Sevco go to town

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

They're like Violet Elizabeth-Bott.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

https://images.app.goo.gl/QNpPb7khhVQS7fhQ6

Bonnie Langford Loyal.

Sent from my SM-A127F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BILLYHIBS

Aye ok

I sit in the West South and that is the image burnt into my brain it was out trust me

Suck it up Brenda

Edit

Willie Gollum said the goal should have stood as it was not conclusive but audio from the match seems to point to the AVAR finding a better angle and making a factual decision based on that wonder if they are still in a job ? 😀

https://i.ibb.co/5XS5FKFF/IMG-3602.png

https://i.ibb.co/394zgWTQ/IMG-3603.png

---

What’s mad, and where the gaslighting comes in, is that the VAR were looking at different angles, at first they can’t get one that gives them a view if the ball is out (in the transcript you can see they say it’s inconclusive) then they’re shown another angle and still frames and you can see they they reach a point where they can say the ball is out of play - again evidence by them saying they can see it’s out.

Collum *should* have backed the VAR in this instance instead of playing along with the narrative that they couldn’t tell.


But as he didn’t, when it came to this incident, VAR bottled making a call on it and Collum had to stick to his guns.

Edit: this was made more ridiculous by the VAR on the Belgium v Wales game disallowing a goal for the ball going out for a throw in without having to produce irrefutable evidence that it had, they used their eyes and the images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

What’s mad, and where the gaslighting comes in, is that the VAR were looking at different angles, at first they can’t get one that gives them a view if the ball is out (in the transcript you can see they say it’s inconclusive) then they’re shown another angle and still frames and you can see they they reach a point where they can say the ball is out of play - again evidence by them saying they can see it’s out.

Collum *should* have backed the VAR in this instance instead of playing along with the narrative that they couldn’t tell.


But as he didn’t, when it came to this incident, VAR bottled making a call on it and Collum had to stick to his guns.

---

I agree, Collum has backed himself into a corner now.The same camera angles that now can't be used for goal line decisions can be used to rule a players toe nail offside an inch from the goal line apparently. Make it make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

What’s mad, and where the gaslighting comes in, is that the VAR were looking at different angles, at first they can’t get one that gives them a view if the ball is out (in the transcript you can see they say it’s inconclusive) then they’re shown another angle and still frames and you can see they they reach a point where they can say the ball is out of play - again evidence by them saying they can see it’s out.

Collum *should* have backed the VAR in this instance instead of playing along with the narrative that they couldn’t tell.


But as he didn’t, when it came to this incident, VAR bottled making a call on it and Collum had to stick to his guns.

Edit: this was made more ridiculous by the VAR on the Belgium v Wales game disallowing a goal for the ball going out for a throw in without having to produce irrefutable evidence that it had, they used their eyes and the images.

---

Gollum threw the AVAR under the bus and the VAR review panel voted 4:1 that the Celtic goal should have stood ??

What chance have you got ?

Backed his VAR boys the next time it came along ( The Rangers Ghost Goal ) IIRC ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChicoM1875

It was probably a goal.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

---

Probably over the line, but it was definitely a foul on Rocky before the ball even reached the goal line so no goal in a corruption free world.

The fact that the Huns are still upset about it is the cherry on top :greengrin

2016 has done irreversible damage to them
Corruption 😂😂 This coming from a team that didn't get a penalty in the league awarded against them for 70 odd games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BILLYHIBS

Gollum threw the AVAR under the bus and the VAR review panel voted 4:1 that the Celtic goal should have stood ??

What chance have you got ?

Backed his VAR boys the next time it came along ( The Rangers Ghost Goal ) IIRC ?

---

Correct you should be backing up your colleagues for making a decision based on what they see. Had to laugh at Collum saying if the ball in the Rangers game had been on the ground the VAR could have made a decision. By not backing up his officials he has created this situation. The Aberdeen V Rangers game a linesman called a marginal decision similar to the Hibs Celtic game from 40 plus yards away with players and goalposts in the way therefore did not need to go to VAR
That's what happens when you pander to the panel.

Cringe

Not over the line and not too difficult to prove

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GloryGlory

Honest to God you'd think they'd lost the league by one goal on goal difference they way they go on, rather than ended up in exactly the same position they would have ended up in, anyway.

---

You can see why they do get a lot of 50/50 decision as it probably less hassle for the officials and they know it . As for Brown on the corruption comment even the other commentator said to him at the time “ I don’t think we can actually say that” and Brown just went “ well I’m saying it “ Us going up the other end and scoring just added to the drama of it all perfectly 😂

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdinMike

Well, if they’re not going to win any trophies this season you’ll be damn right they’re winning the statement league !

