VAR and biased refs

[stalbanshibby]

I just thought I'd throw this in the mix:
(please forgive if it's been posted elsewhere)

With the spotlight or VARlight on refs at the minute (and quite rightly so) and the standard of refereeing being highlighted as so poor, I was wondering about this:

On another thread, someone came up with some stats that said Celtic had had 13 pens awarded this season; Rangers 12; Hibs 2. Rangers are notorious for hardly ever getting a pen awarded against them.

As part of that I can't forget the pen that was awarded to Celtic against us after a 5 min VAR review (Joe Newell's tackle) compared with some blatant VAR decisions that have gone against us; or worse still not bothering to review at all (e.g the Aberdeen handball; Vente's goal against Hearts - never offside and others, including soft handballs in the box being awarded against us)

Consider the above with the widely held perception (at least amongst Hibs supporters) that refs in Scotland are biased - mostly Glasgow based for a start; then they're either protestant (therefore Rangers leaning - e.g. John Beaton is often called 'brother Beaton') and although apparently Edinburgh based Clancy has to be a Jambo after that performance; and the fact that Scotland is a relatively small country, with some pretty enclosed and not at all wide ranging parameters as to 'which camp you're in', and therefore your predisposition; it seems to me to be actually quite difficult to NOT be biased in some way, even unconsciously (or blatantly)

So if you take a grain of substance out of the above, does that infer that a team like Hibs, catholic in origin and therefore in the minority or at least non 'establishment' in Scotland (consider Hearts and Rangers as establishment), in order to get a level playing field have to absolutely out perform other teams in the league in a football sense, and then some to overcome referees' bias, to be successful? Well obviously if Hibs perform well and score more goals than the opposition they'll accrue more points, but it so often seems as though Hibs in particular are playing against 12 men - it felt like that in the Derby for sure.

I don't think, for a team like Hibs it does level out over a season. I think we're seen as low hanging fruit when it comes to refs being able to exercise their bias.

So. Just thought I'd put that out there for discussion. I have my suit of armour on.

[Se7enUp]

I think there's a variety of things going on.
Old Firm versus the rest ... a referee will, possibly without too much thought, always be biased towards the OF, because of the intense media scrutiny and the mass pile-ons from the hordes.

Old Firm vs each other ... a ref will probably handle very neutrally, to avoid the media scrutiny etc ... occasionally, weirdos like Masonic Lodge Beaton slip through the net.

Hearts/Aberdeen vs the rest ... some bias towards giving them the decisions, vecause they're like squealing pigs with quite a high media representation on Sportsound etc

Hibs vs the rest ... almost always heavy on the anti-Hibs decisions, simply because our club is soft as ****, and the refs can show who's in charge when reffing a big club without fear of getting a hard time afterwards.

[BILLYHIBS]

Celtic only conceded their first penalty in the League on Sunday albeit soft and it is March

Accidental clash of heads in the box at Easter Road - Penalty to Celtic

The Rangers’ record on penalties for and against has been done to death it is embarrassing

Still too many refs from the West of Scotland and the greater Glasgow area it is like they cannot help themselves and have an unconscious bias

Kevin Clancy last week knew he was wrong but there was no way he was changing his original decision despite being asked to look again The level of incompetence is bordering on cheating and is ruining the game we love and Hibs always seem to be on the receiving end you just know what is coming on Sunday unbelievable

[Booked4Being-Ugly]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think there's a variety of things going on.
Old Firm versus the rest ... a referee will, possibly without too much thought, always be biased towards the OF, because of the intense media scrutiny and the mass pile-ons from the hordes.

Old Firm vs each other ... a ref will probably handle very neutrally, to avoid the media scrutiny etc ... occasionally, weirdos like Masonic Lodge Beaton slip through the net.

Hearts/Aberdeen vs the rest ... some bias towards giving them the decisions, vecause they're like squealing pigs with quite a high media representation on Sportsound etc

Hibs vs the rest ... almost always heavy on the anti-Hibs decisions, simply because our club is soft as ****, and the refs can show who's in charge when reffing a big club without fear of getting a hard time afterwards.

