Fantastic Voyage ..

1668
255005

.. and why sites like SFM matter.

When SFM blasted off in 2012, we had a fair idea that Scottish Football had not only veered violently off the rails,but that it had done so deliberately.

Our intention was to try to help – in some small way – to steer it towards a straighter track, and to see it restored as a sporting institution and spectacle worthy of sporting principles. To see integrity restored to our national sport, to see honesty, fairness and adherence to both the laws of the game and land.

Of course we didn’t know what route our own journey would take, even although we were clear about the destination. What we did know about the journey was that no matter the route, the first leg started outside our own front door.

Who knew we would be taken on a magical mystery tour, blindfolded, spun around a few times, but still find ourselves at that front door. Via the road less traveled, the high road, low road and an endless series of shortcuts and wrong turns we hadn’t moved an inch.

On every stage of the “journey” the SFA, the SPL, and their quasi-legal tribunals & inquiries ducked and dived, twisted and bent the truth, and aided and abetted the greatest scam in the history of UK sport.

Newly coined idioms emerged; “Imperfect registrations”, “boiler-room subsidiary”, “emerged from liquidation”, “ethereal entity”, – and the real doozy; “other clubs could also have broken the tax laws had they wished” – all in an effort to;
1. pretend that what happened had not happened, that cheating was fair, that the rights of one football club were not enshrined in law but decreed by the heavens;
2. hope against hope that the rest of us had gone stark raving bonkers and would accept the “Santa is alive” fallacy as truth.

The facts were;

  • That Rangers, having been subjected to the ignominy of administration, had now entered liquidation, leaving behind a mountain of debts, the vast majority of which were underwritten by us, by the taxpaying public.
  • That almost £100m of funds was denied to the exchequer as the first ever nationalised football club, bought and paid for by the people of the UK, slid into oblivion, a trail of devastation in its wake.
  • That in the course of that calamitous conduct of business, the SFA and the SPL were given false and incomplete information about the nature of players’ contracts. This in order to cover up a tax scheme that was (according to the man who devised it) operated incorrectly and thus unawfully.

Every football club in Scotland and their fans were cheated by a club which quite simply refused to play by the rules – even as the noose around its neck was being pulled ever tighter due to HMRC and Lloyd’s Banking Group taking steps to erect buffers ahead of the onrushing gravy train.

The result was that 140 years of history came to an end; an insatiable hunger for success ironically bringing about the ultimate and irreversible failure of a Scottish institution.

Not for them though, the recognition that they had transgressed. “It wasn’t Rangers – it was Craig White” was the cry.

I’m sure Hearts supporters in 1965 might have said the same about Willie Wallace after he missed a sitter in the final league match against Kilmarnock at Tynecastle. Had he scored, Hearts would have won the league, so Hearts should, by the RFC logic, claim that title anyway. Likewise Celtic fans could have pointed a finger at Georgios Samaras when his penalty miss at Ibrox lost them the league.

More facts: every football club in the world is the sum of its parts, onfield and off. We take the good that people do for our clubs and celebrate them. We have no right to cherry pick and ignore the consequences when people screw up.

Footballers – and administrators – are often gifted individuals given to moments of blinding inspiration which benefits their clubs. They are also often prone to reckless behaviours, the consequences of which we all have to bear. Murray’s knack of talking money out of trees and his reckless and irresponsible practices gave Rangers huge success, but that behaviour also – perhaps inevitably – led to the appointment with the buffers mentioned above.

The good and the bad. Both sides of the same coin, inseparable, inevitable, and there is no choice but to accept the whole package, not just the good bits.

In the circumstances, the hostility towards the old club was understandable. It was always a given that Celtic fans were unlikely to cut them slack as they headed towards an ignominious end.

However, had there been contrition, an acknowledgement of wrongs and some humility in response to talk of consequences, fans of other clubs outside of the Old Firm bubble may have extended some sympathy. But there was none of this. Instead, denial, arrogance, blaming others (“kicking us when we are down”, “who are these people?”) and a pugilistic reaction to the very idea of punishment. The outcome was an absence of sympathy for the plight of RFC.

Let’s revisit this; on an industrial scale, Rangers misrepresented (accidentally if you believe that the board of a PLC was comprised exclusively of halfwits and individuals unable to bite their own fingers) crucial information regarding compliance with registration rules, They subsequently withheld evidence from multiple enquiries into their conduct over these registration rules.

As far back as 1996, Rangers PAYE affairs were being investigated by HMRC and incurring penalties (not a very well publicised event).

