Hibs to appeal Red Card

[Peevemor]

Need to give it a rest. Your going into I am right and you are wrong mode again.

I answered a question.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not at all interested in those which concern me.

[WeeRussell]

Need to give it a rest. Your going into I am right and you are wrong mode again.

He’s not. He’s answering another poster’s question.

Maybe it’s you that should give the thread a rest if that offends you?

[WeeRussell]

All in all - I think there was a case for a red card with the (needless) way Ryan went into the tackle on Sunday. Therefore I didn’t think overturning this had any chance and I’m surprised we appealed it (that’s before getting to the fact it was against Rangers at Ibrox).

I think the disappointment of the result with this being a turning point has led to a lot of over the top reaction on our part, and some ridiculous claims. Time to dust ourselves down, move on and see what the laddie Wood has to offer.

Personally the biggest thing for me (over any biased refereeing or corruption claims) is that Porteous learns from this and tries to take those daft-looking challenges out his game.

****** the huns.

[Peevemor]

Every single thread. Boring as ****.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211006/1f2fbb11bbc1ec033934fa8c6f2c73ef.jpg

Honestly, what do you expect?

[Craig_HFC]

Honestly, what do you expect?

From you; nothing else.

[gbhibby]

All in all - I think there was a case for a red card with the (needless) way Ryan went into the tackle on Sunday. Therefore I didn’t think overturning this had any chance and I’m surprised we appealed it (that’s before getting to the fact it was against Rangers at Ibrox).

I think the disappointment of the result with this being a turning point has led to a lot of over the top reaction on our part, and some ridiculous claims. Time to dust ourselves down, move on and see what the laddie Wood has to offer.

Personally the biggest thing for me (over any biased refereeing or corruption claims) is that Porteous learns from this and tries to take those daft-looking challenges out his game.

****** the huns.
Its only 3 points now go and beat them at Easter Road. If this thread is anything to go by the atmosphere will be red hot at that match.

[Brightside]

From you; nothing else.

Nothing wrong with his points though. Plenty people (incl Hibs fans) can see why a red card was given.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Nothing wrong with his points though. Plenty people (incl Hibs fans) can see why a red card was given.

:agree: in reality it’s only Hibs fans (the majority not all) who don’t think it was a red.

[The Spaceman]

:agree: in reality it’s only Hibs fans (the majority not all) who don’t think it was a red.

I was one of the first to cry outrage at the decision including wanting us to release a statement regarding various awful calls against them past 5 games. Thank goodness I am only a ranting fan - replays don’t look great (i.e. the angle from behind the goal) and in hindsight was probably the right call. We move on.

[HNA2]

Could we put the handbags away and try and keep it civil before we have to start deleting posts please

[Peevemor]

Nothing wrong with his points though. Plenty people (incl Hibs fans) can see why a red card was given.


:agree: in reality it’s only Hibs fans (the majority not all) who don’t think it was a red.

I'm not even 100% convinced it was a red, but I can understand why it was given and why the appeal was rejected.

I do think Ryan was daft though.

[degenerated]

He jumped when he saw Porto piling in - what would you call it?Jumping in the air.

[degenerated]

If he didnt need to why did he slide in? He made the wrong decision, and now he will miss 2 games.Did Lundstrum make the wrong decision?

Why should we be expected to pipe down when different rules are applied to different teams.

[Craig_HFC]

If that tackle is a red card then everyone may as well pack up and go home because every game will end 7-a-side.

[degenerated]

The rule doesn't speak about either - "just serious foul play"

In IFAB Laws of the Game, Serious Foul Play is defined as follows:-

“Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent, is guilty of serious foul play.” Fair enough, so do you accept that same rule was not applied to the Hun who did exactly the same thing to Doig, and actually hit him?

[zitelli62]

I keep hearing he was going in to fast ,so what speed should he have been going in at?

[Broken Gnome]

This could all readily be summed up in the following:

If it's a red, it's never being downgraded given there's grounds enough to fit the bill of reckless and excessive.

If it's a yellow, there sure as hell wouldn't be days of outrage and protest that it wasnt a different colour of card.

[Peevemor]

Fair enough, so do you accept that same rule was not applied to the Hun who did exactly the same thing to Doig, and actually hit him?

Just because I think the ref might have been right re. Porto's red card, doesn't mean I agree with him on everything (it's still us v them!).

We obviously haven't had the same number of replays/angles as the Porto incident, but it looks like a 2 footed lunge/stamp to me so probably merited a red too.

[degenerated]

Just because I think the ref might have been right re. Porto's red card, doesn't mean I agree with him on everything (it's still us v them!).

We obviously haven't had the same number of replays/angles as the Porto incident, but it looks like a 2 footed lunge/stamp to me so probably merited a red too.Either both are red cards or neither are, regardless of which Hibs were cheated again at Ibrox.

[Andy74]

I'm not even 100% convinced it was a red, but I can understand why it was given and why the appeal was rejected.

I do think Ryan was daft though.

I think most people can see why it was given or why certain views of it look like it could have been given.

What most people are discussing though is whether that is ultimately correct or not and that's where you look at all the evidence - not least of which when you watch it live the first time and then see the reverse angle.

You aren't 100% convinced it was a red but you are arguing against everyone who thinks that when you see everything that it really shouldn't have been given.

You want to be able to hold every view going on this at the same time and then argue about it for days.

[Danderhall Hibs]

This could all readily be summed up in the following:

If it's a red, it's never being downgraded given there's grounds enough to fit the bill of reckless and excessive.

If it's a yellow, there sure as hell wouldn't be days of outrage and protest that it wasnt a different colour of card.

As per the law "reckless" is only a yellow card. Pundits have also been using this word when saying it's red though so not sure if they mean yellow.

[Torto7]

Agree with all of this.

As to your last point, the latter will be skewed in that they dominate games in Scotland to the point that they don't need to put in as many challenges, last ditch challenges etc as other teams. However, that point will be totally overplayed by anyone doing an analysis of it and wouldn't make up for the huge difference in these numbers. You can guarantee that the difference in the numbers would be absolutely huge.