Said as much to my mate (who is neutral when it comes to Scottish fitba) when I showed him the Hearts penalty against us, and he couldn't believe what he saw.

I told him there's a tiered system when it comes to decisions (ref and VAR) almost exactly as you highlighted. The stats will back it up as well no doubt, showing Hibs consistently getting roughly the same number of decisions for and against every season. There will probably be the odd exception but generally I think you're spot on with your assessment and reasoning.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Therefore roll on the advent of AI video based refereeing for completely independent unbiased decision making in adherence to the rules of the game.

probably everyone wound hate it :)

but back in reality here’s another spectre raising its head under the guise of a reasonable suggestion on the face of it… players being on the panel… just another way for the uglies to expert their influence …

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think there's a variety of things going on.
Old Firm versus the rest ... a referee will, possibly without too much thought, always be biased towards the OF, because of the intense media scrutiny and the mass pile-ons from the hordes.

Old Firm vs each other ... a ref will probably handle very neutrally, to avoid the media scrutiny etc ... occasionally, weirdos like Masonic Lodge Beaton slip through the net.

Hearts/Aberdeen vs the rest ... some bias towards giving them the decisions, vecause they're like squealing pigs with quite a high media representation on Sportsound etc

Hibs vs the rest ... almost always heavy on the anti-Hibs decisions, simply because our club is soft as ****, and the refs can show who's in charge when reffing a big club without fear of getting a hard time afterwards.

This is a hot topic of mine at the moment. On the face of it, there's no good reason for there to be any anti-Hibs agenda from the referees. There just isn't. If you assume that the referees all get into refereeing for the right reasons and they are just trying to do a good job, then why would they pick on Hibs.

That said - and this is where I'm torn - Scottish football isn't rational and you can't just assume that the referees are all whiter than white and able to remain completely impartial. In fact, there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary now - and that evidence is pretty damning.

For a start, there is inarguably a two-tier system in Scottish football. There is the Glasgow two, and then there is everyone else.

From the word go, they are treated favourably before a ball is kicked. Rangers and Celtic always get an established referee for their games. The likes of Craig Napier hasn't refereed Rangers or Celtic in the last 12 months. We've had him three times.

Rangers and Celtic do not get referees on their way up, now you can argue that this is because referees need to get used to big crowds etc, and there is some merit in that, but that should be the SFA's problem, not ours and the other clubs.

So right away, we're subjected to a different standard of referee from the Glasgow clubs.

Next you have the approach taken in games with Rangers and Celtic where the referee "keeps his cards in his pocket as long as possible". That means Rangers and Celtic get to foul with impunity for large chunks of matches, whereas the same fouls committed by a Hibs player gets punished. Therefore we're at a higher risk of suspensions, and are more likely to have players walking a tightrope on a booking than a Rangers or Celtic player.

Then you look at the way that clubs are covered in the media. A contentious decision against either Rangers or Celtic is covered in depth and at length by the media, whereas the same decision against (almost) everyone else is discussed immediately after the game and then it becomes a footnote and forgotten about.

If you are a referee, you're going to be aware of that and it's very easy to understand how a referee would err on the side of caution and give the decision in favour of Rangers or Celtic rather than invite that pile-on that follows if they actually give the decision they're meant to.

That's before you consider the pressure on the referees that comes with the large support that follow Rangers and Celtic (easy to note how readily the referee gave Hearts a contentious penalty on Sunday, with a large Hearts support and very few Celtic fans in attendance). Would he have given that at Parkhead in the same fixture? Impossible to say for certain, but I very much doubt it.

And then you can look at the various and numerous decisions that we've been pumped with this season. VAR is in place, there is no reasonable excuse for these mistakes, when we talk about human error we usually talk about the fallibility of an individual, here we are looking at a team of officials being consistently incompetent to the detriment of Hibs. How likely is it that they *all* make the honest mistake collectively?