Then, for more than a decade, principally through the 2000s they failed to comply with taxation statutes and with crucially important (not merely bureaucratic) SFA rules designed to preserve the intergity of football as a sport. They cheated the revenue out of millions and the fans of every club in Scotland out of their aspirations for their own clubs.

Rangers however were still box-office, and there were 50,000 fans providing a market for the product the now extinct club had provided through the decades. Surely someone would step in and take up the Rangers cause? Surely those people would eschew the catastrophic errors of judgement that had resulted in the economic and existential demise of the original club? Surely they would also acknowledge those mistakes in an effort to convince the clubs and fans they had wronged that this was an organisation that recognised the interdependence of sporting activity?

Surely.

But no. Sadly, no.

Even then though, that matters little.

Why? Because the sins of the old Rangers cannot be visited on the new. The behavior of the new club is a matter for a different argument, but it isn’t relevant in a legal or regulatory sense to the old club. Legally or morally there is nothing you can do to them to ensure that a repeat of the same spivish behaviour does not occur.

So why the fuss? Why the six years of relentless campaigning by SFM and dozens of other football sites?

Because it does matter that the authorities themselves – including all the other clubs – and the MSM have gone out of their way to cover it all up.

No-one at the SFA will talk to fans who have provided them with evidence of wrongdoing in the matter of the 2011 Euro licence. No one will address the witholding of evidence from the LNS enquiry, nor the false premise upon which it arrived at some of its conclusions, nor the mysteriously shifting goalposts of the period investigated by the LNS enquiry, nor the acid-flashback consciousness of the newly arrived at – and totally irregular and unlawful – “imperfect registration” status.

What still requires to be done is to root out those who have enabled the big lie. We need to hold accountable those who have sought to bury evidence, to dispense with logic and to treat fans with contempt and ridicule when legitimate concerns are raised.

We need to replace those people with people of integrity, folk who love the game as much as we do, people who will not yield to intimidation or the dog-whistle.

There are foot thick rule-books in place in football, and the authorities have plummeted into the Asimovian depths of a regulatory Fantastic Voyage to circumvent those. The SFA Chief Executive even told our own John Clark that he would “do nothing” had he been presented with evidence of wrong doing (and he had been presented with such evidence).

Yet one simple rule would have saw the whole sorry escapade brought to a halt – the universal rule that requires people to show due respect and good faith to others.

As I said, we started this journey at our own front door. The authorities and their enablers in the media have been taking us on the Uber route for six years. But we still know the destination, and we will get there. The SFA, the SPFL and the MSM have been relentless in their dedication to half-truths and misdirection.

But the fans are even more relentless in their pursuit of truth and their determination to see our game returned to its status a a sport. That is why outlets like SFM are important. Not because we are any better than others, but because we give a voice to the people in the game who matter most – to the paying public of Scotland who turn up in numbers relatively greater than any other country in Europe. They need that voice. We are not going anywhere.

1668 COMMENTS

1 22 23 24
 

  1. I've just seen a tweet from Raman Bhardwaj @STV saying:

    Celtic keeper hits out at disciplinary process (3 man panel for potential retrospective punishment) "It's a strange system. You don't know who the [former] referees are and what their allegiances may be"

    I wonder if Craig Gordon's comment will attract an immediate disrepute charge from the Hampden Bunker?

    View Comment

  2. Billy Boyce 13th September 2018 at 14:56  

    =========================

    I'm glad Craig Gordon at least put the question out there. It is utterly ludicrous to think there can never be any bias involved in this process. However I acknowledge there will also be many who are as honest as the day is long. The biggest current issue for me is one out of three can scupper a ban two others think is deserved. That leaves it ripe for abuse. 

    View Comment

  3. A letter has been sent to Ian Maxwell of the SFA by the Chairman of the Celtic Supporters Association essentially echoing the sentiments expressed by Craig Gordon earlier today. 

    Has a concerted campaign been started?

    View Comment

  4. The most depressing thing about this whole referee discussion is our acceptance that referees “have allegiances” that affect their judgement. What a state: it shouldn’t really matter if the ref is called Mason Boyne and his da is a DUP mp (other cheeks are available) the general idea is to ref a game. It’s fitba ffs. 

    View Comment

  5. Here's a novel suggestion.   Scottish referees should not be allowed to be members of 'secretive' organisations like the Freemasons nor the Knights of St. Columba.  Agreed?

     

    The head of refereeing in Scotland has to provide in O'Level certificates in refereeing.  Is there such a certificate?