Why are Celtic mid table for red cards and Hibs towards the bottom then if its based on time on the ball? You seem determined to take Rangers side on this. Bizarre.

[Peevemor]

I think most people can see why it was given or why certain views of it look like it could have been given.

What most people are discussing though is whether that is ultimately correct or not and that's where you look at all the evidence - not least of which when you watch it live the first time and then see the reverse angle.

You aren't 100% convinced it was a red but you are arguing against everyone who thinks that when you see everything that it really shouldn't have been given.

You want to be able to hold every view going on this at the same time and then argue about it for days.

Who's the one wanting to argue now?

I can be unsure but at the same time disagree with those saying that it was a perfect challenge or who think it's all down to some hun/masonic/"GFA" conspiracy.

[KeithTheHibby]

So he's not getting his leg out the way of Ryan's studs here?

25177

When you look at that angle he is clearly out of control. I hate to say it but the ref got it correct as did the appeals panel.
The appeal by the club was their way of saying privately at least we tried to do something about it.

Time to move on. The positive thing is we were in control of that game for 30 minutes and actually fancied us nicking another. Gives me plenty confidence for the semi...providing no more rushes of blood to the head by our players.

[wookie70]

I don't think dangerous is used in the law - it's excessive force, which in the main is difficult to prove from a screen grab. That excessive force has to endanger an opponent. If Aribo isn't near the point of contact then he isn't in danger

[gbhibby]

We need to move on. We need to start a media campaign on how much of a thug Morelos is and that Lundstrum should have been sent off and that the media is against Hibs and referee decisions favour Rangers especially at Ibrox. Fergie was a master of this when at Aberdeen in the build up to when they played in Glasgow. He also had another ref on the park in Willie Miller.😁

[jeffers]

Other than the colour of his jersey can anyone explain the difference in Porto’s challenge and Lundstram’s ?

[Brightside]

Other than the colour of his jersey can anyone explain the difference in Porto’s challenge and Lundstram’s ?

No one is disagreeing about lundstram. Should be a red.

[gbhibby]

Other than the colour of his jersey can anyone explain the difference in Porto’s challenge and Lundstram’s ?

Be Interested if anybody can.

[Perfect Hatrick]

Why are Celtic mid table for red cards and Hibs towards the bottom then if its based on time on the ball? You seem determined to take Rangers side on this. Bizarre.

You've either misread or misinterpreted what I posted.

In any league, the teams at the top will most likely have less fouls, red cards etc. They have more of the ball and are under less pressure so won't need to put in the challenges the other teams do. There'll be exceptions to that rule, Celtic might well be one in Scotland just now.

That point will be trotted out to defend the difference in Rangers and Celtics euro disciplinary records compared to their leagues. While their will be a bit of an element of truth in that, it won't account for what I'm fairly certain will be a hugely different disciplinary record in Europe. They absolutely get preferential treatment in Scotland.

[Hibs90]

Well then, corruption in plain sight.

Especially since Lundstrams lunge hasn’t been cited either.

An absolute disgrace.

[Prof. Shaggy]

Other than the colour of his jersey can anyone explain the difference in Porto’s challenge and Lundstram’s ?

The most significant difference for me is that Doig was almost at full speed. He'd slowed down a little and tried to cut inside. Possibly saving his career in the process.

[flash]

Well then, corruption in plain sight.

Especially since Lundstrams lunge hasn’t been cited either.

An absolute disgrace.

It's not corruption though is it?

[Hibs90]

It's not corruption though is it?

It is.

[Rumble de Thump]

It's not corruption though is it?

Certainly seems to be. It's nothing new, though. Maybe some people think it's just part and parcel of the game as it's been going on for decades and nothing changes.

[jeffers]

No one is disagreeing about lundstram. Should be a red.

I’m not suggesting anyone on here is disagreeing, but how can a referee look at both, decide one is play on and the other a straight red ?

[flash]

It is.

It isn't.
It's a tackle which, whether you or I agree, was a red card offence in the eyes of a lot of people.
It's a highly subjective issue.

[WeeRussell]

That excessive force has to endanger an opponent. If Aribo isn't near the point of contact then he isn't in danger

Wookie, you keep making out like Aribo wasn't even close enough to be involved in this incident. They were both going for the same ball, Porto's challenge was ON Aribo. If he's went in with elements that merit a red card - he's not getting off with it because Aribo wasn't quite close enough to break his leg.

[Hibs90]

It isn't.
It's a tackle which, whether you or I agree, was a red card offence in the eyes of a lot of people.
It's a highly subjective issue.

It is, you’re correct. However if Ryan’s challenge is a red card then so is Lundstrams, so therefore it is corruption as Walsh let him off with it, and he hasn’t even been cited before the compliance officer. I’m not sure how much more obvious it can be.

[WeeRussell]

I'm not even 100% convinced it was a red, but I can understand why it was given and why the appeal was rejected.

I do think Ryan was daft though.

I think this sumps it up as concisely as it could be for me.

I think Peevemor can be an argumentative wee 'devil' at times...I'm sure he would admit to that too :greengrin but the forum is knackert when a poster is being lambasted for perfectly reasonable (in my case agreeable) points put across in a non-provocative/ars*y way.

[flash]

It is, you’re correct. However if Ryan’s challenge is a red card then so is Lundstrams, so therefore it is corruption as Walsh let him off with it, and he hasn’t even been cited before the compliance officer. I’m not sure how much more obvious it can be.

It's incompetence not corruption. I don't doubt for a second 50,000 going daft after Porto's tackle influenced the ref whereas Lundstram's was met with approval from the same supporters.
As both tackles are probably yellow cards in my opinion I fail to see under what grounds the compliance officer would get involved.

[WeeRussell]

It is, you’re correct. However if Ryan’s challenge is a red card then so is Lundstrams, so therefore it is corruption as Walsh let him off with it, and he hasn’t even been cited before the compliance officer. I’m not sure how much more obvious it can be.

