After reading 3 different match reports I finally found that the disallowed goal was in the 22nd minute. Fast forward the full 90 to that point...
Buffalo cross goes long, is headed back into the middle. Harness wants to go for it and is perfectly entitled to. Does he have some contact with the keeper inside the 6 yard box? Yes, and that would be sufficient to see most refs chalk the goal off. However, IMO, the contact was caused by Harness getting a slight shove from a defender. Both if these incidents are fouls. The ref seems to have chosen to give the one in Plymouth's favour and not the one in Derby's favour despite there being half a second between the two. As a former keeper I'd have been very disappointed to have dropped the ball with the minor contact. I think the contact on Harness that caused him to collide with the keeper was at least as bad. If you asked me which foul I'd give if I was forced to give one at all, I'd have to say the first one as, had that not happened the second wouldn't have happened. Ergo, a penalty to Derby, which would have been very harsh in most people's eyes but a shove is a shove and is a foul according to the Laws of the game and those Laws don't make differentiations based on where the shove takes place. I would hope that I wouldn't have given either as both were minimal and I still, possibly wrongly, view football as a contact sport. That would mean the goal stands.
Not everybody will agree with my refereeing thoughts and that's fine... as long as you all realise that I'm right
The Armstrong goal. There was a pull on a defender's shirt (not the defender who headed the ball to Armstrong) by Harness when the ball came in. From what I've seen of the way the ref reffed, I'm quite surprised he didn't disallow the effort for that one, just as he didn't give us a penalty for the pull on Jackson when Jacko hit the ball straight to the keeper from 8 yards out, late on.