The 2nd Motherwell Goal

[RiG]

This is how I saw it:

The 2nd was highly dubious because, when the initial shot went in on goal, there was a Motherwell player on the line, in an offside position who prevented the ball from going in. The ball bounced back off the player and back to a Motherwell player who, with the same player still on the line in an apparent offside position, fired it into the net. This led to huge protests from the ICT players as the Well player on the line must have been interfering with play but the linesman ref gave it.

Perhaps someone is the Main Stand, who will have had a much better view than me, can clear this up. It seemed to be a huge bone of contention for our players.

[Johnboy]

I've just watched it again on Setanta...  The first shot did hit the Motherwell player who was standing right in front of Fraser, which prevented him getting anywhere near the ball....

The second shot went in with the same 'Well player still in the same position...

Not only was he interfering with play - he was miles offside....

For some reason Setanta didn't make anything of the incident at all....  :024:

[RednBlackComeback]

FFS.......we should've been beaten 5 or 6-0 who gives a sh*t if the 2nd goal was legal ????

[CaleyD]

A "correct" decision on such an important matter might just have been enough to calm down the ICT players and stop them totally losing the plot...so I would say that it mattered a great deal.

[RednBlackComeback]

We had 2 shots on goal the whole game......we coulda been playing Fort William and still lost !!!

[CaleyD]

Very true, but at only 1 down the chances still exists for pulling it back.  After the red mist came down for most of our team following that goal it seemed to go from bad to worse.

Not saying we would have, and I'm not defending the players who should be professional enough to keep a cool head regardless of such things, but such "moments" do have a habit of deciding the outcome of games.

[RednBlackComeback]

But we were never in the game !!!....ok we had a wee 10 minute spell prior to half-time,  but we were keech.

Wow....I still haven't calmed down yet !! :008: :008: :008: :008: :008: :008: :008: :008:

[RiG]

FFS.......we should've been beaten 5 or 6-0 who gives a sh*t if the 2nd goal was legal ????

Do you not think then that if such an unjust goal hadn't been allowed then Tokely might not have been sent off for *allegedly* elbowing McGarry? Such a ridiculous goal contributed to ICT losing their discipline and had important repercussions for the rest of the game.

Basically yes of course it mattered.

[ICTodd]

I was in the main stand for the game and most importantly at the side where the goal went in up at the back so I had a pretty good view. Motherwell were offiside without a doubt...myself and a few people around me called offside when it went in, and the guy next to me said 'good call'. But we were shocked that it had been given! Everyone was outraged. The Motherwell player had clearly been standing on the line as the ball came in and as it hit off him, he was offiside. It then spun out an the Motherwell player who scored with the player on the line, blocking Fraser still. EVERY right for the Caley players to protest because I saw it in the stand, and they were closer! And so was the ref (****)

As for this we were going to be beat anyway s****, yes we may not have been playing amazing but neither were Motherwell. I dont like how McGee was so adament afterwards that they played well! Once that 'goal' went in and Caley players lost the plot, thats when we lost the game also. If it hadn't been called then Caley wouldn't have elt so cheated and tempers wouldn't have flared!

AND another thing for anyone else who sat near me...did anyone see McGee tell the player that Tokely 'fouled' when he came off (can't remember the Motherwell player) that he dived?? Alot of people around me saw him pointin and swering as the player sat downand also making a diving gesture  :symbol_question:

[RiG]

From the highlights you can clearly see the 2nd Well goal is clearly offside.

[+Tree]

From the highlights you can clearly see the 2nd Well goal is clearly offside.

I don't know how you can say that. It wasn't as though the player was standing clearly off-side, directly between the player shooting and the goalkeeper, with the ball hitting him square on  :029:

Whilst the officiating was not directly responsible for the defeat, the collective performance is completely unacceptable. I cannot recall any other game where Roy chased after officials - frustration at what was happening boiling over. As per usual the SFA will take no corrective action and just shrug their shoulders and move on (unlike south of the border where there would be some action).

[RiG]

I don't know how you can say that. It wasn't as though the player was standing clearly off-side, directly between the player shooting and the goalkeeper, with the ball hitting him square on  :029:

:015:

Whilst the officiating was not directly responsible for the defeat, the collective performance is completely unacceptable. I cannot recall any other game where Roy chased after officials - frustration at what was happening boiling over. As per usual the SFA will take no corrective action and just shrug their shoulders and move on (unlike south of the border where there would be some action).

I think it played a large part in the loss of our discipline however it cannot really excuse it. I have never seen such an indisciplined ICT side in a long time. It was staggering to see.

[Govan Jaggie]

JIm Duffy did indeed make the point that the goal was offside on Sentanta.  I am sorry however but I go with it would have made no difference.  The players wre playing cr*p and they should have been more professional and used it to spur them on instead of sent off!

[Scotty]

JIm Duffy did indeed make the point that the goal was offside on Sentanta.  I am sorry however but I go with it would have made no difference.  The players wre playing cr*p and they should have been more professional and used it to spur them on instead of sent off!

Radio commentators said something similar - when 2nd goal went in they talked about frustration and anger and said it might be more productive if that was directed at playing motherwell off the park than at the officials. They also thought Roy McBain was extremely lucky to stay on the park when he had his go at the linesman, got booked, then went back to have another go !!!

[Guest neksor]

Do you not think then that if such an unjust goal hadn't been allowed then Tokely might not have been sent off for *allegedly* elbowing McGarry? Such a ridiculous goal contributed to ICT losing their discipline and had important repercussions for the rest of the game.

ELBOWING!  It was a punch from behind. - a fact , not alleged.

neksor

[RiG]

Do you not think then that if such an unjust goal hadn't been allowed then Tokely might not have been sent off for *allegedly* elbowing McGarry? Such a ridiculous goal contributed to ICT losing their discipline and had important repercussions for the rest of the game.

ELBOWING!  It was a punch from behind. - a fact , not alleged.

neksor

*sigh*

Note the time of my post when I said that i.e before highlights were on the BBC website. I have, of course, since changed my opinion once I had seen the highlights hence why I had *allegedly* in the post you have "quoted".

*Click*