Or the ref deemed one challenge worthy of a red and not the other and we can all take our tin-foil hats off.

I don't know how to ask this without sounding like I'm just being a kn0b.. but genuinely, you are clear on the definition of 'corruption' and what it is you are insinuating by saying one player being sent off and not another for two separate incidents couldn't be a more obvious indicator of corruption?

[JimBHibees]

No one is disagreeing about lundstram. Should be a red.

Apart from Walsh who didn't think it merited a foul despite the perfect view.

[lord bunberry]

It's not corruption though is it?
Aye it’s yet another honest mistake that has benefited the hun. Like all those other honest mistakes last season. This has been going on for decades, from the rangers captain doing a Masonic handshake with the referee to referees officiating in rangers games then drinking in rangers pubs that night. I’m not saying every decision is corrupt, but I do believe it’s naive to think it’s not still happening. 2 similar tackles on Sunday 1 is given as a red the other not even a foul. If you hadn’t seen the game and I asked you who got the red and who went unpunished what would your answer have been? Almost everyone would say that the red card would’ve went to hibs.

[flash]

Aye it’s yet another honest mistake that has benefited the hun. Like all those other honest mistakes last season. This has been going on for decades, from the rangers captain doing a Masonic handshake with the referee to referees officiating in rangers games then drinking in rangers pubs that night. I’m not saying every decision is corrupt, but I do believe it’s naive to think it’s not still happening. 2 similar tackles on Sunday 1 is given as a red the other not even a foul. If you hadn’t seen the game and I asked you who got the red and who went unpunished what would your answer have been? Almost everyone would say that the red card would’ve went to hibs.
Were our ridiculous penalties against Dundee United and St Johnstone corrupt or just poor decisions?
Or the goal United had disallowed which was about 2 yards onside?

[Rumble de Thump]

It's incompetence not corruption. I don't doubt for a second 50,000 going daft after Porto's tackle influenced the ref whereas Lundstram's was met with approval from the same supporters.
As both tackles are probably yellow cards in my opinion I fail to see under what grounds the compliance officer would get involved.

More than enough time has passed for innocent mistakes to have been rectified and they haven't been. Porteous was nowhere near breaking anyone's leg when he won the ball without hurting anyone. Lunsdtram went right through Doig with a two footed flying lunge. If you fail to see why Lundstram should have been sent off then there's not much else anyone can say to clarify that. You won't see a clearer red card offence.

[flash]

More than enough time has passed for innocent mistakes to have been rectified and they haven't been. Porteous was nowhere near breaking anyone's leg when he won the ball without hurting anyone. Lunsdtram went right through Doig with a two footed flying lunge. If you fail to see why Lundstram should have been sent off then there's not much else anyone can say to clarify that. You won't see a clearer red card offence.

I think they were both yellows probably.

[WeeRussell]

More than enough time has passed for innocent mistakes to have been rectified and they haven't been. Porteous was nowhere near breaking anyone's leg when he won the ball without hurting anyone. Lunsdtram went right through Doig with a two footed flying lunge. If you fail to see why Lundstram should have been sent off then there's not much else anyone can say to clarify that. You won't see a clearer red card offence.

Can you not see how blinkered you sound though.. by claiming there isn't an argument for a Porto red card but Lundstram is the clearest red card in history?

One winning the ball and the other a two footed lunge?

Contrary to what a lot of people seem to be arguing, I don't think the two challenges are the same.. but you can't surely be arguing there isn't an argument for Porto being sent-off and Lundstram's is the clearest red you've ever seen.

[Hibs90]

It's incompetence not corruption. I don't doubt for a second 50,000 going daft after Porto's tackle influenced the ref whereas Lundstram's was met with approval from the same supporters.
As both tackles are probably yellow cards in my opinion I fail to see under what grounds the compliance officer would get involved.

Corruption disguised as incompetence. Usual story.

[Kato]

You've either misread or misinterpreted what I posted.

In any league, the teams at the top will most likely have less fouls, red cards etc. They have more of the ball and are under less pressure so won't need to put in the challenges the other teams do. There'll be exceptions to that rule, Celtic might well be one in Scotland just now.

That point will be trotted out to defend the difference in Rangers and Celtics euro disciplinary records compared to their leagues. While their will be a bit of an element of truth in that, it won't account for what I'm fairly certain will be a hugely different disciplinary record in Europe. They absolutely get preferential treatment in Scotland.The was research compiled a while back now that showed it took 6-7 fouls per game for any Hibs player to get booked. It took slightly more for a Hearts player and slightly more again for an Aberdeen player. The OF were at about 13-14 fouls before a player was booked. Compiled about 20 years but it would be interesting to see again. Saying that it was skewed as some horrendous tackles from OF players aren't penalised at all.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Booked4Being-Ugly]

More than enough time has passed for innocent mistakes to have been rectified and they haven't been. Porteous was nowhere near breaking anyone's leg when he won the ball without hurting anyone. Lunsdtram went right through Doig with a two footed flying lunge. If you fail to see why Lundstram should have been sent off then there's not much else anyone can say to clarify that. You won't see a clearer red card offence.

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

That was the textbook Lundstram tackle on Doig.

[jeffers]

It’s been happening for as long as I’ve been watching Hibs, the OF and the Huns in particular getting the benefit of refereeing decisions - from John MacDonald diving in the box to earn a winning penalty, to Brian McGinlay failing to award Hibs a stonewaller in the ‘79 Cup Final. I’m sure everyone on here can think of other examples and that’s just in games against us.

These things supposedly even themselves out, but in 50 years of watching Hibs I’m still waiting. Are referees corrupt ? Wouldn’t surprise me if some are, the rest know it’s easier to let controversial decisions go in the way of the Huns as there will be far less of a spotlight on them than if they award against them.