This has gone full on 'too long; didn't read' but one last point is to consider the past with referees, from masonic handshakes, to retired referees boasting about favouring Rangers, to Jim Farry sabotaging Celtic's transfer business, to Hugh Dallas circulating sectarian emails, to Alan Stubbs telling of a referee informing him that there was no way Celtic were getting a penalty against Rangers, to a referee telling Craig Levin his team was getting nothing from him.

How much evidence do you actually need before you accept that these aren't honest mistakes made by well-meaning referees? The system is burst, it might not be every referee, but the game is rigged against us from the start.

[Keith_M]

One of the worst refereeing displays I've ever seen was when Hearts had four players red carded at Ibrox.

Some of the decisions were just farcical, e.g. the Hearts defender red carded for arguing with the linesman (who had just made an appealing decision in Rangers favour).

It might surprise some people but, despite it being Hearts, I was disgusted at the ref's display that day

Sadly, that kind of thing is pretty much the norm nowadays.

[Joe6-2]

Brendan Rogers charged by SFA for complaining about officials.
This is another reason the cheats can do what the hell they like.

[LunasBoots]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Brendan Rogers charged by SFA for complaining about officials.
This is another reason the cheats can do what the hell they like.

Begs the question why was no action taken against Rangers for there outburst a few months back...

[Zazu62]

A week after Clancy cheating and it just gets swept under the carpet, he’s probably laughing about it right now

[Waxy]

Wonder what var would have made of Griffiths free kick at ER around ten years ago once again against hearts?
Wonder if we still use linesman with no eyes.

[Carheenlea]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Begs the question why was no action taken against Rangers for there outburst a few months back...

They got invited round for tea and scones to smooth things over.

[Real Emerald]

That Hearts xxxx will still be getting pints bought for him down Gorgie. Disgraceful.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wonder what var would have made of Griffiths free kick at ER around ten years ago once again against hearts?
Wonder if we still use linesman with no eyes.

Would VAR have intervened for that? Genuinely not sure if, because it’s not goal line technology, it can be used to call the referee’s attention to the mistake.

Anyone know?

[WeeRussell]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Would VAR have intervened for that? Genuinely not sure if, because it’s not goal line technology, it can be used to call the referee’s attention to the mistake.

Anyone know?

I can’t say for a fact but surely they would intervene on the basis that it’s a clear and obvious error in relation to a goal?

[PHeffernan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Brendan Rogers charged by SFA for complaining about officials.
This is another reason the cheats can do what the hell they like.

No, he has been charged for breaching disciplinary rule 72, which states

No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA, shall in an interview, a ‘blog’ on the internet, on a social networking or microblogging site, or in any other manner calculated or likely to lead to publicity
(i) criticise the Decision(s) and/or performance(s) of any or all match official(s) in such a way as to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official; or (ii) make remarks about such match official(s) which impinge on his character.


Rogers is clearly guilty of breaching the rule and has rightly been charged by the SFA

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can’t say for a fact but surely they would intervene on the basis that it’s a clear and obvious error in relation to a goal?

I don’t know if they check if the goal isn’t given, though?

You know how there are set criteria for when VAR can get involved, I’m not sure if it’s used for goal line issues.

[Libby Hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don’t know if they check if the goal isn’t given, though?

You know how there are set criteria for when VAR can get involved, I’m not sure if it’s used for goal line issues.

Would it not go down as a clear and obvious error if such a situation arose?

[Se7enUp]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is a hot topic of mine at the moment. On the face of it, there's no good reason for there to be any anti-Hibs agenda from the referees. There just isn't. If you assume that the referees all get into refereeing for the right reasons and they are just trying to do a good job, then why would they pick on Hibs.

That said - and this is where I'm torn - Scottish football isn't rational and you can't just assume that the referees are all whiter than white and able to remain completely impartial. In fact, there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary now - and that evidence is pretty damning.

For a start, there is inarguably a two-tier system in Scottish football. There is the Glasgow two, and then there is everyone else.

