comment by Zachsda(The gigs up) (U1850)
posted 2 minutes ago
Rodgers is shrewd and although highlighting the refs performance he was imo laying a marker for the cup final ref re Bowman and his "robust" style
I don't think the statement is anywhere near as silly as some previously released
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on
He is very very clever in how he words things. He has as you say effectively highlighted Bowman as a potential issue without kicking and screaming about the physicality.
He has mentioned referees before but where someone like Lennon would go down all guns blazing calling the referees out, Rodgers in his post match statement says something along the lines of we prepare thoroughly for the game and take all aspects into consideration including the referee on the day and what they are likely to react like
It's a shrewd way of saying we know this ref is awful without actually saying so
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
The issue as we all recognise is that Rangers have a case for highlighting the awful refereeing on at least two occasions this season which "might" have cost them 3 league points and a place in the cup final.
In saying that every team suffers from poor refereeing at some time or other but to be honest the Hibs game and the semi final were absolute howlers.
Claims of agendas and bias unfortunately do nothing other than make the club look ridiculous, petty and amateurish so the message is lost as everyone else can hide behind scoffing and laughing whilst all the time the main problem remains. They effectively give the powers that be in the SFPL a free ride.
An open letter (as Lawell did about the EBT's) asking for clarifications and explanations has a much more damning affect as it forces the SFPL to either respond or as usual bury their head in the sand.
In that scenario, other clubs might start to try and force change. Until then and under the manner it is being dealt with by the club, everyone else can sit back and mock accordingly.
Interesting in all of this however is Rodgers stance which adds credence to Rangers concerns as it cannot then be just construed as one club bemoaning their lot.
I did say it at the time immediately after the game; "wait for the statement" and true to form, there it is.
As for Club 1872 I would expect no different, but then again they are a fans forum and rational thinking isn't necessarily at the top of the agenda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd agree with most of that, but the fact is that in both of these games game changing decisions were not made, either in the form of violent conduct or dangerous play.
In each game either Hibs or Motherwell could have had at least one player sent off.
If a bad tackle was missed or a bad offside decision was made then fair enough, these things happen in every game, but it's the officials' jobs to ensure player safety and that wasn't done in the Motherwell game.
Plus violent conduct from Stokes (twice) and McGregor was missed completely and went unpunished.
That's pretty serious stuff. The fact that two of the worst refereeing performances of the season came against Rangers, and both had similar mistakes made by the officials, and both refs get demoted after those games, only back's up Rangers' argument.
rats the issue your club have and you have also just done is you completely ignore things your team has done.
An elbow to Moult and this whole 2 game ban refusal for Alves lashing out
They are both dangerous and violent conduct. Making a statement about an agenda while your own players do similar is what makes people sneer and snigger at the statements
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Zachsda(The gigs up) (U1850)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by rats juice anurr gole fae Morelos (U6393)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
The issue as we all recognise is that Rangers have a case for highlighting the awful refereeing on at least two occasions this season which "might" have cost them 3 league points and a place in the cup final.
In saying that every team suffers from poor refereeing at some time or other but to be honest the Hibs game and the semi final were absolute howlers.
Claims of agendas and bias unfortunately do nothing other than make the club look ridiculous, petty and amateurish so the message is lost as everyone else can hide behind scoffing and laughing whilst all the time the main problem remains. They effectively give the powers that be in the SFPL a free ride.
An open letter (as Lawell did about the EBT's) asking for clarifications and explanations has a much more damning affect as it forces the SFPL to either respond or as usual bury their head in the sand.
In that scenario, other clubs might start to try and force change. Until then and under the manner it is being dealt with by the club, everyone else can sit back and mock accordingly.
Interesting in all of this however is Rodgers stance which adds credence to Rangers concerns as it cannot then be just construed as one club bemoaning their lot.
I did say it at the time immediately after the game; "wait for the statement" and true to form, there it is.
