#19 - 06/12/08 - Queen of the South (h)

[Cagey]

Can`t disagree with muck of what Radders says upart from not knowing how Aitken coyuld have been dealt more harshly if not a red. Is there a card between yellow & red.

Homer is important in defence as well as attack. He was being fouled every time he rose for the ball yesterday but the ref gave him nothing. The other thing yesterday ,Savo was playing out wide bwcause of 433 & not in a position to take his flick ons either by head or foot.

Morris had agood game but I think the players feel everything has to go through him & limits our options.

[Radford 72]

Can`t disagree with muck of what Radders says upart from not knowing how Aitken coyuld have been dealt more harshly if not a red. Is there a card between yellow & red.

Basically, I think the rules should be that challenges like that merit a red card. I know the rules aren't like that though, so the ref called it right. Sammy was breaking in on goal and the guy made no attempt to win the ball.

[sjfc_camo]

i agree it was cynical he knew what e was doing if he never brought down sammy it wud have been a 3-2 and possible goal so i would put that down as a goalscoring chance aswell

[Jamie_Beatson]

Just wonder if we'll ever see a video of this Milne "goal" incident. I've heard various people talking about it (I didn't see it - was looking at scoreboard) - and opinion is split as to whether he was rolling it out or bouncing it. If he was bouncing it the rules (probably) say it is a foul - although a certain referee who posts on here insists it isn't. If he has rolled it out it is a definite goal. Several people have said that Mr Tumilty wasn't even looking, which wouldn't surprise me.

At the end of the day, if Milne hasn't touched the keeper, the goal should stand. It is his own stupid fault that he has let go of the ball with a striker standing right in front of him.

[monkfish]

I actually thought the ref wasn't too bad today, at least in comparison to some of the other shite we get. Queens played a spoiling game and did it well, and it's ultimately our problem for not being able to break them down. Agree that the tactics didn't work, but a draw is anything seriously worrying, but if we don't get 3 points next week then we'll be looking at a mini slump.

[saintj]

in notw according to savo he said that some of the other players said he wasnt even looking with regards to the goal that wasnt

[ancientsaint]

It seems the ref was correct with the savo incident. If a goalie bounces the ball he is still in possession and anyone interfering is fouling the goalie.

Have to disagree - the keeper can only be in "control" of the ball if it is in his hands.......Bouncing the ball means that he has no control and as such the goal should have stood.

However i would urge everyone to log onto the SFA website and ask them to give an explanation as to why the goal was disallowed....the more that ask -then the chances are there will be a reply......thats what happened when Dundee Utd fans asked the question about the refs performance at Ibrox.

To me it was a goal.

[Mike180279]

Have to disagree - the keeper can only be in "control" of the ball if it is in his hands.......Bouncing the ball means that he has no control and as such the goal should have stood.

However i would urge everyone to log onto the SFA website and ask them to give an explanation as to why the goal was disallowed....the more that ask -then the chances are there will be a reply......thats what happened when Dundee Utd fans asked the question about the refs performance at Ibrox.

To me it was a goal.

Van Persie had a goal chalked off at the Emirates a couple of weeks ago. Hansen, Shearer and Lineker explained the rule. The goalie had thrown the ball in the air to kick, and van persie hooked it whilst in the air and slotted home. No goal as the ball is deemed under goalkeeper control.

Yesterdays Goal was a goal the minute the ball touches the ground it is deemed out of his control unless this has been knocked out by an attacking player. I hope that this doesnt haunt us come May, this should have stood!

[chopper]

although a certain referee who posts on here insists it isn't.

As soon as the ball leaves the goalkeeper's hands it is in play - whether he is bouncing it or rolling it. What players are not allowed to do is play in a dangerous manner (ie high foot), knock the ball out of the goalkeeper's hands or block the goalkeeper releasing the ball from his hands.

Goal should have stood as Savo appeared to do none of the aforementioned infringements.

Still, the ref had a decent game - not the best game but not helped by having to pull back play for offences due to the advantage not being there and when he did pull play back quickly it should have been let go to allow an advantage.

From a Holmes perspective, I didn't see much that he would have been awarded a free kick for - there were a couple of instances where he probably could have had a free kick but then there were various incidents where he should have given away a free kick and didn't as the ref was generally allowing a more physical game than normal.

[Jamie_Beatson]

The frustrating thing on the refereeing side for me was the inconsistency when it came to aerial challenges. Their number two should have given away a penalty in the first half when he climbed all over Ruti - two hands on the shoulders and up over his head. This was about two minutes after he gave a free kick against Morris in the middle of the park when he jumped back to back with another midfielder - no arms used, no jumping at the opponent, just used a bit of upper body strength to muscle his way through.

[chopper]

Van Persie had a goal chalked off at the Emirates a couple of weeks ago. Hansen, Shearer and Lineker explained the rule. The goalie had thrown the ball in the air to kick, and van persie hooked it whilst in the air and slotted home. No goal as the ball is deemed under goalkeeper control.

That is a foul as it is blocking the keeper releasing the ball - the incident yesterday didn't stop the keeper releasing the ball.

Yesterdays Goal was a goal the minute the ball touches the ground it is deemed out of his control unless this has been knocked out by an attacking player. I hope that this doesnt haunt us come May, this should have stood!

Touching the ground does not matter - that is similar to the "daylight" part of the offside law that the TV pundits would have you believe is the law when there is no such rule! The keeper was not releasing the ball from hands by kicking or throwing the ball so when it leaves his hands it is in play.