[lord bunberry]

Were our ridiculous penalties against Dundee United and St Johnstone corrupt or just poor decisions?
Or the goal United had disallowed which was about 2 yards onside?
I didn’t say every bad decision was corruption, i said that in a game against the hun you are often playing against 12 men. The standard of refereeing is dismal, and it’s made worse by the fact that most of them come from the same west coast association. You can go on about decisions in other games all you want, but I’m afraid I’m not buying it anymore. For years I was in the “they’re just useless camp” but Sunday was the final straw for me. A referee teaching at a school used by the hun shouldn’t be refereeing hun games, I don’t care how little he has to do with the huns coaching system.

[Pretty Boy]

I wouldn't argue there isn't corruption in Scottish football but it's easy to paint the picture you want when you only look at one side.

In relatively recent times I can recall Ryan Jack being sent off at Ibrox (Hibs won 3-2) which was overturned on appeal. We got a dodgy penalty when we beat them 2-1 there, Scott Allan admitted at our POTY night that he 'had made a bit of a meal of it'. Doidge scored an equaliser v them last season that was about 2 yards offside. Scott Allan should have been sent off v them at ER for a shocker of a tackle on Rossiter 2 or 3 years ago as well.

That's 4 big, wrong decisions that went in our favour that have been studiously ignored when listing the ones that have gone in their favour in recent years.

I hate Rangers with a passion, I despise everything about them and there is little doubt there are those in power in Scottish football who believe the game here should be run for the good of them and their Glasgow neighbours and the rest of us should just make up the numbers. I don't think it does our argument any favours if we fail to acknowledge decisions that don't fit in with it though.

[hibbydog]

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

That was the textbook Lundstram tackle on Doig.

So you’re not allowed to go in too hard and take the ball cleanly?

If that’s the case, I understood wrongly and Both tackles are red cards.

[Since452]

So you’re not allowed to go in too hard and take the ball cleanly?

If that’s the case, I understood wrongly and Both tackles are red cards.

That's what I've been saying all along. It was a red card by the letter of the law. As was the Rangers boys.

[superfurryhibby]

Yogi's take ( not sure if this has been posted already). For a big lummox he speaks a lot of sense (sometimes).


https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/ryan-porteous-has-got-under-rangers-skin-and-steven-gerrard-is-a-secret-admirer-says-former-hibs-boss-3408752

I" think that Steven Gerrard sees Ryan Porteous as an easy target because of everything that has happened. But I do think that under it all there will be a lot of admiration there. He won’t admit it but knowing the player he was he will love the fact that Ryan can’t be bullied and he plays with his heart on his sleeve and gets stuck in. He just won’t like him doing that against Rangers.”


“I don’t think Rangers or Celtic like it when players go to Ibrox and Parkhead and refuse to just roll over and have their belly tickled,” said Hughes, offering his view on why there is so much tension.

“Ryan is a highly-competitive player and I’m glad Hibs managed to keep hold of him - I would love to see him captain the club one day. But he has to learn that in football, your opponents are always looking for a way to get at you.

“He doesn’t deserve the reputation they have of him. He is a much more disciplined player these days. But, he has to make sure he isn’t an easy target for them.”

[Sir David Gray]

Yogi's take ( not sure if this has been posted already). For a big lummox he speaks a lot of sense (sometimes).


https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/ryan-porteous-has-got-under-rangers-skin-and-steven-gerrard-is-a-secret-admirer-says-former-hibs-boss-3408752

I" think that Steven Gerrard sees Ryan Porteous as an easy target because of everything that has happened. But I do think that under it all there will be a lot of admiration there. He won’t admit it but knowing the player he was he will love the fact that Ryan can’t be bullied and he plays with his heart on his sleeve and gets stuck in. He just won’t like him doing that against Rangers.”


“I don’t think Rangers or Celtic like it when players go to Ibrox and Parkhead and refuse to just roll over and have their belly tickled,” said Hughes, offering his view on why there is so much tension.

“Ryan is a highly-competitive player and I’m glad Hibs managed to keep hold of him - I would love to see him captain the club one day. But he has to learn that in football, your opponents are always looking for a way to get at you.

“He doesn’t deserve the reputation they have of him. He is a much more disciplined player these days. But, he has to make sure he isn’t an easy target for them.”

I'm not a huge fan of his but that's an excellent summary.

[Booked4Being-Ugly]

Yogi's take ( not sure if this has been posted already). For a big lummox he speaks a lot of sense (sometimes).


https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/ryan-porteous-has-got-under-rangers-skin-and-steven-gerrard-is-a-secret-admirer-says-former-hibs-boss-3408752

I" think that Steven Gerrard sees Ryan Porteous as an easy target because of everything that has happened. But I do think that under it all there will be a lot of admiration there. He won’t admit it but knowing the player he was he will love the fact that Ryan can’t be bullied and he plays with his heart on his sleeve and gets stuck in. He just won’t like him doing that against Rangers.”


“I don’t think Rangers or Celtic like it when players go to Ibrox and Parkhead and refuse to just roll over and have their belly tickled,” said Hughes, offering his view on why there is so much tension.

“Ryan is a highly-competitive player and I’m glad Hibs managed to keep hold of him - I would love to see him captain the club one day. But he has to learn that in football, your opponents are always looking for a way to get at you.

“He doesn’t deserve the reputation they have of him. He is a much more disciplined player these days. But, he has to make sure he isn’t an easy target for them.”

That'll be Yogi banned from Hunbrox now.

[lord bunberry]

I wouldn't argue there isn't corruption in Scottish football but it's easy to paint the picture you want when you only look at one side.

In relatively recent times I can recall Ryan Jack being sent off at Ibrox (Hibs won 3-2) which was overturned on appeal. We got a dodgy penalty when we beat them 2-1 there, Scott Allan admitted at our POTY night that he 'had made a bit of a meal of it'. Doidge scored an equaliser v them last season that was about 2 yards offside. Scott Allan should have been sent off v them at ER for a shocker of a tackle on Rossiter 2 or 3 years ago as well.