As for Club 1872 I would expect no different, but then again they are a fans forum and rational thinking isn't necessarily at the top of the agenda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd agree with most of that, but the fact is that in both of these games game changing decisions were not made, either in the form of violent conduct or dangerous play.
In each game either Hibs or Motherwell could have had at least one player sent off.
If a bad tackle was missed or a bad offside decision was made then fair enough, these things happen in every game, but it's the officials' jobs to ensure player safety and that wasn't done in the Motherwell game.
Plus violent conduct from Stokes (twice) and McGregor was missed completely and went unpunished.
That's pretty serious stuff. The fact that two of the worst refereeing performances of the season came against Rangers, and both had similar mistakes made by the officials, and both refs get demoted after those games, only back's up Rangers' argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that's exactly why highlighting it would have done without deflecting from and therefore allowing others to deflect from the salient point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly my point.
rats. There are plenty of games in the past where every team could rightfully claim a player should have been sent off. Even last night there was as clear a red card offence as any and a booking was dished out.
It happens. It’s hapoened to Rangers twice. Everyone recognises that Ranges have a valid point about recovering stanadards but yet again they let their PR department run off at the mouth, lose the message and give ammunition to those who want to scoff and ridicule and that in turn deflects from the SFPL having to answer.
comment by Call Sign: Armstong's Sexy Quiff (U3627)
posted 1 minute ago
rats the issue your club have and you have also just done is you completely ignore things your team has done.
An elbow to Moult and this whole 2 game ban refusal for Alves lashing out
They are both dangerous and violent conduct. Making a statement about an agenda while your own players do similar is what makes people sneer and snigger at the statements
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, the statement isn't about an agenda.
I fully accept, and have said in previous threads, that Rangers players haven't been whiter than white and have made bad tackles, but this is all after the ref had lost control of the game, plus in both cases Rangers players have been punished and the opposition got away with it.
That's the whole point.
Sign in if you want to comment
Scottish Football is a joke 👍
Page 4 of 4
posted on 25/10/17
comment by Zachsda(The gigs up) (U1850)
posted 2 minutes ago
Rodgers is shrewd and although highlighting the refs performance he was imo laying a marker for the cup final ref re Bowman and his "robust" style
I don't think the statement is anywhere near as silly as some previously released
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on
He is very very clever in how he words things. He has as you say effectively highlighted Bowman as a potential issue without kicking and screaming about the physicality.
He has mentioned referees before but where someone like Lennon would go down all guns blazing calling the referees out, Rodgers in his post match statement says something along the lines of we prepare thoroughly for the game and take all aspects into consideration including the referee on the day and what they are likely to react like
It's a shrewd way of saying we know this ref is awful without actually saying so
posted on 25/10/17
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
The issue as we all recognise is that Rangers have a case for highlighting the awful refereeing on at least two occasions this season which "might" have cost them 3 league points and a place in the cup final.
In saying that every team suffers from poor refereeing at some time or other but to be honest the Hibs game and the semi final were absolute howlers.
Claims of agendas and bias unfortunately do nothing other than make the club look ridiculous, petty and amateurish so the message is lost as everyone else can hide behind scoffing and laughing whilst all the time the main problem remains. They effectively give the powers that be in the SFPL a free ride.
An open letter (as Lawell did about the EBT's) asking for clarifications and explanations has a much more damning affect as it forces the SFPL to either respond or as usual bury their head in the sand.
In that scenario, other clubs might start to try and force change. Until then and under the manner it is being dealt with by the club, everyone else can sit back and mock accordingly.
Interesting in all of this however is Rodgers stance which adds credence to Rangers concerns as it cannot then be just construed as one club bemoaning their lot.
I did say it at the time immediately after the game; "wait for the statement" and true to form, there it is.
As for Club 1872 I would expect no different, but then again they are a fans forum and rational thinking isn't necessarily at the top of the agenda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd agree with most of that, but the fact is that in both of these games game changing decisions were not made, either in the form of violent conduct or dangerous play.