     

    Clare Whyte.   What a disgraceful start.  Women are no better than men.  Did you think you were going to make a difference?   Shameful.

    View Comment

  6. ernie 13th September 2018 at 20:44 

    ==============================

    English football fans must be the most depressed in the world then, given that their Refs must declare an allegiance and are then kept away from certain games! At least the English FA recognise that bias, or even the temptation to be biased is as much of a human trait as making a mistake. 

    View Comment

  7. The system for reviewing incidents – it is video that is used is it not?

    During the World Cup the VAR review folk weren't in the stadium were they?

    Not even in same city?

    Following my direction of travel here?

    Why does the review have to take place in Scotland?

    Why do the reviewers even need to be in the same room or same country?

    There is an excellent business opportunity for a mixed panel of referees and players to review remotely for an agreed price. 

    Instead of casting doubts on domestic bias of referee's (that no one in Scotland would admit to because of how it reflects badly on a society that tolerates it) turn the flaws into a business opportunity for ex refs and players.

    All it takes is to recognise that there is an inherent bias because of Scottish history, perhaps unconscious in some, that will always make internal policing open to question, and seek an alternative arrangement in the form of  a professional independent service.

    View Comment

  8. No other National Football Association in UEFA has asked for a rule clarification. Should Ajer have been sent off for trying to put the hip into McGregor's boot?

    Displacement (psychology) In Freudianpsychologydisplacement (German: Verschiebung, "shift, move") is an unconscious defence mechanism whereby the mind substitutes either a new aim or a new object for goals felt in their original form to be dangerous or unacceptable.

    Sums up the pathetic numbskulls at Hampden.

     

    View Comment

  9. The wonderful thing about all the recent incidents involving refereeing decisions is that it involves several clubs outwith Celtic.   The proof of pro 'Rangers' bias is there for all to see.  It's not just Celtic paranoia. The idiots at the SFA think we are zipped up the back. 

     

    The amount of ex referees who make a healthy living out of after dinner speeches openly boasting about pro 'Rangers' bias is legendary.  The whole bias and incompetence of referees in Scotland is beyond a joke.  Over to you Mizz Whyte. And muster Maxwell.

    View Comment

  10. This proof of pro Rangers bias. Does it involve sending off a player 10 minutes into a difficult away tie then refusing to send of an Aberdeen player for denying a clear goal.scoring opportunity? 

     

    Does it also involve sending off a player at Ibrox after 30 minutes for a tackle which could have resulted in a yellow due to ball direction? 

     

    Also, Jimbo, who are these referees that talk of rangers bias at dinner speeches. I hope your not falling for the lies of a John James here. Tut tut. 

    View Comment

  11. Shirley, the SFA must be aware that it is edging ever closer to a tipping point.

    Regardless of what p!sh the SMSM copies/pastes.

    The average Scottish football fan regards the SFA as a wholly corrupt and incompetent organisation.

    It seems that the SFA is not even bothering to try and hide its position, re: Hampden, Compliance Officer inconsistencies etc…

    If the SFA buffoons feel cornered, then they have 2 choices.

    Do the decent thing and resign en masse.

    Or, desperately fight back.  Divide and conquer.  Seed unrest and/or mistrust between clubs as a useful deflection.

    Desperate people don't always make the right choices.

    The SFA needs to disband… for the good of Scottish football.

    View Comment

  12. StevieBC, 05:13

    My confidence in Scottish Football has went so low I'am not sure if the SFA were disbanded that another organisation would be set up any better.The selection of a new SFA would be a behind the scenes secret .Though I suppose anything is better that this lot.

    View Comment

  13. Once again the fascination for getting all and sundry involved when the answer is staring us all in the face.

    Simply publish the ruling/decisions of the various panels so everyone can see and understand how and why decisions are reached.

    As discussed previously players, managers and fans are not always up to date with the laws of the game and how they should be interpreted and applied.

    Transparency would be a lesson to us all and precedents could then be used to explain, uphold or alter decisions.

    View Comment

  14. The cataclysmic  act of betrayal of Scottish Football ,by the very Governance body charged with defending the Sport's integrity, which demonstrated that that Governance body was , and continues to be, prepared to  abandon  the fundamental principle of honest sporting competition that competitors should not be allowed falsely to claim sporting honours and recognition, makes the request for clarification of a particular 'law' a farcical show of hypocrisy.

    The fundamental cheating encompassed in the 5-Way Agreement is far , far more important even than any alleged  cheating by referees, or by referee panels, because, of course, just as a fish corrupts from the head, so does any organisation. 