That's 4 big, wrong decisions that went in our favour that have been studiously ignored when listing the ones that have gone in their favour in recent years.

I hate Rangers with a passion, I despise everything about them and there is little doubt there are those in power in Scottish football who believe the game here should be run for the good of them and their Glasgow neighbours and the rest of us should just make up the numbers. I don't think it does our argument any favours if we fail to acknowledge decisions that don't fit in with it though.
I wouldn’t dispute any off that, but all those incidents happened while Celtic were dominating, as soon as the huns are back challenging everything goes back to the way it was.

[brog]

The was research compiled a while back now that showed it took 6-7 fouls per game for any Hibs player to get booked. It took slightly more for a Hearts player and slightly more again for an Aberdeen player. The OF were at about 13-14 fouls before a player was booked. Compiled about 20 years but it would be interesting to see again. Saying that it was skewed as some horrendous tackles from OF players aren't penalised at all.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

eg Lundstram on Sunday!! I also remember a season many moons ago where I believe neither of the OF had a penalty awarded against them domestically all season. They both played a few games in Europe & conceded penalties in more than 50% of the games. Was a long time ago so I wouldn't say my stats were 100% correct but the principle is.

Actually, IIRC Rangers had not conceded a league penalty when we played them on Boxing Day last season. They maintained that perfect record despite Hagi almost taking Newell's head off!

[Brightside]

I’m not suggesting anyone on here is disagreeing, but how can a referee look at both, decide one is play on and the other a straight red ?

Poor refereeing. It’s not corruption. We need to knock all that stuff on the head. It’s all a bit Celtic.

[JimBHibees]

Poor refereeing. It’s not corruption. We need to knock all that stuff on the head. It’s all a bit Celtic.

Poor refereeing would mean the decisions should even itself out a bit and we all know that doesn't happen. It is fear pure and simple.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Poor refereeing would mean the decisions should even itself out a bit and we all know that doesn't happen. It is fear pure and simple.

It's definitely a sub-conscious fear of the backlash that comes with giving decisions against the Old Firm, in my humble opinion. I don't think it's conscious cheating; it's that officials don't want to rock the boat and provoke the wrath and power of the big two. It's just too much hassle to risk upsetting them. On the other hand, who cares if St Mirren fans, for example, are upset? What can they do?

[One Day Soon]

The notion that we have a 'clean' game in Scotland is laughably funny.

[JimBHibees]

It's definitely a sub-conscious fear of the backlash that comes with giving decisions against the Old Firm, in my humble opinion. I don't think it's conscious cheating; it's that officials don't want to rock the boat and provoke the wrath and power of the big two. It's just too much hassle to risk upsetting them. On the other hand, who cares if St Mirren fans, for example, are upset? What can they do?

What you have described is the very essence of cheating.

[jeffers]

Poor refereeing. It’s not corruption. We need to knock all that stuff on the head. It’s all a bit Celtic.

Presumably Barasic assault right in front of Walsh was also poor refereeing ? Funny how those incidents of poor refereeing went in favour of the Rangers. Referees are scared to give decisions against them for fear of the backlash, so are making dishonest decisions while abusing their power in the process. If that’s not corrupt, what is ?

[Hibernia&Alba]

What you have described is the very essence of cheating.

The end the result is the same, sure, but I don't think the intent of the officials is to deliberately cheat. However, they are human and are influenced by pressure and demands. We have two clubs far more powerful than the rest; most of the media coverage is about them; we are accustomed to them winning everything. Referees are going to be influenced by all these things. If in doubt, they will usually give the decision to the Old Firm.

[hibbydog]

That's what I've been saying all along. It was a red card by the letter of the law. As was the Rangers boys.

I agree now.

It’s taken me 3 days to calm down and consider the facts. The referee applied the law correctly in Porteous’ case, not for the tackle on Doig.

This being the letter of the law, football is a different game from what I previously understood and I’ll be screaming for a red card when any tackle on a Hibs player looks a like ‘excessive force’.

[gbhibby]

Remember speaking to a Rangers Supporting mate about why all the Glasgow refs were listed as being from suburbs of Glasgow such as Rutherglen etc, to which he replied that that indicated the lodge they were a member of. 😁

[weecounty hibby]

Regarding the incompetence v cheating argument. Can someone explain to me why in games involving the old firm the incompetence always seems to benefit them, in particular the hun. Different situation when they get neutral refs in Europe

[Spike Mandela]

Poor refereeing. It’s not corruption. We need to knock all that stuff on the head. It’s all a bit Celtic.

How anyone can still be saying this after all that’s happened involving Rangers, the football authorities and the whitwash of all their cheating since 2012 is beyond me.:rolleyes:

[Liam978]

As is the red card stat.

ok how many then , defo 3 that we all know for certain. Callum mcGregor at Ibrox being the most blatant untiil Sunday.

[Cod Boy]

The media are going to put a lot of pressure on Ryan in the build up to the semi final hopefully he shuts them up.

[A Hi-Bee]

Poor refereeing. It’s not corruption. We need to knock all that stuff on the head. It’s all a bit Celtic.

You at the wind up if you think that, just wait till the game with the hun at Hampdump, they cheat for sure and in all my time watching the game it has not changed one wee bit.

[CMurdoch]

I wouldn't argue there isn't corruption in Scottish football but it's easy to paint the picture you want when you only look at one side.

In relatively recent times I can recall Ryan Jack being sent off at Ibrox (Hibs won 3-2) which was overturned on appeal. We got a dodgy penalty when we beat them 2-1 there, Scott Allan admitted at our POTY night that he 'had made a bit of a meal of it'. Doidge scored an equaliser v them last season that was about 2 yards offside. Scott Allan should have been sent off v them at ER for a shocker of a tackle on Rossiter 2 or 3 years ago as well.

That's 4 big, wrong decisions that went in our favour that have been studiously ignored when listing the ones that have gone in their favour in recent years.

