Do Rangers get a "free pass" from referees?

[TheScarf]

So it’s been confirmed by Companies House that Rangers were liquidated and Hibs weren’t? 
 

Just what everyone knows already then.

[AJF]

1 minute ago, Perkin Flump said:

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.

Yep, I agree somewhat with that too. But that’s why I also gave examples of other incidents that I feel warranted a red card but went unpunished and the players were not subsequently cited for it.

[Leith Green]

Just now, AJF said:

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

You need to go back to my original point m9.

That related to the number of times Rangers players have got away with red card offences on the field, ignored or not dealt properly by the ref, then given a retrospective...............which means nothing to the teams that you played on the day (in the example I gave, the consecutive matches v Hibs and St Johnstone).

You are now in the ludicrous fantasy realms of "the onfield ref doesnt treat Rangers correctly" plus "the compliance officer doesnt look at the opposition fouls on Rangers players".

The only clubs that benefit consistently from brutal refereeing decisions are Celtic and (recently, and a fucking lot) Rangers.

[coprolite]

12 minutes ago, G51 said:

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

? 

[AJF]

6 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

You need to go back to my original point m9.

That related to the number of times Rangers players have got away with red card offences on the field, ignored or not dealt properly by the ref, then given a retrospective...............which means nothing to the teams that you played on the day (in the example I gave, the consecutive matches v Hibs and St Johnstone).

You are now in the ludicrous fantasy realms of "the onfield ref doesnt treat Rangers correctly" plus "the compliance officer doesnt look at the opposition fouls on Rangers players".

The only clubs that benefit consistently from brutal refereeing decisions are Celtic and (recently, and a fucking lot) Rangers.

But my point directly counters that claim. I’ve given you 3 examples of tackles that I believe warranted a red but were not given one and were subsequently not cited.

I already said that the majority of the citations Rangers received I agreed should’ve been a red card so I’m not sure I can understand you saying I am claiming the on-field ref doesn’t treat Rangers correctly. I’m stating that these incidents also happen involving non-Rangers players but the citation process is extremely inconsistent which leads to my guess that it is to do with the added media scrutiny.

I am not for one minute saying the decisions to cite Rangers players are incorrect, I’m simply adding some balance by giving examples of similar incidents that are not getting dealt with correctly by the referee at the time and are then not cited which shows up the inconsistency of the whole process.

Edited February 6, 2021 by AJF

[Dons_1988]

I still really don’t see the Curtis main challenge as the atrocity the rangers fans make it out to be. It’s not been cited as clearly the ref saw it and is comfortable with the booking. 

[G51]

4 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

You need to go back to my original point m9.

That related to the number of times Rangers players have got away with red card offences on the field, ignored or not dealt properly by the ref, then given a retrospective...............which means nothing to the teams that you played on the day (in the example I gave, the consecutive matches v Hibs and St Johnstone).

You are now in the ludicrous fantasy realms of "the onfield ref doesnt treat Rangers correctly" plus "the compliance officer doesnt look at the opposition fouls on Rangers players".

The only clubs that benefit consistently from brutal refereeing decisions are Celtic and (recently, and a fucking lot) Rangers.

all clubs benefit and suffer from bad refereeing decisions. The extent to which either happens is completely random.

I remember Hibs securing a 2-2 draw with Rangers this season courtesy of an offside goal. How does that fit the conspiracy?

Referees are equally bad for everyone. You’re either interested in addressing the issue or you’re only interested in using it to fuel a sense of injustice.

The retrospective disciplinary system is a different issue, but it’s shambolic and largely media-driven. Which is what’s going to happen when you turn the process over to a bunch of pencil-necked lawyers.

[Moomintroll]

6 minutes ago, AJF said:

Yep, I agree somewhat with that too. But that’s why I also gave examples of other incidents that I feel warranted a red card but went unpunished and the players were not subsequently cited for it.

Feel we are generally in agreement here, I would like to see VAR lite in the Premiership where only potential red card decisions, penal offences in the penalty area & ball over the line issues are dealt with. Get the offside shite in the bin as that is ludicrous but looking at key, potential match changing decisions seems to embrace the original "clear and obvious" error ethos that is should have been intended to address.

[AJF]

3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

I still really don’t see the Curtis main challenge as the atrocity the rangers fans make it out to be. It’s not been cited as clearly the ref saw it and is comfortable with the booking. 

Personally I thought it warranted a red card. Straight leg with studs showing catching Barisic really high. I don’t think it was intentional, but I thought it fell within the realms of serious foul play.

[Moomintroll]

4 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

I still really don’t see the Curtis main challenge as the atrocity the rangers fans make it out to be. It’s not been cited as clearly the ref saw it and is comfortable with the booking. 

I thought it was a shocker at the time & was similar to what the Southampton player got sent off fir earlier this week in that he clearly studded his leg way above the ball.

[coprolite]

5 minutes ago, AJF said:

Personally I thought it warranted a red card. Straight leg with studs showing catching Barisic really high. I don’t think it was intentional, but I thought it fell within the realms of serious foul play.

I can see that but Roofe also went in with his feet above waist height. 

The incident was replayed incessantly on Sportscene and mentioned in all the reports and didn't result in a citation, which could suggest that mechanism doesn't work like you've said. 

Edited February 6, 2021 by coprolite
Not roofe, barisic.

[Leith Green]

4 minutes ago, G51 said:

all clubs benefit and suffer from bad refereeing decisions. The extent to which either happens is completely random.