    If the head is rotting, so must be the body.

    And for as long as the festering sore of the 5-Way Agreement is untreated, all the huffing and puffing about 'rules' and the correct interpretation of rules, is so much eyewash.

     

     

    View Comment

  15. jimbo 13th September 2018 at 21:27  

    '.Scottish referees should not be allowed to be members of 'secretive' organisations like the Freemasons nor the Knights of St. Columba. 

    __________________________

    Good luck with that, jimbo, given that much more important persons performing functions of embracing much greater social power and importance than the refereeing of football games cannot be made even to disclose publicly whether they belong 'secret' societies!

    "In 1999, new judges were required to publicly disclose whether they were Masons.

    But after a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, the requirement was dropped in 2009. Police officers have a voluntary requirement to disclose – but only to their superiors."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17272611

    <

    p style=”margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px”>Very few , if any, of our Scottish judges were appointed before 
     

    View Comment

  16. Jimbo 00.38

    Indeed it is "legendary" Jimbo, as in having attended a couple of them personally plus friends who go to many more than myself i have yet to hear of  a referee who spouts this nonsense.

    Two decisions that didn't go the way you wanted them to is hardly "proof of bias".   

     

    View Comment

  17. Regarding EPL refs stating their allegiance, as I said depressing isn’t it. Does this mean they can’t even find decent refs with the integrity to ref a game fairly? Apparently so. As for us in Scotland we have an added bonus of  what is meant by “allegiance” with a quick whataboutery from the usual suspects last night then straight on to secret societies from guess what communities? I humbly suggest that is where our problems are. 

     

    View Comment

  18. Lawman2 

     

    To loosely use a quote from the clearly game-play aware Richard Gordon.  Whilst making no comment on ANY of the refereeing intricacies of the individual infringements that have received comment, those being Morelos at Pittodrie, Macgregor at Parkhead, the Kilmarnock lad against Hearts (sorry forgotten name) and Devlin again at Pittodrie to which I would add Gerard’s refereeing bias comments and those of Steve Clark (made since Richard wrote the piece) that if you simply put the eventual decisions post appeal into two piles, that an unconnected individual might pass comment on said piles.

    View Comment

  19. Rrrring..rrring!..Hello,hello is that Mr king?

    Nacho Novo here.Mr king i have this letter here that states when Hector comes calling and i could face financial ruin the club i played for at ibrox will see everything ok for me.

    Mr king here.Well you see Mr Novo, we are not the same club you played for at ibrox and we are not paying hector for you.But if you keep your mouth shut on that, i have a plan to see all the ebt beneficiaries ok for the future.

    My plan is this.A big fan zone,we will have all the legends and badge kissers like yourself to turn up on match days,get your pictures taken with the fans who will pay a small fee.You can sign autographs and mingle with the fans and tell them your stories of yesteryear.

    I'm offering you a job at ibrox and with the pay you get it will help you to be able to come to an agreement of a payment plan with hector.

    I need this Big fan zone to accommodate all the ebt players and make it a big thing,the fans will lap it up and believe i'm doing it for them.And it will help anyone who is in trouble with hector.That way you won't have to tell anyone we are not paying hector for you.

    You can't say no after all,think of the fans and how they would turn on you if you tried to hurt an ibrox club.

    Are you in?….ok.

    Now as soon as i can get this fan zone thing sorted, i will get my media puppets to have interviews with yourself and some others and you can tell them how you can't wait to get involved and take part and how it is going to be the best fan zone in the world,Hey! we may even call it Area 55, get it, yes the fan's will lap that up.

    Talk soon Mr Novo, Bye…

    =============

    Sorry for the OT. i'm late to the gamewink

    View Comment

  20. TheLawMan2 14th September 2018 at 03:04 3 17 Rate This This proof of pro Rangers bias. Does it involve sending off a player 10 minutes into a difficult away tie then refusing to send of an Aberdeen player for denying a clear goal.scoring opportunity? Does it also involve sending off a player at Ibrox after 30 minutes for a tackle which could have resulted in a yellow due to ball direction? Also, Jimbo, who are these referees that talk of rangers bias at dinner speeches. I hope your not falling for the lies of a John James here. Tut tut.

    ________________

     

    Back banging an old drum of yours, I see. 