I hate Rangers with a passion, I despise everything about them and there is little doubt there are those in power in Scottish football who believe the game here should be run for the good of them and their Glasgow neighbours and the rest of us should just make up the numbers. I don't think it does our argument any favours if we fail to acknowledge decisions that don't fit in with it though.

A sensible and well written post which predictably has been ignored by the conspiracy theorists.
I recall a 5th decision that went in our favour against Rangers which predictably I don't remember anyone on here ever mentioning.
It's from last season and is as deliberate as the Morelos foul on Porteous at ER that we were all angry about
https://youtu.be/gl0RRGRmMXM

[Smartie]

A sensible and well written post which predictably has been ignored.
A 5th decision I can recall that went in our favour against Rangers which predictably has never mentioned on hibs.net From last season, is this any less deliberate than the Morelos foul on Porteous at ER.
https://youtu.be/gl0RRGRmMXM

I’d love to see that one at full speed.

Again, slowed down, it can be used to fit a narrative.

I’m not convinced Porteous would have meant to have done any harm there, and it will look very different at different speeds and different angles.

But the way this works is to pick the most incriminating one and take that, right?

[Sir David Gray]

A sensible and well written post which predictably has been ignored.
A 5th decision I can recall that went in our favour against Rangers which predictably has never mentioned on hibs.net From last season, is this any less deliberate than the Morelos foul on Porteous at ER.
https://youtu.be/gl0RRGRmMXM

It's not even close to being comparable to the Morelos stamp on Porteous.

Here it's here between 00:58-01.03.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ODu8xHCL0Xg

[WhileTheChief..]

The notion that we have a 'clean' game in Scotland is laughably funny.

Not at all.

We never hear about actual corruption or bribery or similar.

It’s just passionate fans mouthing off about refs. Check any club forum from any league in Europe and they will say the same. Worst refs ever, laughing stock, corrupt etc.

If you take a step back and think about the accusations being made they don’t add up at all.

You really think RG and the likes would get involved? You think STF was blind to it for 20 odd years?

It’s nonsense and claims that it’s blatant or that folk like me can’t see it are ridiculous.

[Rumble de Thump]

Not at all.

We never hear about actual corruption or bribery or similar.

It’s just passionate fans mouthing off about refs. Check any club forum from any league in Europe and they will say the same. Worst refs ever, laughing stock, corrupt etc.

If you take a step back and think about the accusations being made they don’t add up at all.

You really think RG and the likes would get involved? You think STF was blind to it for 20 odd years?

It’s nonsense and claims that it’s blatant or that folk like me can’t see it are ridiculous.

The actual corruption is clear for all to see and has been for decades. But you've just told everyone you can't see it.

[wookie70]

A sensible and well written post which predictably has been ignored by the conspiracy theorists.
I recall a 5th decision that went in our favour against Rangers which predictably I don't remember anyone on here ever mentioning.
It's from last season and is as deliberate as the Morelos foul on Porteous at ER that we were all angry about
https://youtu.be/gl0RRGRmMXM
Never a stamp for me. Porteous has his foot pushed forward, contact on his heel, as it is coming down and that is the only place it can go. That is a tangle of legs imo

[JimBHibees]

A sensible and well written post which predictably has been ignored by the conspiracy theorists.
I recall a 5th decision that went in our favour against Rangers which predictably I don't remember anyone on here ever mentioning.
It's from last season and is as deliberate as the Morelos foul on Porteous at ER that we were all angry about
https://youtu.be/gl0RRGRmMXM

Nothing in that at all.

[CMurdoch]

I’d love to see that one at full speed.

Again, slowed down, it can be used to fit a narrative.

I’m not convinced Porteous would have meant to have done any harm there, and it will look very different at different speeds and different angles.

But the way this works is to pick the most incriminating one and take that, right?

I don't recall seeing this Porteous tackle on Jack at the time but I remember the Morelos stamp on Porteous clearly.
We are all selective about what we see and remember.
You definitely need to see footage from all angles and at all speeds to judge an incident to avoid being hoodwinked.
In this case the slow motion footage paints a deliberate picture which may or may not be true. I won't spell it out but if you watch the footage a couple of times you will pick out the story the Rangers author is trying to tell. Conveniently there appears to be no other footage.

[CMurdoch]

The actual corruption is clear for all to see and has been for decades. But you've just told everyone you can't see it.

Lots of us don't see corruption.
Logic would suggest it was far more likely to have existed before the modern era of blanket football coverage.

[Smartie]

I don't recall seeing this Porteous tackle on Jack at the time but I remember the Morelos stamp on Porteous clearly.
We are all selective about what we see and remember.
You definitely need to see footage from all angles and at all speeds to judge an incident to avoid being hoodwinked.
In this case the slow motion footage paints a deliberate picture which may or may not be true. I won't spell it out but if you watch the footage a couple of times you will pick out the story the Rangers author is trying to tell. Conveniently there appears to be no other footage.

In fairness - I wondered about the Morelos one in normal time before being outraged by it when it was played back.

[CMurdoch]

Never a stamp for me. Porteous has his foot pushed forward, contact on his heel, as it is coming down and that is the only place it can go. That is a tangle of legs imo


Nothing in that at all.

Lets try blue tinted glasses for a second and tell the story

Porteous slows down to allow Jack to get the tackle in and when he does he deliberately stamps on his leg and smiles at having done so.

https://youtu.be/gl0RRGRmMXM

The way you see an incident depends what coloured tint your glasses have.

Taking the blue tinted glasses off again I would say that is exactly the narrative the author of the footage is trying to convey and it may be deliberately misleading.

I would be very interested to know if it was the same game as the Morelos incident and if so whether it occurred before or after that incident.

[WhileTheChief..]

The actual corruption is clear for all to see and has been for decades. But you've just told everyone you can't see it.

Yup, I guess it’s just me and everyone at Hibs that can’t see it :confused:

You’re just bumping your gums.