In each game either Hibs or Motherwell could have had at least one player sent off.
If a bad tackle was missed or a bad offside decision was made then fair enough, these things happen in every game, but it's the officials' jobs to ensure player safety and that wasn't done in the Motherwell game.
Plus violent conduct from Stokes (twice) and McGregor was missed completely and went unpunished.
That's pretty serious stuff. The fact that two of the worst refereeing performances of the season came against Rangers, and both had similar mistakes made by the officials, and both refs get demoted after those games, only back's up Rangers' argument.
posted on 25/10/17
rats the issue your club have and you have also just done is you completely ignore things your team has done.
An elbow to Moult and this whole 2 game ban refusal for Alves lashing out
They are both dangerous and violent conduct. Making a statement about an agenda while your own players do similar is what makes people sneer and snigger at the statements
posted on 25/10/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/10/17
comment by Zachsda(The gigs up) (U1850)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by rats juice anurr gole fae Morelos (U6393)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 4 minutes ago
The issue as we all recognise is that Rangers have a case for highlighting the awful refereeing on at least two occasions this season which "might" have cost them 3 league points and a place in the cup final.
In saying that every team suffers from poor refereeing at some time or other but to be honest the Hibs game and the semi final were absolute howlers.
Claims of agendas and bias unfortunately do nothing other than make the club look ridiculous, petty and amateurish so the message is lost as everyone else can hide behind scoffing and laughing whilst all the time the main problem remains. They effectively give the powers that be in the SFPL a free ride.
An open letter (as Lawell did about the EBT's) asking for clarifications and explanations has a much more damning affect as it forces the SFPL to either respond or as usual bury their head in the sand.
In that scenario, other clubs might start to try and force change. Until then and under the manner it is being dealt with by the club, everyone else can sit back and mock accordingly.
Interesting in all of this however is Rodgers stance which adds credence to Rangers concerns as it cannot then be just construed as one club bemoaning their lot.
I did say it at the time immediately after the game; "wait for the statement" and true to form, there it is.
As for Club 1872 I would expect no different, but then again they are a fans forum and rational thinking isn't necessarily at the top of the agenda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd agree with most of that, but the fact is that in both of these games game changing decisions were not made, either in the form of violent conduct or dangerous play.
In each game either Hibs or Motherwell could have had at least one player sent off.
If a bad tackle was missed or a bad offside decision was made then fair enough, these things happen in every game, but it's the officials' jobs to ensure player safety and that wasn't done in the Motherwell game.
Plus violent conduct from Stokes (twice) and McGregor was missed completely and went unpunished.
That's pretty serious stuff. The fact that two of the worst refereeing performances of the season came against Rangers, and both had similar mistakes made by the officials, and both refs get demoted after those games, only back's up Rangers' argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that's exactly why highlighting it would have done without deflecting from and therefore allowing others to deflect from the salient point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly my point.
rats. There are plenty of games in the past where every team could rightfully claim a player should have been sent off. Even last night there was as clear a red card offence as any and a booking was dished out.
It happens. It’s hapoened to Rangers twice. Everyone recognises that Ranges have a valid point about recovering stanadards but yet again they let their PR department run off at the mouth, lose the message and give ammunition to those who want to scoff and ridicule and that in turn deflects from the SFPL having to answer.
posted on 25/10/17
comment by Call Sign: Armstong's Sexy Quiff (U3627)
posted 1 minute ago
rats the issue your club have and you have also just done is you completely ignore things your team has done.
An elbow to Moult and this whole 2 game ban refusal for Alves lashing out
They are both dangerous and violent conduct. Making a statement about an agenda while your own players do similar is what makes people sneer and snigger at the statements
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, the statement isn't about an agenda.
I fully accept, and have said in previous threads, that Rangers players haven't been whiter than white and have made bad tackles, but this is all after the ref had lost control of the game, plus in both cases Rangers players have been punished and the opposition got away with it.
That's the whole point.
Page 4 of 4