     

    Strange, though, when you look at the recent controversial review decisions, only one has actually overturned a referee's decision, and that one benefitted TRFC. Then when you look at the reviews that followed, it is quite clear that the Morelos decision has created an atmosphere where kicking an opponent has to be viewed from the perspective of that decision. Suddenly, as well as a 'Bryson' we've now got a 'Morelos'.

     

    Only a blind man wouldn't see that Morelos kicked out at an opponent when the ball was nowhere near him – an offence that has always previously carried an automatic red, if spotted by an official – and your claim that the Don's defender should have been sent off is ludicrous, as Windass was nowhere near the ball at the moment of contact, and, indeed, the TRFC player in an offside position was actually closer to the ball than him, so, if Windass was, as you say, prevented from scoring a goal, then the claims that the offside flag should have gone up would trump that one.

     

    It may well be mere coincidence that TRFC are benefitting from more of these weird decisions than anyone else, but there is a history of that particular coincidence that stretches back decades for the incumbent Ibrox club, then we've got the even more ludicrous free ride for Gerrard to say whatever he likes, while Steve Clark is punished for an almost identical offence.

     

    TRFC, since it's inception, has had free rein to say whatever belligerent message it wants to deliver, Green's 'bigoterie' outburst and McCoist's 'who are these people' set the tone for what was to follow, and it has certainly follow, followed on from then.

     

    I've said what I have to say, and that's an end to this debate as far as I'm concerned. You are back, with a pathetic whimper, and, as ever, with nothing worthwhile to add. It's a bit like the cement mixer that has been silent for a while, but has just started up again, churning round and round and doing everyone's head in until it just become a background noise. Hopefully the 'off switch' will be thrown sooner than in the past – unless you can come up with something worthwhile, and new, to say.

    View Comment

  21. Also late.

    The McGregor/Ajer incident.

    I would have loved it if someone from the smsm had asked Ajer about it and he replied.

    I will get him back in the next game blush

    View Comment

  22. Caught a little bit of Sportsound last night and is was out and about with an audience in Dundee.

     

    When asked about staying at Hampden the vote 'for' only managed to get about five hands raised.

    The salient point was that it was noted when this discussion comes up on the show, people within the game go for Hampden but time after time the fans say no.

    Tom English was however clear, that like the players and officials, he enjoys a car parking space and a decent seat, free of charge and therefore his opinion and those of other within the game is somewhat irrelevant and that he is more than aware of the complaints of fans who have to deal with getting to and from Hampden and suffering the poor views from at least  3 of the 4 terraces.

    View Comment

  23. Since we're on the subject.  I'll give a little credit to my big club!

     

    Statement from AFC this morning

     

    Aberdeen FC finds the explanation provided by the SFA in relation to the Michael Devlin red card appeal unacceptable.

    The club maintains its view that the player was wrongfully dismissed, that the evidence presented was a robust defence and was overwhelmingly compelling in the player’s favour.

    In light of recent decisions taken by the SFA, the club believes it is imperative for the country’s football authorities to establish consistency and transparency in the appeal and referral process and will engage in dialogue with the SPFL in this regard to seek their assistance.

    Furthermore, at a time when technology is making a significant and positive impact across sport, the club believes that the impact of the VAR system trials in the English Premier League need to be considered if stakeholders in the game are going to regain trust in the process.

    AFC is aware that the views we have expressed are held by many who have found key appeal and referral decisions this year perplexing and want to see the governing body dealing with this proactively, with a consistent and transparent appeals process high up on the agenda.

    Doing so would enhance the game’s integrity, greatly assist referees, improve the game for fans and, ultimately, the perception of Scottish football.

    View Comment

  24. Must be feeling better laugh

    James Doleman‏ @jamesdoleman

    Thanks .@peterjukes .@TumshiePam and everyone else who has been kind enough to visit, and to all of you who have sent kind words. 😉

    10:51 AM – 14 Sep 2018

    View Comment

  25. Auldheid has posted a link on Twitter to a new etims blog, to which he has contributed, which is a review and update on the LNS decision as it relates to the WTC and non-disclosure of documents by the club, when it was in the hands of the administrators.

    http://etims.net/?p=13411

    The non disclosure of documents has always troubled me. It was considered by LNS under "Issue 4" (see paragraphs 92-102 of the final decision), but its relevance was minimised as the club was only "admonished" for these failings (paragraph 110).

    The reason I'm troubled by it, is that any inquiry that does not have access to all the information it seeks is flawed from the outset. In the context of the LNS Commission, it was fatally flawed from the outset. 

