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]

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]

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]

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...

[K-Zazu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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/1765429853770150348?s=46&t=9ECFsSDsGgie80A2m3HH1A


Edit: on VAR https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#reviewable-match-changing-decisions-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 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]

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 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]

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]

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.

[Kato]

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/1765429853770150348?s=46&t=9ECFsSDsGgie80A2m3HH1A


Edit: on VAR https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#reviewable-match-changing-decisions-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.When Gordon Smith, ex-Rangers with zero experience was head of the SFA.

That was a disgrace that day but maybe it was just "genuine mistakes", "incompetence" and everyone who thought it was bias is just a "paranoid conspiracy theorist".

EBT era Rangers.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

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. And for a body of evidence you cant do much better than Craig Thomson’s stats for red cards, penalties awarded, both for and against, Hearts and Hibs over a very long career. Its just not mathematically sustainable to argue that his decisions were ever going to ‘even themselves out’ over time. He was evidently cheating.

[Kato]

Great post. And for a body of evidence you cant do much better than Craig Thomson’s stats for red cards, penalties awarded, both for and against, Hearts and Hibs over a very long career. Its just not mathematically sustainable to argue that his decisions were ever going to ‘even themselves out’ over time. He was evidently cheating.It wasn't over his whole career. After 2012 he reverted to being relatively competent, just after Romanov left Scotland forever which I'm sure is purely coincidental, n' that.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

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.Apart from ignoring the offside rule on VAR lines when disallowing a Hibs goal.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Mike McCurry and his congregation.

https://youtu.be/TBUC9tvxyWU?si=sXy56zUrTwHS745U

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Hibernian Verse]

Apart from ignoring the offside rule on VAR lines when disallowing a Hibs goal.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Beaton was the ref not the VAR on that ocassion.

[Kato]

Beaton was the ref not the VAR on that ocassion.Fair enough.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Hibernian Verse]

Fair enough.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

He's still a dick though :greengrin

[overdrive]

Mike McCurry and his congregation.

https://youtu.be/TBUC9tvxyWU?si=sXy56zUrTwHS745U

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

"Its a tune I'm sure you all know but maybe with slightly different words" :rolleyes:

Think he meant "usually I sing it with an added sectarian bit between the actual lyrics"

[matty_f]

Mike McCurry and his congregation.

https://youtu.be/TBUC9tvxyWU?si=sXy56zUrTwHS745U

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Perfectly normal behaviour, eh? Even if you argued that it’s not a football song and it’s all innocent enough, surely he’d know the association and how it would look if he’s putting that on.

The thing is, he will have known and he didn’t care. It really is plain sight stuff.

[Kato]

Perfectly normal behaviour, eh? Even if you argued that it’s not a football song and it’s all innocent enough, surely he’d know the association and how it would look if he’s putting that on.

The thing is, he will have known and he didn’t care. It really is plain sight stuff.It's merely a part of Scottish culture.

However we are supposed to believe that, even subconsciously, and even though all the top flight referees come from the part of Scotland where that culture is most endemic, it doesn't permeate its way into refereeing circles and sway decision making.

I don't but into that mainly because my head doesn't button up the back.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[number9dream]

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

And yet a quick look online reveals Rangers fans howling at the moon over various decisions he’s made and giving him the nickname Father Clancy…

[1 8 7 5]

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.

Top post matty_f

[malcolm]

Perfectly normal behaviour, eh? Even if you argued that it’s not a football song and it’s all innocent enough, surely he’d know the association and how it would look if he’s putting that on.

The thing is, he will have known and he didn’t care. It really is plain sight stuff.

It is much worse now than in previous times when there was limited footage of games, no phones recording or mass communication discussing and displaying incidents on social media. Talk over a few pints in the pub meant nothing. It was par for the course that many controversial incidents were left on the cutting room floor in glasgow before the highlights were shown on scotsport or sportscene or they were glossed over in the match reports in the Sunday papers.

Today we can all quickly view various video angles and photos so nothing much is hidden though sportscene still manages to be questionable in some coverage and discussion. The point is that it is now much more in plain sight than ever - but they just don’t care. It is no surprise that our refs are overlooked for major international events.

[JimBHibees]

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.

Couldn't agree more

[matty_f]

It is much worse now than in previous times when there was limited footage of games, no phones recording or mass communication discussing and displaying incidents on social media. Talk over a few pints in the pub meant nothing. It was par for the course that many controversial incidents were left on the cutting room floor in glasgow before the highlights were shown on scotsport or sportscene or they were glossed over in the match reports in the Sunday papers.

Today we can all quickly view various video angles and photos so nothing much is hidden though sportscene still manages to be questionable in some coverage and discussion. The point is that it is now much more in plain sight than ever - but they just don’t care. It is no surprise that our refs are overlooked for major international events.

I think it’s because it’s so ingrained now, literally nobody that could make a noise about it give a toss because it suits them.

Remember the Premier Sports semi finals where they put the adverts out with RANGERS and CELTIC in massive font size and their opponents (one of which was us) were a complete afterthought? I think they eventually redid them after some backlash but they weren’t bothered their arse.

As soon as the fixtures were out for the Scottish Cup, Viaplay took the Rangers and Celtic games, and they’ll do the same for the next round for Celtic (Rangers are not getting that far :greengrin )

Sky show Rangers and Celtic away every week until they’ve run out of games at a ground.

The BBC are terrified of upsetting Rangers and Celtic because of the fuss they make if they say something the OF don’t like.

The newspapers aren’t interested in it because that’s who buys the most papers.

It’s a duopoly that we have grown up with, to the extent that even though it disgusted most of us, Rangers weren’t stripped of titles that they demonstrably cheated to win and we now have this surreal and pathetic situation where folk in the media pretend they have this unbroken history.

It all happens because the institution is set up for it to happen. It’s systemic and there’s not much any of us can really do about it other than contribute to shine a light on it as much as possible.


My biggest hope with the Foley involvement was that we’d have someone who didn’t have it ingrained in them that Rangers and Celtic are different and get different treatment and we just need to accept it, and that they had the means to change the dynamic. It doesn’t look like he’s going to be going that far with us but that’s the only way i can see things changing short of a breakaway league that doesn’t include the Old Firm.

[worcesterhibby]

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.