From the word go, they are treated favourably before a ball is kicked. Rangers and Celtic always get an established referee for their games. The likes of Craig Napier hasn't refereed Rangers or Celtic in the last 12 months. We've had him three times.

Rangers and Celtic do not get referees on their way up, now you can argue that this is because referees need to get used to big crowds etc, and there is some merit in that, but that should be the SFA's problem, not ours and the other clubs.

So right away, we're subjected to a different standard of referee from the Glasgow clubs.

Next you have the approach taken in games with Rangers and Celtic where the referee "keeps his cards in his pocket as long as possible". That means Rangers and Celtic get to foul with impunity for large chunks of matches, whereas the same fouls committed by a Hibs player gets punished. Therefore we're at a higher risk of suspensions, and are more likely to have players walking a tightrope on a booking than a Rangers or Celtic player.

Then you look at the way that clubs are covered in the media. A contentious decision against either Rangers or Celtic is covered in depth and at length by the media, whereas the same decision against (almost) everyone else is discussed immediately after the game and then it becomes a footnote and forgotten about.

If you are a referee, you're going to be aware of that and it's very easy to understand how a referee would err on the side of caution and give the decision in favour of Rangers or Celtic rather than invite that pile-on that follows if they actually give the decision they're meant to.

That's before you consider the pressure on the referees that comes with the large support that follow Rangers and Celtic (easy to note how readily the referee gave Hearts a contentious penalty on Sunday, with a large Hearts support and very few Celtic fans in attendance). Would he have given that at Parkhead in the same fixture? Impossible to say for certain, but I very much doubt it.

And then you can look at the various and numerous decisions that we've been pumped with this season. VAR is in place, there is no reasonable excuse for these mistakes, when we talk about human error we usually talk about the fallibility of an individual, here we are looking at a team of officials being consistently incompetent to the detriment of Hibs. How likely is it that they *all* make the honest mistake collectively?

This has gone full on 'too long; didn't read' but one last point is to consider the past with referees, from masonic handshakes, to retired referees boasting about favouring Rangers, to Jim Farry sabotaging Celtic's transfer business, to Hugh Dallas circulating sectarian emails, to Alan Stubbs telling of a referee informing him that there was no way Celtic were getting a penalty against Rangers, to a referee telling Craig Levin his team was getting nothing from him.

How much evidence do you actually need before you accept that these aren't honest mistakes made by well-meaning referees? The system is burst, it might not be every referee, but the game is rigged against us from the start.

Well said ... wonder how Tom English would've responded 🤔

[gbhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wonder what var would have made of Griffiths free kick at ER around ten years ago once again against hearts?
Wonder if we still use linesman with no eyes.

Is it not a clear and obvious error?
Remember that lino mouthing to Leigh that it was not over the line.
If there is nothing to hide the clubs so be allowed to hear the conversations between VAR and the onfield refs as there may be lessons to be learned on both sides

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Would it not go down as a clear and obvious error if such a situation arose?

There are only specific clear and obvious errors VAR is allowed to intervene with. I’m not sure if goal line reviews are one.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well said ... wonder how Tom English would've responded 🤔

When we spoke about VAR, Tom’s view was that they were human errors but iirc (and I’m going from memory here) the coverage that Rangers and Celtic get plays a part in decisions.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Would VAR have intervened for that? Genuinely not sure if, because it’s not goal line technology, it can be used to call the referee’s attention to the mistake.

Anyone know?

"Goal check" would come up surely.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"Goal check" would come up surely.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Do they not go the check after a goal is awarded though?

I’d like to think they’d intervene, I’m just not sure if the rules of VAR permit it. I’m not saying they don’t - i just don’t know if that situation is covered.


Anyway, it’s an old clip that i saw on Twitter just now, and it’s funny because i it’s Levein, but he’s absolutely nailed why referees are biased towards Rangers and Celtic here:

https://x.com/zeshankenzo/status/176...Ggie80A2m3HH1A


Edit: on VAR https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/...ions-incidents i think the goal/no goal point covers it so you’d expect VAR to intervene for Griffiths’ free kick if it happened now.

[stalbanshibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is a hot topic of mine at the moment. On the face of it, there's no good reason for there to be any anti-Hibs agenda from the referees. There just isn't. If you assume that the referees all get into refereeing for the right reasons and they are just trying to do a good job, then why would they pick on Hibs.

That said - and this is where I'm torn - Scottish football isn't rational and you can't just assume that the referees are all whiter than white and able to remain completely impartial. In fact, there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary now - and that evidence is pretty damning.

For a start, there is inarguably a two-tier system in Scottish football. There is the Glasgow two, and then there is everyone else.

From the word go, they are treated favourably before a ball is kicked. Rangers and Celtic always get an established referee for their games. The likes of Craig Napier hasn't refereed Rangers or Celtic in the last 12 months. We've had him three times.

Rangers and Celtic do not get referees on their way up, now you can argue that this is because referees need to get used to big crowds etc, and there is some merit in that, but that should be the SFA's problem, not ours and the other clubs.

So right away, we're subjected to a different standard of referee from the Glasgow clubs.

Next you have the approach taken in games with Rangers and Celtic where the referee "keeps his cards in his pocket as long as possible". That means Rangers and Celtic get to foul with impunity for large chunks of matches, whereas the same fouls committed by a Hibs player gets punished. Therefore we're at a higher risk of suspensions, and are more likely to have players walking a tightrope on a booking than a Rangers or Celtic player.

Then you look at the way that clubs are covered in the media. A contentious decision against either Rangers or Celtic is covered in depth and at length by the media, whereas the same decision against (almost) everyone else is discussed immediately after the game and then it becomes a footnote and forgotten about.

If you are a referee, you're going to be aware of that and it's very easy to understand how a referee would err on the side of caution and give the decision in favour of Rangers or Celtic rather than invite that pile-on that follows if they actually give the decision they're meant to.

That's before you consider the pressure on the referees that comes with the large support that follow Rangers and Celtic (easy to note how readily the referee gave Hearts a contentious penalty on Sunday, with a large Hearts support and very few Celtic fans in attendance). Would he have given that at Parkhead in the same fixture? Impossible to say for certain, but I very much doubt it.

And then you can look at the various and numerous decisions that we've been pumped with this season. VAR is in place, there is no reasonable excuse for these mistakes, when we talk about human error we usually talk about the fallibility of an individual, here we are looking at a team of officials being consistently incompetent to the detriment of Hibs. How likely is it that they *all* make the honest mistake collectively?

This has gone full on 'too long; didn't read' but one last point is to consider the past with referees, from masonic handshakes, to retired referees boasting about favouring Rangers, to Jim Farry sabotaging Celtic's transfer business, to Hugh Dallas circulating sectarian emails, to Alan Stubbs telling of a referee informing him that there was no way Celtic were getting a penalty against Rangers, to a referee telling Craig Levin his team was getting nothing from him.

How much evidence do you actually need before you accept that these aren't honest mistakes made by well-meaning referees? The system is burst, it might not be every referee, but the game is rigged against us from the start.

This.

And the Levein clip was classic.

The SFA have a bunker mentality, and are bound to defend current refs, even although they admit to the odd VAR error, but the officiating in Scottish football is NOT a level playing field, and never has been. So now that VAR is showing all this up so graphically and consistently, what's the remedy? Refereeing SHOULD be just on football merit, and refs SHOULD be impartial, but clearly aren't. Is it not now in the interest of Scottish football - because the bias (conscious or unconscious) of Scottish refs is so blatant - to consider bringing in foreign referees? Is this not something that FIFA or UEFA should be considering in all leagues across Europe to try to eliminate the accusation? For the good of the game? As Hibs supporters we've nothing to lose, but I'd bet the uglies and the media would be dead against this (because they'd lose their current preferred treatment).

I've no sympathy for Celtic, but 'Brother' Beaton calls two contentious decisions against Celtic in the Hearts game, and Brendan Rogers calls him on it. Is Brendan not just saying what the rest of us are thinking?