    It is clear that vital documents were deliberately withheld at the request of any of the Administrators, or RFC officials, or Murray Group officials. For LNS to minimise such actions with just an "admonishment" is shameful, particularly as the information withheld had a significant bearing on the decision making capability of the Commission on the other substantive matters (Issues 1-3).  

    View Comment

  26. Given everything that has transpired viz. the SFA, who is blocking the changes that are crying out to be made in that organisation? If the clubs are the SFA and the SFA are the clubs then it should be fairly straightforward Shirley?

    View Comment

  27. Billydug & Ex Ludo

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/reasons-behind-rangers-striker-alfredo-13242801

    So the referee is facing away from the incident and the Assistant referee had a "limited view".  

    How then could they reach the decision they did?, which of course was correctly overturned on appeal.

    Forced to play for over 80 minutes at the home of one of our closest rivals due to an error on the officials part.

    Got to love this bias toward us.

    View Comment

  28. slimjim 14th September 2018 at 15:12  

     

    Billydug & Ex Ludo

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/reasons-behind-rangers-striker-alfredo-13242801

    So the referee is facing away from the incident and the Assistant referee had a "limited view".  

    How then could they reach the decision they did?, which of course was correctly overturned on appeal.

    Forced to play for over 80 minutes at the home of one of our closest rivals due to an error on the officials part.

    Got to love this bias toward us

    ______________________

     

    So, are you saying Morelos was in some way innocent of kicking/kicking out at an opposition player? Or are you saying that the officials had decided to send Morelos off and by some miracle he'd just kicked/attempted to kick the opposition player at the same time?

     

    In my opinion, and that of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of others, Morelos was deservedly sent off; you might not agree, but to suggest the officials saw nothing, but sent him off without seeing his actions in exactly the same way that I did, is quite ludicrous! Even if the review panel were correct (but god knows how), the officials must have seen him do something that convinced them that he'd kicked his opponent, an offence that only recently appears to have been reduced to the same level as kicking the ball away.

    View Comment

  29. With regard to Steve Clarke, I'm not surprised that he has been given a Notice of Complaint for his comments about the officials regarding Dicker's red card.

    Straight leg challenge over the ball?

    https://scontent.fltn2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/40227175_1935906796447987_5169280748926009344_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=f191153b3ad8a9fab0baf7969b3a9e2e&oe=5C31E609

    https://media.giphy.com/media/1QgJgkcOsvghCOkL4m/giphy.gif

    I am surprised however ……………  sorry I'm not surprised that Gerrard and Jack weren't given Notices of Complaint for similarly disparaging comments about officials.

     

    View Comment

  30. Allyjambo 14th September 2018 at 15:56  

    What was missing  a fourth official shouting"foul ,foul, foul !" or an ass. ref screaming "red card , red card ,red card !".  When are these people going to grow up and start behaving like adults rather than pubescent supporters ?

    View Comment

  31. paddy malarkey 14th September 2018 at 16:30 Allyjambo 14th September 2018 at 15:56 What was missing a fourth official shouting"foul ,foul, foul !" or an ass. ref screaming "red card , red card ,red card !". When are these people going to grow up and start behaving like adults rather than pubescent supporters ?

    _____________________

     

    It does seem ludicrously impossible for 1, 2 or 3 match officials not to see something happen, but then to get their decision correct (or, as some would have us believe, very nearly get it correct).

     

    I am of the opinion that some referees have reacted, from time to time, when a player goes down dramatically and, not having witnessed the 'incident' give a red on the assumption that an offence has been committed – but from memory, in this case, McKenna didn't even stumble, so the decision could only have been given as a result of at least one official seeing Morelos kick out.

     

    Besides, as EJ's pic clearly shows, the linesman only had a bad view of the crowd behind him, and as perfect a view of Morelos kicking McKenna as any linesman could ever hope to have! Proof positive that anyone claiming the linesman had a poor view of the incident is very biased indeed.

    View Comment

  32. easyJambo 14th September 2018 at 14:23
    3 0 Rate This

    Auldheid has posted a link on Twitter to a new etims blog, to which he has contributed, which is a review and update on the LNS decision as it relates to the WTC and non-disclosure of documents by the club, when it was in the hands of the administrators.

    http://etims.net/?p=13411

    Given that the payments to De Boer (and Flo) under the DOS ebt with side letters were clearly detailed along with the justification HMRC had for collection under Extended Limits (over 6 years) , which was RFC had denied the existence of those side letters to HMRC, then why was there no sufficiently clear evidence unless it was deliberately not provided to SPL lawyers by RFC Administrators Paul Clark and David Whitehouse as part of the SPL investigation beginning 5th March 2012, months before LNS provided his reasons?