Completely agree, great post. I have called on the journos at Hibs Observer to write a properly researched piece on this, not just one off incidents the full overview with the stats around yellow cards/foul ratio etc. We need it in the Mainstream media

[hibsbollah]

Completely agree, great post. I have called on the journos at Hibs Observer to write a properly researched piece on this, not just one off incidents the full overview with the stats around yellow cards/foul ratio etc. We need it in the Mainstream media

The problem with that is, in the absence of a truth serum being developed and slipped into Beaton’s cocoa, it is all very difficult to prove. And whoever takes it on as a crusade better be ready for a world of hurt from the hun hordes,their minions and all those that will cry ‘conspiracy theories’ and ‘paranoia’.

Matty, youve spoken to Tom English. I bet you when push comes to shove he will have nothing to do with any public discussion about the issue, far from it, he and his colleagues will be riding to the establishment’s defence.

[matty_f]

The problem with that is, in the absence of a truth serum being developed and slipped into Beaton’s cocoa, it is all very difficult to prove. And whoever takes it on as a crusade better be ready for a world of hurt from the hun hordes,their minions and all those that will cry ‘conspiracy theories’ and ‘paranoia’.

Matty, youve spoken to Tom English. I bet you when push comes to shove he will have nothing to do with any public discussion about the issue, far from it, he and his colleagues will be riding to the establishment’s defence.

I think he'd be happy to speak about it, from what I remember of the conversation he thought the referees weren't very good, that the head of referees, Crawford Allan, was out of his depth, and thet the fall out from decisions involving Rangers and Celtic definitely influenced things. He also said every club thinks the decisions go against them, and that referees are like players and they'll suffer from confidence issues when they make a mistake because they're human.

I thought he was pretty balanced on the subject, he definitely wasn't a fan of VAR despite being an advocate for its introduction.

[Unseen work]

I honestly think they’ve just all over complicated it so much that they’re now unsure themselves what is and isn’t a foul etc.

Some of the decisions are ruining games and football in general.

I can 100% accept a wrong decision during a game. But when they review it and still miss it, but give the exact same scenario the next week is ridiculous.

I now actually find myself going “foul” or “pen” because I think we might get it, in reality I don’t think it’s a foul at all.

[MKHIBEE]

I think it’s because it’s so ingrained now, literally nobody that could make a noise about it give a toss because it suits them.

Remember the Premier Sports semi finals where they put the adverts out with RANGERS and CELTIC in massive font size and their opponents (one of which was us) were a complete afterthought? I think they eventually redid them after some backlash but they weren’t bothered their arse.

As soon as the fixtures were out for the Scottish Cup, Viaplay took the Rangers and Celtic games, and they’ll do the same for the next round for Celtic (Rangers are not getting that far :greengrin )

Sky show Rangers and Celtic away every week until they’ve run out of games at a ground.

The BBC are terrified of upsetting Rangers and Celtic because of the fuss they make if they say something the OF don’t like.

The newspapers aren’t interested in it because that’s who buys the most papers.

It’s a duopoly that we have grown up with, to the extent that even though it disgusted most of us, Rangers weren’t stripped of titles that they demonstrably cheated to win and we now have this surreal and pathetic situation where folk in the media pretend they have this unbroken history.

It all happens because the institution is set up for it to happen. It’s systemic and there’s not much any of us can really do about it other than contribute to shine a light on it as much as possible.


My biggest hope with the Foley involvement was that we’d have someone who didn’t have it ingrained in them that Rangers and Celtic are different and get different treatment and we just need to accept it, and that they had the means to change the dynamic. It doesn’t look like he’s going to be going that far with us but that’s the only way i can see things changing short of a breakaway league that doesn’t include the Old Firm.


Well said.

[Donegal Hibby]

I think he'd be happy to speak about it, from what I remember of the conversation he thought the referees weren't very good, that the head of referees, Crawford Allan, was out of his depth, and thet the fall out from decisions involving Rangers and Celtic definitely influenced things. He also said every club thinks the decisions go against them, and that referees are like players and they'll suffer from confidence issues when they make a mistake because they're human.

I thought he was pretty balanced on the subject, he definitely wasn't a fan of VAR despite being an advocate for its introduction.

I've long since stopped thinking certain referees like Beaton , Walsh etc are just making genuine mistakes because they aren't very good and it effects their confidence Matty , if journalist like Tom English has that opinion about referees i think he's burying his head in the sand tbh though I suppose all the media are instead of highlighting the major problem of corruption in scottish football .

[Se7enUp]

I've long since stopped thinking certain referees like Beaton , Walsh etc are just making genuine mistakes because they aren't very good and it effects their confidence Matty , if journalist like Tom English has that opinion about referees i think he's burying his head in the sand tbh though I suppose all the media are instead of highlighting the major problem of corruption in scottish football .


Burying his head in the trough, more like, just like he is/was with Budge & Hearts. Spiers tried to shout it out about derhun, now effectively banished from Scotland. BBC gave in to derhun in the end, so their journo was silenced. Mikey Stewart shouted it out, now muzzled.

[stalbanshibby]

I've long since stopped thinking certain referees like Beaton , Walsh etc are just making genuine mistakes because they aren't very good and it effects their confidence Matty , if journalist like Tom English has that opinion about referees i think he's burying his head in the sand tbh though I suppose all the media are instead of highlighting the major problem of corruption in scottish football .

If you assume predisposition to bias (either conscious or unconscious) I'm just wondering, if you made a list of all the Refs in Scottish Football, and identified certain attributes about them, for example:

Ref name Based where Religion Known to support which team? History of rancour in the media? Other comments

John Beaton Lanark presumably Protestant presumably Huns fallen out with celtic? mason?
Clancy Edinburgh presumably Protestant presumably Huns everybody thinks he's a tosser?? tosser
McCurry ?? Protestant presumably Huns
Collum ?? Catholic??? 'Tic?? as Clancy

etc etc.

Now I know we're supposed to be sectarian free, but we all know we're not. Not sure what other attributes might apply (any thoughts??)

Then you then have a fixture list, and try to match Refs against the fixtures so the ref has no skin in the game (as much as possible):

So say: Celtic v Hibs - So Clancy and McCurry would be OK to ref (unless I suppose Huns are breathing down Celtic's neck in a title race)?? Beaton is excluded because of high profile dispute with Brendan Rogers
Hearts v Hibs - would rule out Clancy because he's Edinburgh based and everyone thinks he's a tosser anyway

Yada yada. But to refute my own post I dunno whether this really works, because it's all so claustrophobic and tight and I'm not sure whether SFA have that many refs at their disposal. So. Is there a strong case for foreign referees, and would it work????