I remember Hibs securing a 2-2 draw with Rangers this season courtesy of an offside goal. How does that fit the conspiracy?

Referees are equally bad for everyone. You’re either interested in addressing the issue or you’re only interested in using it to fuel a sense of injustice.

The retrospective disciplinary system is a different issue, but it’s shambolic and largely media-driven. Which is what’s going to happen when you turn the process over to a bunch of pencil-necked lawyers.

You are almost there.

So, lets say I agree with the premise that "all teams benefit from crap on field decisions"?

The bit in bold is the contentious part (for me, anyway) where we have referees not making decisions or not taking strong enough action..........and it seems to help your club more than most (because your players remained on the park and you win the points).

The assertion that "there are more cameras on Rangers" simply doesnt wash as every match is analysed to within an inch of its life.

It gets utterly ridiculous if you then move to some alternate world where Rangers are the victims.

[AJF]

3 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I can see that but Roofe also went in with his feet above waist height. 

The incident was replayed incessantly on Sportscene and mentioned in all the reports and didn't result in a citation, which could suggest that mechanism doesn't work like you've said. 

Like I said, it’s guesswork on my part as to why there are inconsistencies. It’s hard to say definitively why, but I think it’s clear that some incidents are treated differently than others.

[SANTAN]

13 minutes ago, CCB19035 said:

Aw right. 
 

That's sectarian is it? Won't be debating the semantics of it, but it 100% isn't a sectarian thing to say, it's history is in no way sectarian. The victimhood of rangers fans the last 8 years or so is enjoyable though. 
 

No one likes you, you don't care. 

I don't particularly care that you're a thick bigot tbh. 

[coprolite]

21 minutes ago, AJF said:

Like I said, it’s guesswork on my part as to why there are inconsistencies. It’s hard to say definitively why, but I think it’s clear that some incidents are treated differently than others.

I think it’s fairly clear why some incidents are treated differently. Clancy told us all at the start of the season. “I can guarantee that the referees officiating in the Scottish 
Premiership know exactly what’s at stake this season,”

Referees and the authorities are clearly shiting it in case they do anything decisive and wrong.

I think this means they cop out of making big calls on the pitch. 

It is plausible that Rangers are subject to more scrutiny. This season the've had 3 citations for on field thuggery to one each for celtic, utd, ross county and Livingston. Outside of Morelos, it's one each. It might be plausible that Morelos is subject to more scrutiny. It might also be possible that he's a twat that keeps kicking and stamping. 

The award for most players cited so far this season goes to the Dons. So proud. 

[bennett]

2 hours ago, Perkin Flump said:

I partially agree, the neanderthal should be facing a ban for his violent conduct as well. Yet they have chosen to chase Ajeti instead for something that is a bit meh in my eyes which conveniently takes the focus away from his offence.

For whatever reason Broonaldo is close to being untouchable in the Scottish game,  the shock on his face when he got sent off against living for something he does every game was quite telling. 

 

The Ajeti citing comes across as 'look we don't just target Sevco' and should be won on appeal. Players will always dive for an advantage,  if the ref sees them at it then they get booked and if they con the ref then the next time there's a 50/50 the ref remembers the previous dive/s.

 

The whole retrospective action route has turned into a complete farce where decisions which the ref has seen and dealt with are being altered due to mock media outrage.

 

 

[buddie06smfc]

For whatever reason Broonaldo is close to being untouchable in the Scottish game,  the shock on his face when he got sent off against living for something he does every game was quite telling. 
 
The Ajeti citing comes across as 'look we don't just target Sevco' and should be won on appeal. Players will always dive for an advantage,  if the ref sees them at it then they get booked and if they con the ref then the next time there's a 50/50 the ref remembers the previous dive/s.
 
The whole retrospective action route has turned into a complete farce where decisions which the ref has seen and dealt with are being altered due to mock media outrage.
 
 

It’s been about for years and worked in this manner for years. It’s only becoming a farce in Rangers’ eyes because Rangers players are lacking discipline and referees are lacking the ability to judge decisions in the correct manner on the pitch. Most clubs have been punished in this way and moved on. It’s not the compliance officer who needs to be looked at here it’s your own players’ ill-discipline.
It’s not half as much punishment as you would have got should the referees have made the correct call. You have finished each game with 11 men and will start the next with 11 men.

[bennett]

6 minutes ago, buddie06smfc said:

It’s been about for years and worked in this manner for years. It’s only becoming a farce in Rangers’ eyes because Rangers players are lacking discipline and referees are lacking the ability to judge decisions in the correct manner on the pitch. Most clubs have been punished in this way and moved on. It’s not the compliance officer who needs to be looked at here it’s your own players’ ill-discipline.
It’s not half as much punishment as you would have got should the referees have made the correct call. You have finished each game with 11 men and will start the next with 11 men.

That's simply not true, over the years Rangers have clearly been disproportionately affected by an inconsistent system. Consistency wouldn't see one team being at a disadvantage by having aspects of their games being refereed while other teams get a free pass.

 

[Leith Green]

22 minutes ago, bennett said:

That's simply not true, over the years Rangers have clearly been disproportionately affected by an inconsistent system. Consistency wouldn't see one team being at a disadvantage by having aspects of their games being refereed while other teams get a free pass.

[DMCs]

1 hour ago, CCB19035 said:

The victimhood of rangers fans the last 8 years or so is enjoyable though. 

 

No one likes you, you don't care. 

The irony of talking about other people having a victimhood complex while believing in a refereeing conspiracy is hilarious.