    How it was reported on March 6th 2012.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/971146793160531968?p=v

    View Comment

  33. AJ 15.56

    Where did i say they seen nothing?. I asked how they could have reached this decision given the admitted lack of clarity regarding the "kick"  from Alfredo Morelos

    The referee acted upon the call from the assistant referee, who by his own admission had a "limited view" of the incident. Did, for instance this view allow him to witness the initial contact (foul)  by the Aberdeen defender.

    I said in the immediate aftermath of the incident that Morelos wasn't guilty of violent conduct as he neither used excessive force or brutality, you rubbished this without seemingly being aware of the rules

    .Not sure whether you have read the written reasons of the fast track Tribunal.or not but they include the following. 

    "The tribunal accepted the clubs submission that the video footage clearly showed that the force of the kick towards an opponent was not excessive and did not use brutality. Therefore, it could not constitute an sending off offence for violent conduct." . Seems pretty clear to me and thousands of other Rangers fans. that the match officials were incorrect in this case, given the rules as they stand at present. Your opinion i'm afraid is just that, your opinion.

    I would be more than happy to see more openness & transparency from the match officials.I may then get an answer into how Scott Brown has been allowed to use an elbow to the face of at least three Rangers players (Miller, Holt & Morelos) in recent games without receiving the appropriate punishment. 

    View Comment

  34. slimjim 14th September 2018 at 18:22

    “The tribunal accepted the clubs submission that the video footage clearly showed that the force of the kick towards an opponent was not excessive and did not use brutality.
    ……………………………………

    Something that cannot be said of the McGregor/Ajer incident

    View Comment

  35. @slimjim 14th September 2018 at 18:22  

    ===========

    First, whether a player is fouled is neither here nor there if he reacts with a kick at the other player.  You often see a player sent off after a bad foul (which wasn't the case here, possibly a foul, maybe not) .  Any reaction like that usually leads to a red card.

    Force of the kick is neither here nor there.  It can be an excuse where an attempted tackle results in a bad foul but not where it is merely a kick at a player.  Also very often seen is a player sent off for raising their hands and attempting to strike another player – even if it's powder-puff hardly touching it's usually a red card.  As is placing your head against an opponent and making a small (but not serious) head butting motion.  In none of these situations is the force of the action important.  

    I say "usually" because sometimes refs are lenient and don't give a red card for whatever reason.  But when they do, nobody argues that it shouldn't have been a red.  Well except in certain cases.

    I should also add that if the ref committee you quote from are serious then they are saying it’s OK to go around kicking players as long as it’s not too hard a kick (and who judges that?) for the worst you’ll get is a yellow?

    View Comment

  36. limjim 14th September 2018 at 18:22  

     

    AJ 15.56

    Where did i say they seen nothing?. I asked how they could have reached this decision given the admitted lack of clarity regarding the "kick"  from Alfredo Morelos

    The referee acted upon the call from the assistant referee, who by his own admission had a "limited view" of the incident. Did, for instance this view allow him to witness the initial contact (foul)  by the Aberdeen defender.

    I said in the immediate aftermath of the incident that Morelos wasn't guilty of violent conduct as he neither used excessive force or brutality, you rubbished this without seemingly being aware of the rules

    .Not sure whether you have read the written reasons of the fast track Tribunal.or not but they include the following. 

    "The tribunal accepted the clubs submission that the video footage clearly showed that the force of the kick towards an opponent was not excessive and did not use brutality. Therefore, it could not constitute an sending off offence for violent conduct." . Seems pretty clear to me and thousands of other Rangers fans. that the match officials were incorrect in this case, given the rules as they stand at present. Your opinion i'm afraid is just that, your opinion.

    I would be more than happy to see more openness & transparency from the match officials.I may then get an answer into how Scott Brown has been allowed to use an elbow to the face of at least three Rangers players (Miller, Holt & Morelos) in recent games without receiving the appropriate punishment.

    ______________________

     

    If the Morelos kick was not a sending off affair, then, in my rather long experience of both playing and watching football, I've witnessed an untold number of players wrongly sent off for kicking an opponent.

     

    You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the hot topic at the moment is the lack of trust supporters, and perhaps some clubs, hold towards the SFA and their ability to reach unbiased decisions. Why should we trust the opinions some of unnamed referees to determine what is, or isn't, excessive force?