[matty_f]

I've long since stopped thinking certain referees like Beaton , Walsh etc are just making genuine mistakes because they aren't very good and it effects their confidence Matty , if journalist like Tom English has that opinion about referees i think he's burying his head in the sand tbh though I suppose all the media are instead of highlighting the major problem of corruption in scottish football .


Burying his head in the trough, more like, just like he is/was with Budge & Hearts. Spiers tried to shout it out about derhun, now effectively banished from Scotland. BBC gave in to derhun in the end, so their journo was silenced. Mikey Stewart shouted it out, now muzzled.

I think you both need to keep in mind that any employee of the BBC would face legal action if they were to say or even imply that the referees are cheating without evidence to back it up, and simply pointing to decisions that are wrong isn't sufficient evidence. Neither the BBC or Tom English would put themselves in a position where legal action is taken against them, and rightly so.

That's neither having his head in the sand or in the trough, you just can't make those allegations about someone when you have the profile of the BBC behind you without the accusation being water-tight and having the evidence to back it up.

[hibsbollah]

If you assume predisposition to bias (either conscious or unconscious) I'm just wondering, if you made a list of all the Refs in Scottish Football, and identified certain attributes about them, for example:

Ref name Based where Religion Known to support which team? History of rancour in the media? Other comments

John Beaton Lanark presumably Protestant presumably Huns fallen out with celtic? mason?
Clancy Edinburgh presumably Protestant presumably Huns everybody thinks he's a tosser?? tosser
McCurry ?? Protestant presumably Huns
Collum ?? Catholic??? 'Tic?? as Clancy

etc etc.

Now I know we're supposed to be sectarian free, but we all know we're not. Not sure what other attributes might apply (any thoughts??)

Then you then have a fixture list, and try to match Refs against the fixtures so the ref has no skin in the game (as much as possible):

So say: Celtic v Hibs - So Clancy and McCurry would be OK to ref (unless I suppose Huns are breathing down Celtic's neck in a title race)?? Beaton is excluded because of high profile dispute with Brendan Rogers
Hearts v Hibs - would rule out Clancy because he's Edinburgh based and everyone thinks he's a tosser anyway

Yada yada. But to refute my own post I dunno whether this really works, because it's all so claustrophobic and tight and I'm not sure whether SFA have that many refs at their disposal. So. Is there a strong case for foreign referees, and would it work????

It seems a bit unrealistic. You'd be undermining them in their place of work, that would be the claim.

What we need is a 'calciopoli'. Any non-Juve fan will tell you prior to 2006 that they got all the decisions, multiple examples of dodgy decisions in big games and some other parallel bias, always involving the big clubs. Then the Calcipoli scandal hit and what the fans were saying all along was proved to be true. The reason they got caught though was wire taps; which is a big thing in italian society, they think more phones are tapped in Italy than there are actual phones. I also think gambling is a much bigger thing among refs and players than we'd like to think it is. It would be weird if it wasn't, its basically rammed down the throat of everyone else these days. Bookies giving odds on first throw in/first booking? Basically an open invitation for an official to help make someone a few quid.

[Se7enUp]

I think you both need to keep in mind that any employee of the BBC would face legal action if they were to say or even imply that the referees are cheating without evidence to back it up, and simply pointing to decisions that are wrong isn't sufficient evidence. Neither the BBC or Tom English would put themselves in a position where legal action is taken against them, and rightly so.

That's neither having his head in the sand or in the trough, you just can't make those allegations about someone when you have the profile of the BBC behind you without the accusation being water-tight and having the evidence to back it up.

Pointing to decisions that are wrong, and identifying a fact based pattern, would be a nice start.

We all know that won't happen, because there's a mixture of allegiances, troughs to feed from, backs to scratch, bullying and intimidation, and certain parties whipping up their mobs to consider.

[Se7enUp]

I think you both need to keep in mind that any employee of the BBC would face legal action if they were to say or even imply that the referees are cheating without evidence to back it up, and simply pointing to decisions that are wrong isn't sufficient evidence. Neither the BBC or Tom English would put themselves in a position where legal action is taken against them, and rightly so.

That's neither having his head in the sand or in the trough, you just can't make those allegations about someone when you have the profile of the BBC behind you without the accusation being water-tight and having the evidence to back it up.

Hasn't really stopped BBC employees from whipping up a storm with way over the top accusations of constant diving from Boyle, has it?

[matty_f]

Hasn't really stopped BBC employees from whipping up a storm with way over the top accusations of constant diving from Boyle, has it?

No, but he has been booked for it and he has done it, so Boyle couldn’t say that they’ve defamed his character, so they have evidence to fall back on.

[Donegal Hibby]

I think you both need to keep in mind that any employee of the BBC would face legal action if they were to say or even imply that the referees are cheating without evidence to back it up, and simply pointing to decisions that are wrong isn't sufficient evidence. Neither the BBC or Tom English would put themselves in a position where legal action is taken against them, and rightly so.

That's neither having his head in the sand or in the trough, you just can't make those allegations about someone when you have the profile of the BBC behind you without the accusation being water-tight and having the evidence to back it up.

They probably would face legal action for printing or implying that some referees are cheating without proof to back it up though a journalist like Mr English and others should be investigating into it imo which is what I really meant, prime example is nick walsh in why is he getting to referee and do VAR in games of a club he has an affiliation with .

[stalbanshibby]

It seems a bit unrealistic. You'd be undermining them in their place of work, that would be the claim.

What we need is a 'calciopoli'. Any non-Juve fan will tell you prior to 2006 that they got all the decisions, multiple examples of dodgy decisions in big games and some other parallel bias, always involving the big clubs. Then the Calcipoli scandal hit and what the fans were saying all along was proved to be true. The reason they got caught though was wire taps; which is a big thing in italian society, they think more phones are tapped in Italy than there are actual phones. I also think gambling is a much bigger thing among refs and players than we'd like to think it is. It would be weird if it wasn't, its basically rammed down the throat of everyone else these days. Bookies giving odds on first throw in/first booking? Basically an open invitation for an official to help make someone a few quid.

Does anyone have any insight as to how the SFA pair officials with matches? Is it random? Or are affiliations/ predispositions/ allegiances taken into account - that's what I was getting at really. I haven't a clue. Does anyone (other than the SFA) know how it's done? In the interest of transparency (why should it be a behind closed doors thang?), I would be interested to know, and I also wonder if anyone in the media has ever asked them? I don't recall ever seeing any article on this.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/referees/referee-appointments/ tells you hee haw

[hibsbollah]

Does anyone have any insight as to how the SFA pair officials with matches? Is it random? Or are affiliations taken into account - that's what I was getting at really. I haven't a clue. Does anyone (other than the SFA) know how it's done? And in the interest of transparency, I would be interested to know, and I also wonder if anyone in the media has ever asked them? I don't recall ever seeing any article on this.

