken...no arguments

Some man

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Call Sign (U3627)
posted 27 minutes ago
Coming back in to this dicscussion

Maeda - debatable offisde even with VAR - decision in favour of Rangers
Aasgard - clear red no debate
Trusty - could argue for a red, I'd be shouting for it - decision in favour of Celtic
Penalty - ridiculous decision to award it - decision in favour of Rangers
Cornelius - straight red not given - decision in favour of Rangers
Diomande knee to players head while down - not given decision in favour of Rangers

Then there were Celtic taking quick free kicks and breaking away pulled back for no reason apart to prevent an advantage. Barges into Celtic players ignored while awarded the other way

We can both say the ref was poor. Contentious decision went in favour of 4 to 1. Aasgard was not a contentious decision
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I love your take, I really do.....and the final 4-1 verdict as if nothing else happened in the game and everything you say is absolutely how it all was and should be taken...no arguments

Some man
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's any compfort, I disagree with him.

Well well welll


Liverpool just denied a penalty for a handball that was the same as ralston

Var overturned the decision

comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 15 minutes ago
Well well welll


Liverpool just denied a penalty for a handball that was the same as ralston

Var overturned the decision
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not even remotely similar

Christ, are we still going on about this?

In terms of big decisions, the first was the disallowed goal. I'm not convinced it was offside, and if it was it was by the smallest of margins and luck rather than skill on our part. The second was the Aasgaard red. Feel for the guy because he didn't mean it, but you can't give anything but a red for that. Next was Trusty which was another stonewall red. It wasn't given which obviously didn't help us, but by this point we were already a goal down, maybe should have been two down. We weren't playing well before the first big one went against us. Next (I think?) was the penalty. Clear penalty going by how the rules tend to have been enforced over the last season, but I think we give out penalties like confetti and it's ridiculous to give penalties for that. That said, by the way the rules have been enforced recently it should also have been a second yellow. But again, the reason we lost is because we were the worse team despite these decisions and we need to fix what's within our control if we want to win anything. Next was Cornelius - not a red IMO because his foot was low to the ground and there was no excessive force or "brutality", I can see why Celtic fans would want a red, but it's just deflection more than anything else. Anything later than that I can't really remember because I'd already mentally switched off from the game.

Tl;dr despite a spirited second half we were second best and deserved to lose over the 120 minutes. We need to stop giving away soft goals and start converting golden chances like the ones Chermiti and Raskin fumbled. Once we're doing everthing right there we can start griping about decisions not going our way.

Never getting this time back

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 15 minutes ago
Well well welll


Liverpool just denied a penalty for a handball that was the same as ralston

Var overturned the decision
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not even remotely similar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, Sunday’s was even less of a pen than the one correctly disallowed tonight.