     

    To any sensible person, a deliberate kick at another person is, by it's nature, 'excessive force', for there is no other purpose than for it to cause, at the very least, uncalled for discomfort and, quite probably, injury. Do you know just how much force is required to break a leg, or damage ligaments? For if you don't, you are not in a position to determine what is, or isn't, excessive force. And neither is a referee reviewing an incident on a TV.

     

    I took a kick in a game to my knee with no more force than that that appears to be issued by Morelos, and it was a genuine tackle, for I had the ball – unlike McKenna. It was sore, but I played on. My knee was sore all week, but I was desperate to play on the Saturday and I went over on the same knee, with no one near me. I never played football again (other than the odd kick around).

     

    It is one thing receiving a kick in a genuine joust for the ball, it's a whole other thing when the ball is nowhere near, and so, unless one is trying to defend the indefensible, all kicks deliberately aimed at an opponent must be deemed to be using excessive force.

     

    Anyway, take a look at the pic EJ posted and tell me that you see a linesman with a blocked view, at the exact moment Morelos' foot is in the air – at knee height. If he didn't have a clear view of that, he must have had his eyes shut, or has suddenly got an enforced bout of temporary blindness when given the opportunity to change his mind.

     

    Strangely enough, if McKenna had had the ball, and what Morelos did was some kind of tackle, he could well have been sent off for a dangerous tackle. Players have been sent off for similar, or even less.

     

    At a time when we have had a number of dodgy reviews resulting in rather surprising decisions, only one has gone against the original decision made by the referee. What's more, of those incidents involving deliberate kicks, it's the one most likely to have caused serious injury if it's apparent target had been met.

    View Comment

  37. coineanachantaighe 07.34

    The reason i mentioned the initial foul by the Aberdeen defender is that there was a split second between this and the reaction of Alfredo Morelos. 

    If as you say "force of the kick is neither here nor there" then why include the word excessive when pertaining to violent conduct then.

    The "ref committee" i quoted from are the panel of the SFA fast track tribunal. Here are the reasons behind a couple of recent incidents explained for you.

    https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/4112/reasons-fast-track-tribunal-morelos.pdf

    https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/4196/reasons-fast-track-tribunal-dicker-kilmarnock-fc.pdf.

     

    View Comment

  38. AJ 19.57

    I will admit that like you this was my belief until reading how violent conduct is now defined.

    Do you not think that the Rangers support have a lack of trust toward the SFA.This.is not exclusive to non-Rangers fans by any stretch of the imagination.

    By your own definition a simple finger to the chest of an opponent could be considered excessive force as there is no cause for it.

    It was the Assistant referee himself who said he had a" restricted view" of the incident. 

    There have been many instances of as you say "surprising decisions" going back several seasons and not just this one. The big difference this time however is that Rangers are perceived to have been the beneficiaries, disregarding the fact that we have had three red cards overturned  in the past 14 months or so.Where was the outrage on here, at the standard of officiating when this was happening.?

    Two grandchildren aged 1 & 3 arriving at 9.00 pm for an overnight stay so their father can police the streets on a Friday evening so apologies in advance for my lack of a responses to any further discussion on the subject.

    Goodnight.  

    View Comment

  39. EJ & AJ

     

    Was with my Jambo pal and his wife this afternoon.  He has not been well recently.   I tried to goad him calling Naismith a thug – naw he's a good player!!!    Telt him Levein is an eejit – naw I think he's OK!!!!!!

     

    Please pray for him, he has lost it.

    View Comment

  40. Just back from successful hunt for a lost dog (two bleeding hours in the dark !) . I think things might be fun tomorrow wrt refereeing decisions given what I saw on the tv earlier . See what happens when you bring things into focus ? Every decision will be thoroughly scrutinised and whitabootery will abound . Out of curiosity , did anybody get to know the fourth official's viewpoint of the erroneous Morelos red card ?

    View Comment

  41. The dog is fine Jimbo ,thanks for asking . The eejit is my mate who is staying with me with his twa bitches . He let one out for some air and she probably went off chasing one of the millions of rabbits here . When we found her she was cold wet and scared  . Sorted now . She's strange to here and must have lost her scent . I am now wide awake and sober so mibbes need a beer or three , but we're up again at seven .

    View Comment

  42. Brilliant Paddy,  Not sure who you are playing tomorrow but as usual I support PT providing they are not playing Celtic!  God Bless you mate and everyone on this site.   Especially DBD, Slim Jim, and God help him Lawman2, his soul is in peril.cool  (Only kidding!)

    View Comment
1 22 23 24
 

Comments are closed.