No idea, they announce it the Monday before the weekend games IIRC.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Burying his head in the trough, more like, just like he is/was with Budge & Hearts. Spiers tried to shout it out about derhun, now effectively banished from Scotland. BBC gave in to derhun in the end, so their journo was silenced. Mikey Stewart shouted it out, now muzzled.
Jim Spence….

[Carheenlea]

Jim Spence….

One of the worst cases of bullying of a journalist by a member club we’ve seen.

Spence on being asked what his low point of working for the BBC was -


“The now well-known farrago concerning a remark about Rangers during the old club, new club debate. I’d been tipped off by a source at Ibrox that John McLelland would be returning as chairman. I ran the story and a couple of nights later posed a question to two guests on Sportsound, which many other football fans in Scotland were asking.

“Referring to McLelland return I said ‘John McLelland who was chairman of the old club, some people will tell you the club, well the club that died, possibly coming back in terms of the new chairman’.“It wasn’t the most graceful effort at flowing prose, granted, but in a live unscripted radio discussion, that isn’t uncommon. There were 400 complaints from Rangers fans that my comments were inaccurate and misleading and the BBC Trust became involved. The situation dragged on for a long while before they ruled that there had been no breach of editorial guidelines. There was a sustained campaign of pretty vicious abuse on social media with threats directed at my family and myself.”

“The upside was the unbelievable support which I received from fans of other clubs in Scotland.

“A petition in support of me with over a thousand signatures was signed by supporters of other clubs and that was very welcome and heartening. In particular Aberdeen fans were terrific in their backing with their ‘We are all Jim Spence’ banner, which they unveiled at an away game at Firhill and at BBC HQ in Glasgow.”



Once they managed to get Spence removed they turned their attentions to Chris McLaughlin as they continued to attempt to dictate the media narrative, led by the despicable Jim Traynor.

[JimBHibees]

Does anyone have any insight as to how the SFA pair officials with matches? Is it random? Or are affiliations/ predispositions/ allegiances taken into account - that's what I was getting at really. I haven't a clue. Does anyone (other than the SFA) know how it's done? In the interest of transparency (why should it be a behind closed doors thang?), I would be interested to know, and I also wonder if anyone in the media has ever asked them? I don't recall ever seeing any article on this.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/referees/referee-appointments/ tells you hee haw

Assume they will argue that there is such a small ref pool to choose from they aren't in a position to not give games to refs who may have an affiliation or support for a particular team. The fact that top league spfl refs only come from two or three refereeing associations and would automatically make that pool smaller than it should be is likely ignored.

[JimBHibees]

One of the worst cases of bullying of a journalist by a member club we’ve seen.

Spence on being asked what his low point of working for the BBC was -


“The now well-known farrago concerning a remark about Rangers during the old club, new club debate. I’d been tipped off by a source at Ibrox that John McLelland would be returning as chairman. I ran the story and a couple of nights later posed a question to two guests on Sportsound, which many other football fans in Scotland were asking.

“Referring to McLelland return I said ‘John McLelland who was chairman of the old club, some people will tell you the club, well the club that died, possibly coming back in terms of the new chairman’.“It wasn’t the most graceful effort at flowing prose, granted, but in a live unscripted radio discussion, that isn’t uncommon. There were 400 complaints from Rangers fans that my comments were inaccurate and misleading and the BBC Trust became involved. The situation dragged on for a long while before they ruled that there had been no breach of editorial guidelines. There was a sustained campaign of pretty vicious abuse on social media with threats directed at my family and myself.”

“The upside was the unbelievable support which I received from fans of other clubs in Scotland.

“A petition in support of me with over a thousand signatures was signed by supporters of other clubs and that was very welcome and heartening. In particular Aberdeen fans were terrific in their backing with their ‘We are all Jim Spence’ banner, which they unveiled at an away game at Firhill and at BBC HQ in Glasgow.”



Once they managed to get Spence removed they turned their attentions to Chris McLaughlin as they continued to attempt to dictate the media narrative, led by the despicable Jim Traynor.

That was despicable and so cowardly from the BBC. Always liked Spence seemed honest and genuinely enthusiastic about the game.

[hibsbollah]

One of the worst cases of bullying of a journalist by a member club we’ve seen.

Spence on being asked what his low point of working for the BBC was -


“The now well-known farrago concerning a remark about Rangers during the old club, new club debate. I’d been tipped off by a source at Ibrox that John McLelland would be returning as chairman. I ran the story and a couple of nights later posed a question to two guests on Sportsound, which many other football fans in Scotland were asking.

“Referring to McLelland return I said ‘John McLelland who was chairman of the old club, some people will tell you the club, well the club that died, possibly coming back in terms of the new chairman’.“It wasn’t the most graceful effort at flowing prose, granted, but in a live unscripted radio discussion, that isn’t uncommon. There were 400 complaints from Rangers fans that my comments were inaccurate and misleading and the BBC Trust became involved. The situation dragged on for a long while before they ruled that there had been no breach of editorial guidelines. There was a sustained campaign of pretty vicious abuse on social media with threats directed at my family and myself.”

“The upside was the unbelievable support which I received from fans of other clubs in Scotland.

“A petition in support of me with over a thousand signatures was signed by supporters of other clubs and that was very welcome and heartening. In particular Aberdeen fans were terrific in their backing with their ‘We are all Jim Spence’ banner, which they unveiled at an away game at Firhill and at BBC HQ in Glasgow.”



Once they managed to get Spence removed they turned their attentions to Chris McLaughlin as they continued to attempt to dictate the media narrative, led by the despicable Jim Traynor.

I think I can trump that, Alex Thomson, award winning Channel 4 journalist, who won awards for his investigations into Northern Ireland shoot to kill policy and Hillsborough, was the first major English based journalist to cover the Rangers tax story. Look at the original story, which we're all now familiar with, and the second story, which is really shocking, about the campaign of intimidation with some interesting names mentioned.

Revealed: the payments that may lead to Rangers’ downfall – Channel 4 News (https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-payments-that-may-lead-to-rangers-downfall)
Threats and silence: the intimidation by Rangers fans – Alex Thomson – Channel 4 News (https://www.channel4.com/news/by/alex-thomson/blogs/threats-silence-intimidation-rangers-fans)

[WhileTheChief..]