[mainstand]

From the FIFA website:

A goalkeeper is not permitted to keep control of the ball in his hands

for more than six seconds. A goalkeeper is considered to be in control

of the ball:

• while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any

surface (e.g. ground, own body)

• while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand

• while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air

When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands,

he cannot be challenged by an opponent.

A goalkeeper is not permitted to touch the ball with his hand inside

his own penalty area in the following circumstances:

• if he handles the ball again after it has been released from his

possession and has not touched any other player:

This would appear to indicate that the ref was correct.

[john1962]

My only point in this is that the ref never saw the incident. Neither did I. I was looking at him, God only knows why. He was running towards the centre circle. He only guessed at what happened or listened to the Queens players

[sjfc_camo]

was i the only one who fought that samuel and morris diddnt have the best of games?

ye they done well at points particularly when samuel had the ball running at defenders but otherwise he was pretty lazy in my point of view

i think savo's goal should have stood if the keeper is bouncing a ball knowing that a opponent is there i would see that as teasing the opponent

[bleacher]

From the FIFA website:

• while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air

When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands,

he cannot be challenged by an opponent.

This would appear to indicate that the ref was correct.

It appeared to me that the keeper had dropped the ball to kick it - not to kick from hand but to play it from the ground and simply didn't know Savo was there - he was behind him at that point.

However, it's all irrelevant as it's not a goal as the ref didn't give it.

[Mike180279]

I have heard somethng today that nobody else seems to have seen, the goalkeeper bounced the ball off Savo's toe and lost control of it. Surely then this should stand?

[THE LARK SAINT]

Come on then 101 give us your in depth knowledge of where Del went wrong today the,

Anyone who tries to criticise the team and say things were not right when they played Queens off the park and had dozens of shots blocked and hit defenders on the way to goal. As someone else said given a break we would have won by about 5 goals.

Cynical

Are you sure it wasn't Savo? I missed it but he was the only one around.

As for there goal the whistle went about a minute before the shot so it wasn;t really chopped off.

IT WAS SAVO........

[Deek]

From where I was sitting it looked like the keeper dropped the ball onto the ground to play it from the ground (not bounce it).

I looked at the ref straight away and he was running and looking away from goal. He didn't see it. He turned round and awarded a free kick. Unless he had an earpiece in he surely should have at least consulted his linesman to ask what happened?

[slf]

didnae see it from the ormond as i didnae have my binoculars with me.

[chopper]

I looked at the ref straight away and he was running and looking away from goal. He didn't see it. He turned round and awarded a free kick. Unless he had an earpiece in he surely should have at least consulted his linesman to ask what happened?

The referee and linesman had the communication equipment on so it would have been easy enough for the ref to give the decision without seeing it as his assistant would have told him through the earpiece - though didn't stop the ref from going to his main stand assistant to make sure he was giving the right member of the Queens bench a ticking off!!!

As for the "goal" - as mainstand points out, I would have got that wrong by giving the goal (still would have done it at the time, though not now of course!!!) however there seems to be about 5 or 6 different versions of the same event! Ach well, c'est la vie - still another point on the board and the more points clear we get the harder it becomes for Dunfermline (just remember how we blew it from a similar position against Queens and Thistle in catch up matches when chasing Gretna)

[Calypso Kid]

It appeared to me that the keeper had dropped the ball to kick it - not to kick from hand but to play it from the ground and simply didn't know Savo was there - he was behind him at that point.

However, it's all irrelevant as it's not a goal as the ref didn't give it.

He wasn't behind him. The keeper was fully aware that he was there and was actually moving in a sideways direction to kick past him.

The bit I don't understand is whether he dropped the ball by accident or not. Mainstands post seems pretty clear though.

[ancientsaint]

If the assistant had seen the incident with Savo he would/should have raised his flag to indicate a "free kick"....if the referee thought Savo had infringed the "rules" then he should have booked him for "unsporting behaviour"....the fact that this did not occur will still leave this open to debate and whilst debating the point wont make any difference to the result as the referee cannot now correct his mistake.

I still think it was a goal and hope that the highlights video on the main site will make it clearer.

[bigal]

From the FIFA website:

A goalkeeper is not permitted to keep control of the ball in his hands

for more than six seconds. A goalkeeper is considered to be in control

of the ball:

• while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any

surface (e.g. ground, own body)

• while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand

• while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air

When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands,

he cannot be challenged by an opponent.A goalkeeper is not permitted to touch the ball with his hand inside

his own penalty area in the following circumstances:

• if he handles the ball again after it has been released from his

possession and has not touched any other player:

This would appear to indicate that the ref was correct.

Not necessarily. I was one of those that missed exactly what happened but if he was dropping it to his foot or bouncing it then the above would say the ref was right. If he'd already dropped it to the ground with the intention of kicking it out or passing it then the ref was wrong cos it was no longer between his hand and any surface.

[ancientsaint]

DEBATE OVER..................yes Lord Hugh Dallas (who was obviously at the game !!) has decreed that Super Mike T got the Savo decision correct....end of story.....

[Kevin]

DEBATE OVER..................yes Lord Hugh Dallas (who was obviously at the game !!) has decreed that Super Mike T got the Savo decision correct....end of story.....

No, he was not the referee assesor on Saturday and was not in the ground, probably at Ibrox