And also I mean really, how can referees justify spending 5 minutes interrogating footage for a borderline penalty (Newell v Celtic - this one really gets my goat) and then not even review the Devlin handball, and not expect criticism.

Refs get to shrug their shoulders: 'I'm just doing my job based on what I see in front of me' and there's no accountability. Other than experience, are refs in Scotland selected for games based on even a hint of possible predisposition to bias being taken into account? Or do SFA have an assumption (clearly not correct based on the evidence) of impartiality amongst all the refs they have at their disposal? I've no idea. Anyone know?

[Winston Ingram]

I’m not sure it’s them being biased against Hibs. I think it’s because they genuinely don’t care about about all clubs outside the Uglies, because they face practically zero scrutiny from anywhere.

Give a decision against the uglies that they don’t like, the weegia are talking about it for days. Prime examples are the Yang sending off at the PBS and the Casey tackle at Ibrox at the weekend.

Compare that to the penalty given v us last week at the PBS. Barely a mention after Thursday morning.

Then compare it to England. There was a dubious penalty given for Sheffield United v Wolves. That was talked about for days.

[Craigmount Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I just thought I'd throw this in the mix:
(please forgive if it's been posted elsewhere)

With the spotlight or VARlight on refs at the minute (and quite rightly so) and the standard of refereeing being highlighted as so poor, I was wondering about this:

On another thread, someone came up with some stats that said Celtic had had 13 pens awarded this season; Rangers 12; Hibs 2. Rangers are notorious for hardly ever getting a pen awarded against them.

As part of that I can't forget the pen that was awarded to Celtic against us after a 5 min VAR review (Joe Newell's tackle) compared with some blatant VAR decisions that have gone against us; or worse still not bothering to review at all (e.g the Aberdeen handball; Vente's goal against Hearts - never offside and others, including soft handballs in the box being awarded against us)

Consider the above with the widely held perception (at least amongst Hibs supporters) that refs in Scotland are biased - mostly Glasgow based for a start; then they're either protestant (therefore Rangers leaning - e.g. John Beaton is often called 'brother Beaton') and although apparently Edinburgh based Clancy has to be a Jambo after that performance; and the fact that Scotland is a relatively small country, with some pretty enclosed and not at all wide ranging parameters as to 'which camp you're in', and therefore your predisposition; it seems to me to be actually quite difficult to NOT be biased in some way, even unconsciously (or blatantly)

So if you take a grain of substance out of the above, does that infer that a team like Hibs, catholic in origin and therefore in the minority or at least non 'establishment' in Scotland (consider Hearts and Rangers as establishment), in order to get a level playing field have to absolutely out perform other teams in the league in a football sense, and then some to overcome referees' bias, to be successful? Well obviously if Hibs perform well and score more goals than the opposition they'll accrue more points, but it so often seems as though Hibs in particular are playing against 12 men - it felt like that in the Derby for sure.

I don't think, for a team like Hibs it does level out over a season. I think we're seen as low hanging fruit when it comes to refs being able to exercise their bias.

So. Just thought I'd put that out there for discussion. I have my suit of armour on.

Great post.
For awareness, the incompetent muppet that is Kevin Clancy supports The Rangers.

[Brizo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is a hot topic of mine at the moment. On the face of it, there's no good reason for there to be any anti-Hibs agenda from the referees. There just isn't. If you assume that the referees all get into refereeing for the right reasons and they are just trying to do a good job, then why would they pick on Hibs.

That said - and this is where I'm torn - Scottish football isn't rational and you can't just assume that the referees are all whiter than white and able to remain completely impartial. In fact, there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary now - and that evidence is pretty damning.

For a start, there is inarguably a two-tier system in Scottish football. There is the Glasgow two, and then there is everyone else.

From the word go, they are treated favourably before a ball is kicked. Rangers and Celtic always get an established referee for their games. The likes of Craig Napier hasn't refereed Rangers or Celtic in the last 12 months. We've had him three times.

Rangers and Celtic do not get referees on their way up, now you can argue that this is because referees need to get used to big crowds etc, and there is some merit in that, but that should be the SFA's problem, not ours and the other clubs.