It seems a bit unrealistic. You'd be undermining them in their place of work, that would be the claim.

What we need is a 'calciopoli'. Any non-Juve fan will tell you prior to 2006 that they got all the decisions, multiple examples of dodgy decisions in big games and some other parallel bias, always involving the big clubs. Then the Calcipoli scandal hit and what the fans were saying all along was proved to be true. The reason they got caught though was wire taps; which is a big thing in italian society, they think more phones are tapped in Italy than there are actual phones. I also think gambling is a much bigger thing among refs and players than we'd like to think it is. It would be weird if it wasn't, its basically rammed down the throat of everyone else these days. Bookies giving odds on first throw in/first booking? Basically an open invitation for an official to help make someone a few quid.

I'd have thought this would have already happened if there was anything actually going on?

It would be an absolutely, mind-blowingly, big news story for someone to break.

[hibsbollah]

I'd have thought this would have already happened if there was anything actually going on?

It would be an absolutely, mind-blowingly, big news story for someone to break.

Gambling is a huge industry. Gambling has long established links to organised crime because its such a great way to launder money. Gambling manipulation in sport has always happened, theres been many big news stories broken across the world and that will continue to happen, and its just a drop in the ocean because of the difficulty of proving what goes on when money changes hands informally. Its also a global industry, so it makes no sense to think that the manipulation of it just exists where its been discovered before, like India or the USA or Italy. I dont think that’s controversial or factually incorrect.

Referees favouring big clubs is pretty hard to prove, whether it’s institutional bias, corruption because of gambling or personal preference for one team over another. Then theres just subconscious bias, where a ref just wants a quiet life and not to give decisions against the noisiest angriest fan base and on socisl media. Theres a lot of layers to it and its not a straightforward case of they all sign a bit of paper in a wee hut in darkest Lanarkshire all saying im going to be a big cheat.

[stalbanshibby]

Gambling is a huge industry. Gambling has long established links to organised crime because its such a great way to launder money. Gambling manipulation in sport has always happened, theres been many big news stories broken across the world and that will continue to happen, and its just a drop in the ocean because of the difficulty of proving what goes on when money changes hands informally. Its also a global industry, so it makes no sense to think that the manipulation of it just exists where its been discovered before, like India or the USA or Italy. I dont think that’s controversial or factually incorrect.

Referees favouring big clubs is pretty hard to prove, whether it’s institutional bias, corruption because of gambling or personal preference for one team over another. Then theres just subconscious bias, where a ref just wants a quiet life and not to give decisions against the noisiest angriest fan base and on socisl media. Theres a lot of layers to it and its not a straightforward case of they all sign a bit of paper in a wee hut in darkest Lanarkshire all saying im going to be a big cheat.

Good post

[WhileTheChief..]

A lot of referees have professional careers outside the game that I doubt they would want to jeopardise. What's in it for them compared to the risk of what they could lose?

I also very much doubt any of them are involved in organised crime or gambling manipulation. Certainly no more so than any player in the country.

[MWHIBBIES]

It seems a bit unrealistic. You'd be undermining them in their place of work, that would be the claim.

What we need is a 'calciopoli'. Any non-Juve fan will tell you prior to 2006 that they got all the decisions, multiple examples of dodgy decisions in big games and some other parallel bias, always involving the big clubs. Then the Calcipoli scandal hit and what the fans were saying all along was proved to be true. The reason they got caught though was wire taps; which is a big thing in italian society, they think more phones are tapped in Italy than there are actual phones. I also think gambling is a much bigger thing among refs and players than we'd like to think it is. It would be weird if it wasn't, its basically rammed down the throat of everyone else these days. Bookies giving odds on first throw in/first booking? Basically an open invitation for an official to help make someone a few quid.

Calciopoli involved a lot more than just Juventus.

There were no evidence of match fixing or refereeing favours that aided Juventus. They, along with Lazio, Milan and Fiorentina, had a say in which referees were chosen for some matches. Obviously not okay but not deemed directly to be fixing matches (although I'd probably disagree). It's incorrect to say juventus got all the decisions for years and this just stopped. The investigation involved about 30 matches, not even that many involving juventus, over the previous 2 years.

I don't think players or managers knew anything about this. It was a few directors at those clubs.

The whole thing was a shambles and still rambles on.

The current Barcelona scandal is worse imo.

[hibsbollah]

Calciopoli involved a lot more than just Juventus.

There were no evidence of match fixing or refereeing favours that aided Juventus. They, along with Lazio, Milan and Fiorentina, had a say in which referees were chosen for some matches. Obviously not okay.

I don't think players or managers knew anything about this. It was a few directors at those clubs.

The whole thing was a shambles and still rambles on.

The current Barcelona scandal is worse imo.

I recommend Tobias Jones’ book ‘The Dark Heart of Italy’ on this. The point about it ‘still rambling on’ is that in Italy the judicial system doesnt work. Every legal judgement, no matter how watertight, gets appealed, which then takes years, and appeals then get appealed. The only reason Juve werent found guilty of matchfixing is because of the abuse of process.

You’re right other clubs were involved, i did mention ‘other big clubs’ in my original post

[JimBHibees]

I think I can trump that, Alex Thomson, award winning Channel 4 journalist, who won awards for his investigations into Northern Ireland shoot to kill policy and Hillsborough, was the first major English based journalist to cover the Rangers tax story. Look at the original story, which we're all now familiar with, and the second story, which is really shocking, about the campaign of intimidation with some interesting names mentioned.

Revealed: the payments that may lead to Rangers’ downfall – Channel 4 News (https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-payments-that-may-lead-to-rangers-downfall)
Threats and silence: the intimidation by Rangers fans – Alex Thomson – Channel 4 News (https://www.channel4.com/news/by/alex-thomson/blogs/threats-silence-intimidation-rangers-fans)

Simply says it all.

[Hibby70]

Apologies if it's already been discussed but do Hibs not decide if we use VAR tomorrow or not? Would have been good to make a point if we decided against it.

[overdrive]

Apologies if it's already been discussed but do Hibs not decide if we use VAR tomorrow or not? Would have been good to make a point if we decided against it.

No. If it’s on TV and the ground has VAR, then it must be used.

[MWHIBBIES]

Apologies if it's already been discussed but do Hibs not decide if we use VAR tomorrow or not? Would have been good to make a point if we decided against it.