[Sir David Gray]

Lets try blue tinted glasses for a second and tell the story

Porteous slows down to allow Jack to get the tackle in and when he does he deliberately stamps on his leg and smiles at having done so.

https://youtu.be/gl0RRGRmMXM

The way you see an incident depends what coloured tint your glasses have.

Taking the blue tinted glasses off again I would say that is exactly the narrative the author of the footage is trying to convey and it may be deliberately misleading.

I would be very interested to know if it was the same game as the Morelos incident and if so whether it occurred before or after that incident.

Yes it was the same game.

[Kato]

Yup, I guess it’s just me and everyone at Hibs that can’t see it :confused:




To be fair you're just surmising that.


Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[WhileTheChief..]

To be fair you're just surmising that.


Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Don’t you think that if the people that have been running Hibs for the last 20 odd years would have said something if they actually thought there was real, bona fide corruption within the game? Maybe they would have taken action?

I think STF, RP, RG and the endless lawyers we’ve had on the board over the years might have a better handle on things than folk on here?

Are wou willing to accept that they might know better than us?

[CMurdoch]

Yes it was the same game.

Which incident happened 1st? i.e. who was getting revenge on who

[WeeRussell]

ok how many then , defo 3 that we all know for certain. Callum mcGregor at Ibrox being the most blatant untiil Sunday.

What do you mean by most blatant or ones we are certain of? Surely it’s easy enough to check how many red cards Walsh has brandished in his last however many Rangers games he’s been in charge of.. which was your claimed stat?

If by “most blatant” you’re referring to wrong decisions.. your argument surely can’t be that strong when your most blatant example of all is still being debated amongst hibs fans on this very thread.

[Key West]

Since some people are upset about The Rangers being perceived as corrupt can anybody point anything positive about them just now?

[Sir David Gray]

Which incident happened 1st? i.e. who was getting revenge on who

I'm not sure but the Morelos stamp was inside the first 20 minutes.

[WeeRussell]

I'm not sure but the Morelos stamp was inside the first 20 minutes.

Only from memory but I’m fairly sure Morelos incident was first.

[WeeRussell]

Since some people are upset about The Rangers being perceived as corrupt can anybody point anything positive about them just now?

You’ve managed to grab a lot of sticks by the wrong end.

I don’t think any of us could or would want to point out anything positive about Rangers just now or in their short history.

I don’t think anyone is upset at the silly claims, most find them laughable.

I don’t think whether Rangers are a corrupt club or not has even been debated. It’s the outlandish suggestion that the whole of Scottish football is corrupt because Ryan Porteous got sent off on Sunday that a few of us are contesting.

On a side note - “corrupt” doesn’t just mean bad. Organisations can be free of corruption without anyone having anything nice to say about them.

[CMurdoch]

Only from memory but I’m fairly sure Morelos incident was first.

If that's right, Porteous smiling after standing on Jack's leg would suggest happiness at extracting revenge. Bad buy RP!
Boys will be boys!.

[Crunchie]

I wouldn’t dispute any off that, but all those incidents happened while Celtic were dominating, as soon as the huns are back challenging everything goes back to the way it was.
Harper had a penalty awarded at Ibrox in 1995 that was outside the box, we won 1-0.
Jackson dived into the penalty box at ER and got a penalty in 1996, we won 2-1.

As much as I used to think they got all the decisions against us they're just 2 of the ones which went in our favour back in the day and they were the dominant force in Scottish football. I'm sure there's others I've forgotten about, I was at both games and was convinced at the time both were stonewallers but tv evidence proved otherwise.
As PB says we do ourselves no favours pretending we don't get any decisions against them

[JimBHibees]

Harper had a penalty awarded at Ibrox in 1995 that was outside the box, we won 1-0.
Jackson dived into the penalty box at ER and got a penalty in 1996, we won 2-1.

As much as I used to think they got all the decisions against us they're just 2 of the ones which went in our favour back in the day and they were the dominant force in Scottish football. I'm sure there's others I've forgotten about, I was at both games and was convinced at the time both were stonewallers but tv evidence proved otherwise.
As PB says we do ourselves no favours pretending we don't get any decisions against them

The fact these two incidents are from 30 years ago and as you admit yourself looked stonewallers in first viewing doesn't exactly make your case. The discussion since Sunday has been commentating on game changing decisions from within the last 9 months or so covering 4 games all of which have gone one way.

[Sir David Gray]

If that's right, Porteous smiling after standing on Jack's leg would suggest happiness at extracting revenge. Bad buy RP!
Boys will be boys!.

I don't believe there's any real evidence of Porteous' one being deliberate, it was all part of the same motion, unlike Morelos who changed the direction of his leg to come down on Porteous.

Also if Porteous was out for revenge would he not have picked out Morelos? I'm not sure why he would target Jack?

[MrSmith]

Until we ensure referee impartiality, these game changing decisions awarded to the Rangers, will never change. For me, the scandal is that many people now bet on such decisions occurring as part of the norm when any team play the Rangers. This point in itself should be a red flag to any standards agency including the SPFL & SFA. No more west coast referees, EU for me!

[Crunchie]

The fact these two incidents are from 30 years ago and as you admit yourself looked stonewallers in first viewing doesn't exactly make your case. The discussion since Sunday has been commentating on game changing decisions from within the last 9 months or so covering 4 games all of which have gone one way.
I'm sorry Jim I didn't realise the conversation was confined to the last 9 months, in that case The hun are cheating bassas :aok:

[lord bunberry]

Which incident happened 1st? i.e. who was getting revenge on who
There was no revenge as what Porteous did was accidentally stand on the player as he had nowhere else to put his foot. He actually falls over because he’s trying so hard to get out of the way. There was a similar incident with big Daz in the same game. No one at the time suggested either incident was a red card.

[WeeRussell]

I don’t think there’s any doubt that Rangers have ‘got more decisions’ than us at Ibrox over whatever time period you want to pick. I don’t think anyone would argue against that.

