Do Rangers get a "free pass" from referees?

[Moomintroll]

3 minutes ago, G51 said:

fucking hell

Calm down min, I am referring to Brown. 

[Moomintroll]

5 minutes ago, AJF said:

If you mean Roofe, he was cited by the SFA yesterday.

Roofe deserves a ban for it but it is the classic strikers challenge with zero malice intended.

[Ric]

30 minutes ago, bennett said:

By disproportionately concentrating on one team for retrospective punishment means that the system is not balanced and other teams who aren't being scrutinised have a serious advantage here.

You state that as if it's fact, what proof do you have for the claim?

Simply pulling up a table showing more Rangers players are retrospectively punished doesn't provide that proof. All that testifies to is that Rangers players commit fouls that deserve retrospective punishment, not that it's disproportionate.

[Leith Green]

7 minutes ago, Ric said:

You state that as if it's fact, what proof do you have for the claim?

Simply pulling up a table showing more Rangers players are retrospectively punished doesn't provide that proof. All that testifies to is that Rangers players commit fouls that deserve retrospective punishment, not that it's disproportionate.

Not quite.

It also points out that Rangers players committed offences on the park that went unpunished at the time..........which is kinda the theme of your thread.

Benny and the other radges thinks this means Rangers are being victimised. These guys are beyond parody.

[AJF]

10 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

Not quite.

It also points out that Rangers players committed offences on the park that went unpunished at the time..........which is kinda the theme of your thread.

Benny and the other radges thinks this means Rangers are being victimised. These guys are beyond parody.

I don’t think Rangers are being victimised necessarily. The majority of the retrospective red cards we’ve received I’ve held my hands up and said they were deserved. However I do think any stats around this are skewed as countless similar incidents get overlooked and the compliance officer is wildly inconsistent in deciding which are worth citing and which aren’t.

Thats where I believe the added scrutiny and media coverage comes into play.

[Leith Green]

1 hour ago, G51 said:

yes.

in fact, I’d wager this has happened to every team, including the one you support.

 

3 minutes ago, AJF said:

 as countless similar incidents get overlooked

Nah.

I keep asking for examples of these incidents - just saying "every club commits them" or "there are countless similar incidents" doesnae really cut it.

If you genuinely think that all other clubs get a free pass on this, feel free to link a few of these gazillions of incidents chaps.......................

[Dons_1988]

So we’ve established rangers (and Celtic) benefit in matches because refs shit themselves making decisions in the heat of the moment, but that the OF are victims of having about 95% of the media coverage in the country and have more incidents retrospectively punished, even though totally justifiably. 

Forgive me for not organising a candlelight vigil for them. 

[AJF]

Just now, Leith Green said:

 

Nah.

I keep asking for examples of these incidents - just saying "every club commits them" or "there are countless similar incidents" doesnae really cut it.

If you genuinely think that all other clubs get a free pass on this, feel free to link a few of these gazillions of incidents chaps.......................

Well, if I am using examples only involving Rangers this season, I can think of 3 tackles that I think merited a red card at the time; Drey Wright on Ryan Kent, Curtis Main on Barisic and Liam Gordon on Kemar Roofe.

That’s 3 off the top of my head. No doubt games not involving Rangers will also involve many other examples.

[coprolite]

57 minutes ago, G51 said:

fucking hell

I'd say the comparison is unflattering to Neanderthals 

[coprolite]

2 minutes ago, AJF said:

Well, if I am using examples only involving Rangers this season, I can think of 3 tackles that I think merited a red card at the time; Drey Wright on Ryan Kent, Curtis Main on Barisic and Liam Gordon on Kemar Roofe.

That’s 3 off the top of my head. No doubt games not involving Rangers will also involve many other examples.

Can't speak for the other two but i'm sure Main couldn't be cited because he was booked at the time? Is that not how it works? 

I wouldn't have said that was a definite red, but it was a very probable one. 

[AJF]

1 minute ago, coprolite said:

Can't speak for the other two but i'm sure Main couldn't be cited because he was booked at the time? Is that not how it works? 

I wouldn't have said that was a definite red, but it was a very probable one. 

Kemar Roofe was booked for his tackle on Davidson too, so it seems they can still cite the player.

[G51]

9 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

 

Nah.

I keep asking for examples of these incidents - just saying "every club commits them" or "there are countless similar incidents" doesnae really cut it.

If you genuinely think that all other clubs get a free pass on this, feel free to link a few of these gazillions of incidents chaps.......................

I have much better things to be doing with my Saturday morning, but what I’ll say is that a basic statistical analysis will tell you that given the frequency of potential red card fouls not being awarded in games, and the number of games played, it is extremely unlikely that only four of these incidents have occurred this season.

A maths degree is not required for this one.

[Leith Green]

6 minutes ago, AJF said:

Well, if I am using examples only involving Rangers this season, I can think of 3 tackles that I think merited a red card at the time; Drey Wright on Ryan Kent, Curtis Main on Barisic and Liam Gordon on Kemar Roofe.

That’s 3 off the top of my head. No doubt games not involving Rangers will also involve many other examples.

And which of these resulted in retrospective action by the compliance officer and a ban?

[G51]

6 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I'd say the comparison is unflattering to Neanderthals 

I’ll give this thread three more pages before it’s locked

[AJF]

Just now, Leith Green said:

And which of these resulted in retrospective action by the compliance officer and a ban?

None of them... that’s exactly my point.

[Leith Green]

Just now, AJF said:

None of them... that’s exactly my point.

Oh, so we are now in the realms of "Rangers dont get the on field decisions that others get"?

Fucking hell.

[coprolite]

1 minute ago, AJF said:

Kemar Roofe was booked for his tackle on Davidson too, so it seems they can still cite the player.

 I thought it was only incidents the ref hadn't seen. Interesting to see how that goes at the hearing. 

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, coprolite said:

 I thought it was only incidents the ref hadn't seen. Interesting to see how that goes at the hearing. 

I think the ref can say his interpretation at the time was wrong having watched the footage back, which can count as ‘didn’t see it’. 

I think. 

[AJF]

2 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

Oh, so we are now in the realms of "Rangers dont get the on field decisions that others get"?

Fucking hell.

Go back and read what I said. It’s the inconsistency of compliance officer citations I’m referring to.

[Moomintroll]

16 minutes ago, AJF said:

I don’t think Rangers are being victimised necessarily. The majority of the retrospective red cards we’ve received I’ve held my hands up and said they were deserved. However I do think any stats around this are skewed as countless similar incidents get overlooked and the compliance officer is wildly inconsistent in deciding which are worth citing and which aren’t.

Thats where I believe the added scrutiny and media coverage comes into play.

I genuinely believe you have a point here in that a stamp by Gary Dicker, for example, on Kyle McAllister, will not receive the same media scrutiny. All things considered however, if the referee is looking at that fictional incident then Dicker is off the park at the time. The issue is that referees are abdicating responsibility at the time (I have my own theory why) knowng that the proper sanction will be applied retrospectively which potentially affects the result on the day & is an abdication of responsibility & a deviation from being the sole arbitrer of the laws of the game.