Why? It would absolutely not benefit Hibs to not use it. The refs would give decisions anyway

[matty_f]

Big discussion on VAR on Spourtsound this afternoon. It’s not popular.

[Donegal Hibby]

Why? It would absolutely not benefit Hibs to not use it. The refs would give decisions anyway

Doesn't benefit us to often when we do use it either. It also doesn't add much to games apart from stoppages anyhow and is killing the game Imo .

[JimBHibees]

Why? It would absolutely not benefit Hibs to not use it. The refs would give decisions anyway

Gives two refs the chance to do us over rather than just one

[Kato]

Big discussion on VAR on Spourtsound this afternoon. It’s not popular.VAR shouldn't be called out as the problem.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Viva_Palmeiras]

No. If it’s on TV and the ground has VAR, then it must be used.

That’ll be More angles to capture the snippet required to support the favoured teams…

[Donegal Hibby]

Gives two refs the chance to do us over rather than just one

I wonder if the Wenger offside rule came in and the current crazy handball rule was changed would it help in we wouldn't need to use VAR as much in games ? .

[Paul1642]

Another game, another opportunity to revive this thread.

I genially can’t member I season where I feel Hibs have come of so poorly from refereeing decisions. It seems to be almost every game at the moment and it’s certainly not ‘levelling itself out’.

[Just Alf]

Another game, another opportunity to revive this thread.

I genially can’t member I season where I feel Hibs have come of so poorly from refereeing decisions. It seems to be almost every game at the moment and it’s certainly not ‘levelling itself out’.I'm not as friendly as you about it, I'm raging.



And apologies... i lnow its the bloody spell checker!

[HarpOnHibee]

VAR shouldn't be called out as the problem.

Correct. VAR simply gives referees the opportunity to overturn decisions that they get wrong. The fault is with themselves when their egos (or bias) are too great to do so. Blaming a very straight forward piece of technology lets them off the hook.

[overdrive]

Nothing will change until the GFA realises that every single referee in this country is at best grossly incompetent.

[BILLYHIBS]

I think we all saw that coming

Hibs were never winning that

Hopefully a watershed moment

Time to call out the weak biased officials but we all know nothing will happen

Top six here we come

[Hibees1973]

I think we all saw that coming

Hibs were never winning that

Hopefully a watershed moment

Time to call out the weak biased officials but we all know nothing will happen

Top six here we come

McLean and his team will be relieved they done all expected of them tonight. Iffy penalty, yellow cards to Hibs players at key times to inhibit their game and a couple of sending offs thrown in.

No complaints from Rangers and into the next round. Job done.

[maturehibby]

Only Fish shook hands with McLean all the other players shunned him .
Never seen that before even the Beaton and Clancy

[Chorley Hibee]

****ed over against Celtic, Aberdeen, Hearts and Rangers in the space of around six weeks.

Go on Hibs, grow a ****ing spine and just call the *******s out for a change!

If not, then don't be surprised at how empty Easter Road will continue to be.

[Carheenlea]

Statements or displeasure being broadcast in media interviews holds little clout. It’s just ignored, or if deemed too critical, an invite to be admonished by the suits will be administered.

Needs something radical that will actually make people sit up and take notice. A withdrawal from next seasons Scottish Cup would be extreme, but one I’d support if it actually accelerated the debate into refereeing in this country.

Unlikely to happen of course, but it needs something other than hot air to start to be seriously investigated. The way we’re continually shafted makes us the obvious body to take the lead and say we’ve had enough.

[pacorosssco]

Needs managed outside sfa. Like serpicio said how can the police , police itself

[matty_f]

I don’t know how anyone can argue that it’s just incompetence anymore. 1 booking from 11 fouls for Rangers tonight. Boyle told to get up every time he was fouled. Every 50/50 went Rangers’ way and the referee managed the game by giving Rangers the benefit of the doubt at every turn and relied on VAR to overturn anything clear and obvious.

Hibs never once got the benefit of the doubt and a VAR check to see if the ref got it right.

Obita’s second yellow wasn’t even seen by the referee, he got the card out after Goldson told him to.

There is no way that referee was letting us win. His handling of the game is indefensible. Ignoring Boyle in a heap on the ground to play was probably the worst of it.

[HoboHarry]

I don’t know how anyone can argue that it’s just incompetence anymore. 1 booking from 11 fouls for Rangers tonight. Boyle told to get up every time he was fouled. Every 50/50 went Rangers’ way and the referee managed the game by giving Rangers the benefit of the doubt at every turn and relied on VAR to overturn anything clear and obvious.

Hibs never once got the benefit of the doubt and a VAR check to see if the ref got it right.

Obita’s second yellow wasn’t even seen by the referee, he got the card out after Goldson told him to.

There is no way that referee was letting us win. His handling of the game is indefensible. Ignoring Boyle in a heap on the ground to play was probably the worst of it.
It isn't incompetence and never has been. Incompetence doesn't have a pattern and this clearly does, anyone who claims otherwise is doubling down on their agenda.

[Swedish hibee]

I don’t know how anyone can argue that it’s just incompetence anymore. 1 booking from 11 fouls for Rangers tonight. Boyle told to get up every time he was fouled. Every 50/50 went Rangers’ way and the referee managed the game by giving Rangers the benefit of the doubt at every turn and relied on VAR to overturn anything clear and obvious.

Hibs never once got the benefit of the doubt and a VAR check to see if the ref got it right.

Obita’s second yellow wasn’t even seen by the referee, he got the card out after Goldson told him to.

There is no way that referee was letting us win. His handling of the game is indefensible. Ignoring Boyle in a heap on the ground to play was probably the worst of it.

Well said Matty.

[Donegal Hibby]

It isn't incompetence and never has been. Incompetence doesn't have a pattern and this clearly does, anyone who claims otherwise is doubling down on their agenda.

:agree:

[Manxhibs]

You could actually see the excitement in his eyes when sending NMW off. As Matty F says, we were never going to be allowed to win that game. This is the most dejected I’ve felt about Scottish football, not sure there’s a way back.

[blackpoolhibs]

It's a deep rooted corruption, it has become the norm to favour those bigots, they do it without even thinking now.

Even with the introduction of VAR, they dont care that it is being shown to the world, because they know nothing will happen as the authorities behind them are corrupt too, and they dont give a **** either.