So right away, we're subjected to a different standard of referee from the Glasgow clubs.

Next you have the approach taken in games with Rangers and Celtic where the referee "keeps his cards in his pocket as long as possible". That means Rangers and Celtic get to foul with impunity for large chunks of matches, whereas the same fouls committed by a Hibs player gets punished. Therefore we're at a higher risk of suspensions, and are more likely to have players walking a tightrope on a booking than a Rangers or Celtic player.

Then you look at the way that clubs are covered in the media. A contentious decision against either Rangers or Celtic is covered in depth and at length by the media, whereas the same decision against (almost) everyone else is discussed immediately after the game and then it becomes a footnote and forgotten about.

If you are a referee, you're going to be aware of that and it's very easy to understand how a referee would err on the side of caution and give the decision in favour of Rangers or Celtic rather than invite that pile-on that follows if they actually give the decision they're meant to.

That's before you consider the pressure on the referees that comes with the large support that follow Rangers and Celtic (easy to note how readily the referee gave Hearts a contentious penalty on Sunday, with a large Hearts support and very few Celtic fans in attendance). Would he have given that at Parkhead in the same fixture? Impossible to say for certain, but I very much doubt it.

And then you can look at the various and numerous decisions that we've been pumped with this season. VAR is in place, there is no reasonable excuse for these mistakes, when we talk about human error we usually talk about the fallibility of an individual, here we are looking at a team of officials being consistently incompetent to the detriment of Hibs. How likely is it that they *all* make the honest mistake collectively?

This has gone full on 'too long; didn't read' but one last point is to consider the past with referees, from masonic handshakes, to retired referees boasting about favouring Rangers, to Jim Farry sabotaging Celtic's transfer business, to Hugh Dallas circulating sectarian emails, to Alan Stubbs telling of a referee informing him that there was no way Celtic were getting a penalty against Rangers, to a referee telling Craig Levin his team was getting nothing from him.

How much evidence do you actually need before you accept that these aren't honest mistakes made by well-meaning referees? The system is burst, it might not be every referee, but the game is rigged against us from the start.

Great post.

For me its a combination of incompetence and corruption which makes it difficult to know where one starts and the other ends but both are definitely at play. To use one of Graham Spiers favourite phrases the "body of evidence" is too large and has been going on for too long to lead to any other conclusion.

The referee hierarchies doubling down this week to defend themselves against Celtics complaints and citing safety of officials and families , while a valid concern , was also deflection of a crisis that they have no interest in addressing because they're perfectly happy for the OF (with Rangers and Celtic in that order) status quo to continue.

[stalbanshibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Great post.
For awareness, the incompetent muppet that is Kevin Clancy supports The Rangers.

Thanks.

Clancy's a Hun - I didn't know that, but isn't the axis Huns/ lesser Huns (i.e. Rangers/ Hearts) -the 'establishment' teams. Then there's Celtic with a massive support, and sway in Scottish football, but catholic in origin, and so we fall into that camp but without the sway.

So how do the SFA pick refs for games? What criteria do they apply? Do they even consider the individuals who they choose in terms of allegiance and personal background or do they just make a blind assumption that they'll be 'professional' in their decision making even when they're not - they're amateurs?

[stalbanshibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Great post.

For me its a combination of incompetence and corruption which makes it difficult to know where one starts and the other ends but both are definitely at play. To use one of Graham Spiers favourite phrases the "body of evidence" is too large and has been going on for too long to lead to any other conclusion.

The referee hierarchies doubling down this week to defend themselves against Celtics complaints and citing safety of officials and families , while a valid concern , was also deflection of a crisis that they have no interest in addressing because they're perfectly happy for the OF (and Rangers and Celtic in that order) status quo to continue.

I just think it's quite likely John Beaton is getting pats on the back from his masonic pals, s******ing away. Having said that I thought he had a decent game when he reffed us against Dundee recently, but only probably because neither Dundee or Hibs have any skin in his game.