I just don’t think Ryan getting sent off for that particular challenge on Sunday is worth the outrage, and can see why it was given and why it was never going to be overturned.

And I definitely don’t think a Porteous red card means the Scottish game is totally corrupt because we won the cup 5 years ago.

[WeeRussell]

There was no revenge as what Porteous did was accidentally stand on the player as he had nowhere else to put his foot. He actually falls over because he’s trying so hard to get out of the way. There was a similar incident with big Daz in the same game. No one at the time suggested either incident was a red card.

I actually couldn’t remember the Porteous one - I do recall Daz’s in the same game though. Probably because the huns (maybe Gerrard in fact?!) tried to compare it to Morelos’ assault.

[lord bunberry]

I actually couldn’t remember the Porteous one - I do recall Daz’s in the same game though. Probably because the huns (maybe Gerrard in fact?!) tried to compare it to Morelos’ assault.
Neither did I remember the Porteous incident, but if you slow anything down it can look worse than it really is.
For some reason some hibs fans are determined to paint Porteous as a psycho.

[WeeRussell]

Neither did I remember the Porteous incident, but if you slow anything down it can look worse than it really is.
For some reason some hibs fans are determined to paint Porteous as a psycho.

Definitely not a psycho. A bloody good player who is improving all the time. He just needs to reign it in a bit and be more clever in these situations. There wasn’t a lot to be gained by lining it up, going to ground and going in that bit harder with studs showing, rather than just collecting the ball and stepping out.. not compared to the risk of being sent-off at 1-0 up during the first half.

[Rumble de Thump]

Definitely not a psycho. A bloody good player who is improving all the time. He just needs to reign it in a bit and be more clever in these situations. There wasn’t a lot to be gained by lining it up, going to ground and going in that bit harder with studs showing, rather than just collecting the ball and stepping out.. not compared to the risk of being sent-off at 1-0 up during the first half.

The gain from Ryan going for the ball the way he did was winning the ball when Sevco were attacking near our box. Aribo was chasing the ball down so simply collecting the ball and stepping out wasn't an option.

[Peevemor]

The gain from Ryan going for the ball the way he did was winning the ball when Sevco were attacking near our box. Aribo was chasing the ball down so simply collecting the ball and stepping out wasn't an option.

There was no gain from him "winning the ball" the way he did. He was sent off.

[JimBHibees]

I'm sorry Jim I didn't realise the conversation was confined to the last 9 months, in that case The hun are cheating bassas :aok:

:greengrin no need to apologise nothing wrong with your memory remembering the last time we got a decision against Rangers. :greengrin

[Crunchie]

:greengrin no need to apologise nothing wrong with your memory remembering the last time we got a decision against Rangers. :greengrin
I can do better than that, I remember we got a few on that momentous day in May 2016 :greengrin

[WeeRussell]

The gain from Ryan going for the ball the way he did was winning the ball when Sevco were attacking near our box. Aribo was chasing the ball down so simply collecting the ball and stepping out wasn't an option.

He could easily have got the ball without any danger of giving away a foul. Easily. Going in hard and fair and making a statement is all very well.. not when it’s at risk of being sent off.

A previous poster was insisting Aribo wasn’t close enough to the incident for it to be a dangerous tackle. I’d be interested to hear if they think Ryan couldn’t have just collected the ball.

[Eyrie]

He could easily have got the ball without any danger of giving away a foul. Easily. Going in hard and fair and making a statement is all very well.. not when it’s at risk of being sent off.

A previous poster was insisting Aribo wasn’t close enough to the incident for it to be a dangerous tackle. I’d be interested to hear if they think Ryan couldn’t have just collected the ball.

The reason that Porteous got to the ball long before Aribo got to Porteous is the speed at which Porteous slid into the ball. Had he stayed on his feet then it would have been 50-50 at best, with no cover behind Porteous if Aribo got the first touch. And any contact under those circumstances would have been a stonewall booking.

Look at the Lundstrum two footed lunge on Doig in the same game, which Walsh didn't even think was a foul - let alone a risk of a sending off.

[007]

The reason that Porteous got to the ball long before Aribo got to Porteous is the speed at which Porteous slid into the ball. Had he stayed on his feet then it would have been 50-50 at best, with no cover behind Porteous if Aribo got the first touch. And any contact under those circumstances would have been a stonewall booking.

Look at the Lundstrum two footed lunge on Doig in the same game, which Walsh didn't even think was a foul - let alone a risk of a sending off.

Yup, the two footed lunge which wiped out Doig and he'd have known he'd be taking out Doig as well as getting the ball.

[Eyrie]

Yup, the two footed lunge which wiped out Doig and he'd have known he'd be taking out Doig as well as getting the ball.

And which the compliance officer has chosen to ignore, despite Porteous having his appeal dismissed for a similar incident.

Further evidence of an officiating bias in favour of the Ugly Sisters.

[Alfred E Newman]

And which the compliance officer has chosen to ignore, despite Porteous having his appeal dismissed for a similar incident.

Further evidence of an officiating bias in favour of the Ugly Sisters.

As usual the problem is our constant lack of sympathy and support within the media.
Rangers and Celtic, Hearts and Aberdeen dominate on that front. Even St Johnstone and Motherwell have it through Cowan and Cosgrove.
If Sundays game had been shown live on Sky we might have had a chance of a fairer deal but with the match only being shown on Rangers tv , it is only Rangers and some Hibs fans who have seen the full game and of course the Sportscene highlights program incredibly ,though predictably ,saw no need to even mention the Doig incident.
If they had it may have forced the compliance officer to get involved.
I have shown the lunge footage to several people this week, Rangers supporters included, and they were all amazed that Lundstrum was not even spoken to.
Unfortunately I can’t see any sign of our PR with the media improving any time soon, its been that way for years.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Aribo yesterday....referee must have been unsighted

https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/245427706_598830031253498_5171191422850943895_n.jp g?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=UcX_L3Zdk4MAX8anCi-&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=56244ef4e11ffb80580119397921d515&oe=6170D675