[FastEddieFelson]

Only Fish shook hands with McLean all the other players shunned him .
Never seen that before even the Beaton and Clancy

Marcondes shook his hand

[hibsbollah]

Between 7th February and 10th March, thats just 5 weeks, weve had our 4 biggest games of the season (Celtic, Aberdeen, Hearts and now Rangers) decided against us by the officials. And these arent borderline, maybe ayes maybe naws sort of decisions, they are scandalous decisions being made every single week.

4 in a MONTH. Let it sink in.
(Im actually forgetting Gollums bizarre penalty for nothing in the St Mirren debacle the week before too. We were getting nowt in that game because we were stinking, but the point remains).

[JimBHibees]

Between 7th February and 10th March, thats just 5 weeks, weve had our 4 biggest games of the season (Celtic, Aberdeen, Hearts and now Rangers) decided against us by the officials. And these arent borderline, maybe ayes maybe naws sort of decisions, they are scandalous decisions being made every single week.

4 in a MONTH. Let it sink in.
(Im actually forgetting Gollums bizarre penalty for nothing in the St Mirren debacle the week before too. We were getting nowt in that game because we were stinking, but the point remains).

And expect it to continue in the next few weeks to keep us in bottom six.

[norhfc]

Funny thing is on social media both Celtic and Rangers fans claim its them that are the victims of a great conspiracy. They dont see the irony as they must see these decisions going for them every week. As someone else pointed out we have been shafted numerous times since xmas. We need to start asking for the audio at these VAR incidents, the ones that actually go to VAR.

[flash]

****ed over against Celtic, Aberdeen, Hearts and Rangers in the space of around six weeks.

Go on Hibs, grow a ****ing spine and just call the *******s out for a change!

If not, then don't be surprised at how empty Easter Road will continue to be.

I hate crap like this. We have constantly complained about decisions and had a number of apologies as a result worthless as they are.

It's tedious beyond belief how a few posters use their own twisted agendas to tear into the club at every opportunity regardless of the truth.

[we are hibs]

It wasn't just all the big decisions yesterday either.


Twice in the first half Boyle was through and immediately flagged for offside. Aren't they supposed to keep the flag down and let it play out? Not when it could be detrimental to rangers though.

They are blatant with the major decisions and snide with ones like that too.

[Pretty Boy]

VAR just makes it worse.

You can pore over footage endlessly to find a reason to disallow a goal or award a penalty now. Look hard enough and you will find it. It also gives them an out when they make decisions clearly for the benefit of their favourites. If VAR looks at it then they can say it was looked at and the VAR officials agreed. Of course the VAR officials are part of the same racket so the system still works as intended.

The one that got me last night was their 2nd goalscorer not being booked. Left the park, climbed the advertising board and made contact with the crowd. Exactly the same thing McLean said he had no choice but to book Gray for in the 2016 final. Yet last night he apparently did have a choice and made it to favour Rangers. I'd be curious to know if that player was already on a booking that meant another yellow would have seen him miss the semi.

[147lothian]

VAR has to go, the ref getting called over then staying with the penalty decision, then not even looking at the second yellow for Obita was hard to take.

[hibee_girl]

VAR has to go, the ref getting called over then staying with the penalty decision, then not even looking at the second yellow for Obita was hard to take.

I don’t think VAR can get involved with second yellows tbf

[DH1875]

VAR has to go, the ref getting called over then staying with the penalty decision, then not even looking at the second yellow for Obita was hard to take.

Did he look at the penalty decision? I've totally missed it if he did.

[norhfc]

It wasn't just all the big decisions yesterday either.


Twice in the first half Boyle was through and immediately flagged for offside. Aren't they supposed to keep the flag down and let it play out? Not when it could be detrimental to rangers though.

They are blatant with the major decisions and snide with ones like that too.

This, and the high boot in their box and the not booking Silva. It was all so obvious.

[Chorley Hibee]

I hate crap like this. We have constantly complained about decisions and had a number of apologies as a result worthless as they are.

It's tedious beyond belief how a few posters use their own twisted agendas to tear into the club at every opportunity regardless of the truth.

When have we received a number of apologies?

When have we actually called them out for real rather than pussy footing around the issue.

Montgomery chose the latter option again last night because we have to "play by the rules" and his line about "officials having a bad day and everyone can have a bad day" just sweeps it all under the carpet once again.

I, and thousands of others based upon last night's attendance, have had enough of their cowardly attempts at dealing with this, and there are Hibs fans giving up on the club all together because of it.

So you can call it crap all you want, but when we're done over the next time, and the next time, then eventually you might just come round to the idea that we should be doing a damn sight more than we currently are.

My agenda is an end to the corruption in plain sight in Scottish football, and an end to Hibs giving it tacit approval.

Twisted? I don't think so.

[matty_f]

When have we received a number of apologies?

When have we actually called them out for real rather than pussy footing around the issue.

Montgomery chose the latter option again last night because we have to "play by the rules" and his line about "officials having a bad day and everyone can have a bad day" just sweeps it all under the carpet once again.

I, and thousands of others based upon last night's attendance, have had enough of their cowardly attempts at dealing with this, and there are Hibs fans giving up on the club all together because of it.

So you can call it crap all you want, but when we're done over the next time, and the next time, then eventually you might just come round to the idea that we should be doing a damn sight more than we currently are.

I think Monty went as far as he could in the context of a week or so when the SFA have called on clubs to consider their words when referees have had threats against them, their families, and at their place of work in the wake of Celtic’s game against Hearts.

[wilkie_1]

MIC the refs!!!!!!!!!!! The only thing Hibs can suggest without sounding bitter. They have it in rugby , why not football? It can only be looked at as a positive change for all. At least we can understand their thinking ………but we know they won’t do this either, but at least it will show them up for the corruption as they will have no reasonable excuse for not allowing it.

[JimBHibees]

Funny thing is on social media both Celtic and Rangers fans claim its them that are the victims of a great conspiracy. They dont see the irony as they must see these decisions going for them every week. As someone else pointed out we have been shafted numerous times since xmas. We need to start asking for the audio at these VAR incidents, the ones that actually go to VAR.

That should be a minimum would particularly be interested in the Clancy Muir chat last week.

[JimBHibees]

VAR just makes it worse.

You can pore over footage endlessly to find a reason to disallow a goal or award a penalty now. Look hard enough and you will find it. It also gives them an out when they make decisions clearly for the benefit of their favourites. If VAR looks at it then they can say it was looked at and the VAR officials agreed. Of course the VAR officials are part of the same racket so the system still works as intended.

The one that got me last night was their 2nd goalscorer not being booked. Left the park, climbed the advertising board and made contact with the crowd. Exactly the same thing McLean said he had no choice but to book Gray for in the 2016 final. Yet last night he apparently did have a choice and made it to favour Rangers. I'd be curious to know if that player was already on a booking that meant another yellow would have seen him miss the semi.

Yes Silva was booked v Ayr in previous round and should have been red carded in that game.

[SHODAN]

The really, really sickening thing about last night was that NO FOUL was given for an incident that ****ing hospitalised Martin Boyle and the fact that he was knocked out was what probably saved him from being booked for diving.

[Callum_62]

The really, really sickening thing about last night was that NO FOUL was given for an incident that ****ing hospitalised Martin Boyle and the fact that he was knocked out was what probably saved him from being booked for diving.That was just an unfortunate coming together

The fact the rangers player was wrong side and pulled Boyle down doesn't matter

The slightest contact from a defender wrong side only matters when it's in Rangers favor

Hope that's now cleared that incident up

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[macca70]

VAR just makes it worse.

You can pore over footage endlessly to find a reason to disallow a goal or award a penalty now. Look hard enough and you will find it. It also gives them an out when they make decisions clearly for the benefit of their favourites. If VAR looks at it then they can say it was looked at and the VAR officials agreed. Of course the VAR officials are part of the same racket so the system still works as intended.

The one that got me last night was their 2nd goalscorer not being booked. Left the park, climbed the advertising board and made contact with the crowd. Exactly the same thing McLean said he had no choice but to book Gray for in the 2016 final. Yet last night he apparently did have a choice and made it to favour Rangers. I'd be curious to know if that player was already on a booking that meant another yellow would have seen him miss the semi.

Exactly, whys Silva not booked for jumping the advertising to celebrate with the rangers fans. McLean was waiting on him coming back so i assumed he was getting ready to book him. He done nothing, probably congratulated him on scoring!!

11 fouls and their only booking was Roofe, who had actually only been on the park 1 minute and hadnt even touched the ball. It was probably the least deserving of a yellow out of all the rangers fouls as hibs player was heading back towards his own goal. Hibs had 7 fouls, which resulted in 4 bookings, 2 red cards and a penalty against us!!

There was a challenge on fish as he was charging forward, he was away from the rangers player and was clearly delibarately brought down as we were breaking through there press. No booking but hibs player had been booked 5 mins earlier for identical challenge!!

[GreenNWhiteArmy]

Incidents like last night are happening all the time whereby a player himself is initiating contact so that a penalty is awarded. I'm sure if it given to us (no laughing) we'd be calling our player "clever" no doubt but it's unsporting and really frustrating to watch when it's against you

I guess what I'm trying to say is, there's a major problem with officials and technology, but players aren't blameless either.

[Gloucester Hibs]

Exactly, whys Silva not booked for jumping the advertising to celebrate with the rangers fans. McLean was waiting on him coming back so i assumed he was getting ready to book him. He done nothing, probably congratulated him on scoring!!

11 fouls and their only booking was Roofe, who had actually only been on the park 1 minute and hadnt even touched the ball. It was probably the least deserving of a yellow out of all the rangers fouls as hibs player was heading back towards his own goal. Hibs had 7 fouls, which resulted in 4 bookings, 2 red cards and a penalty against us!!

There was a challenge on fish as he was charging forward, he was away from the rangers player and was clearly delibarately brought down as we were breaking through there press. No booking but hibs player had been booked 5 mins earlier for identical challenge!!

Was also a couple of occasions he blew for a free kick to us when it would’ve been better off playing the advantage as we were still in possession 🤔

[matty_f]

I think you can make a case, however strong/weak for each of the big decisions last night. What is irrefutable, though, is that in each case the referee’s immediate reaction was to give the decision that favoured Rangers and then let VAR bail him out if it was a clear and obvious error.

So when the Rangers player tumbles in the box - point to the spot. Is it a clear and obvious error or could you make a case for what the ref has given? The penalty stands. If he had awarded a goal kick or, as the referee did against Celtic, given Hibs a free kick and booked the forward, VAR probably goes with his decision there as well (though given the opponent, this would have been a pitch side review first probably overturned to a penalty…)

When Emiliano is brought down, the referee makes NO decision other than to say play on. If there was a doubt, surely he gives the penalty then let’s VAR tell him if he’s made a mistake? No - he favours Rangers and it’s not deemed clear and obvious enough for intervention.

The game was refereed entirely in favour of Rangers last night. It was outrageous.

[marinello59]

I think you can make a case, however strong/weak for each of the big decisions last night. What is irrefutable, though, is that in each case the referee’s immediate reaction was to give the decision that favoured Rangers and then let VAR bail him out if it was a clear and obvious error.

So when the Rangers player tumbles in the box - point to the spot. Is it a clear and obvious error or could you make a case for what the ref has given? The penalty stands. If he had awarded a goal kick or, as the referee did against Celtic, given Hibs a free kick and booked the forward, VAR probably goes with his decision there as well (though given the opponent, this would have been a pitch side review first probably overturned to a penalty…)

When Emiliano is brought down, the referee makes NO decision other than to say play on. If there was a doubt, surely he gives the penalty then let’s VAR tell him if he’s made a mistake? No - he favours Rangers and it’s not deemed clear and obvious enough for intervention.

The game was refereed entirely in favour of Rangers last night. It was outrageous.

:agree:

[wilkie_1]

Incidents like last night are happening all the time whereby a player himself is initiating contact so that a penalty is awarded. I'm sure if it given to us (no laughing) we'd be calling our player "clever" no doubt but it's unsporting and really frustrating to watch when it's against you

I guess what I'm trying to say is, there's a major problem with officials and technology, but players aren't blameless either.

Totally agree in an impartial league The difference is if we do this (Boyle) it’s seen as a dive. So what’s it be? Diving? Or since it’s contact you get a penalty
, yet again they just choose whichever one fits for them.

[StevieT]

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Crawford Allan is way out of his depth in his current role. The silence from him and the Referees Association is deafening. He hasn't got a clue how to change things and will be terrified that he does something that has an effect on the title race. This means that the rest of us just need to suck it up.

He recently said that, with hindsight, the referee in a Dundee game should have stopped play for treatment for a head injury. He the went on to say that the referee had done nothing wrong in his application of the laws of the game,but they have learned from this and it wouldn't happen again. Well guess what? It did, yesterday.
Most of the referees are clones of one another. I heard if one referee, who made many incorrect decisions during a game, got praised by his assessor as although the decisions were wrong,at least he was in the correct position to make the call.