---

They always win the statement league

75 League games without conceding a penalty 2022-24 defies belief logic and the laws of probability

On the cusp of a shock Scottish Cup defeat at home to Queens Park they were unbelievably awarded a late penalty in the 97th minute and blew it

Straightforward foul on Rocky to prevent him clearing the ball and, as the match referee ruled it never crossed the line so can't see what all the fuss is about.

Unless of course you are the relatively pointless "Bomber" Brown looking to be relevant amongst like minded huns.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

oh STFU for the love o the wee man, shower of pathetic Gimps

Rangers say the Scottish FA "will be watched closely" after a fine of £3,000 was imposed following a remark made by former player John Brown on club media.
The Ibrox club said they would "firmly deny any breach of Scottish FA rules" after former Ibrox defender Brown called a refereeing decision "corrupt" on Rangers TV.
In the final match of Rangers' league season, Nicolas Raskin appeared to bundle the ball over the line, with the SFA's key match incident panel later ruling the goal should have stood.
Citing being found in breach of SFA disciplinary rule 38, Rangers said: "If this is now the standard, they will be watched closely to ensure it is applied across the board, consistently, without exception and without favour."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

oh STFU for the love o the wee man, shower of pathetic Gimps

Rangers say the Scottish FA "will be watched closely" after a fine of £3,000 was imposed following a remark made by former player John Brown on club media.
The Ibrox club said they would "firmly deny any breach of Scottish FA rules" after former Ibrox defender Brown called a refereeing decision "corrupt" on Rangers TV.
In the final match of Rangers' league season, Nicolas Raskin appeared to bundle the ball over the line, with the SFA's key match incident panel later ruling the goal should have stood.
Citing being found in breach of SFA disciplinary rule 38, Rangers said: "If this is now the standard, they will be watched closely to ensure it is applied across the board, consistently, without exception and without favour."

---

So there will be a group of staff at Ibrox watching the games of all the other teams TV stations on their cheat sticks and reporting any offensive language to the SFA.🤣

Can anyone tell me the purpose of the "Key Match Incident Panel"?

Do they review one Key Match or is it just badly named and who is on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Can anyone tell me the purpose of the "Key Match Incident Panel"?

Do they review one Key Match or is it just badly named and who is on it?

---

Apparently a random selection of over opinionated people like journalists and ex players

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CentreLine

Apparently a random selection of over opinionated people like journalists and ex players

---

And the purpose of the panel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Can anyone tell me the purpose of the "Key Match Incident Panel"?

Do they review one Key Match or is it just badly named and who is on it?

---

Apparently a random selection of over opinionated people like journalists and ex players appointed to a panel in order to review controversial incidents at all to flight games. Done in an effort to give the appearance of transparency but actually pointless and open to bias. Dundee Utd withdrew completely from it or, at the very least, threatened to last year.

Of course it has actually no relevance in the the rangers rant as all the panel said was they thought it was a goal. The SFA disciplinary action has nothing to do with whether it was a goal or not it was because a representative of the the rangers openly and repeatedly stated the officialdom in Scottish football is corrupt. Mentioning the irrelevant KMI panel is just a smokescreen and padding in a ridiculous statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

And the purpose of the panel?

---

Spot the hun?

A quiz type show along the lines of Would I Lie To You, except you will definitely be lied to?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

oh STFU for the love o the wee man, shower of pathetic Gimps

Rangers say the Scottish FA "will be watched closely" after a fine of £3,000 was imposed following a remark made by former player John Brown on club media.
The Ibrox club said they would "firmly deny any breach of Scottish FA rules" after former Ibrox defender Brown called a refereeing decision "corrupt" on Rangers TV.
In the final match of Rangers' league season, Nicolas Raskin appeared to bundle the ball over the line, with the SFA's key match incident panel later ruling the goal should have stood.
Citing being found in breach of SFA disciplinary rule 38, Rangers said: "If this is now the standard, they will be watched closely to ensure it is applied across the board, consistently, without exception and without favour."

---

New owners but not a thing has changed apparently. Dislikeable bunch of self entitled a***holes.

SFA 1-0 Huns final score.

‘Scottish FA Statement - Judicial Panel Tribunal

Friday 20 June 2025
We note Rangers’ response to the determination of a recent independent Judicial Panel Tribunal. In the interests of accuracy, we wish to address some of the misleading comments contained therein:

The sanction imposed by an independent panel was entirely in keeping with the application of the rules. The most recent and relevant example of a similar breach, the sanction imposed on Richard Foster of Motherwell FC for comments of a similar nature in the media, attests to that.

Furthermore, to address the comments regarding “rationale behind differing outcomes”, we wish to point to the fact that investigations were undertaken in previous cases outlined and that the Compliance Officers of the time saw fit to issue a censure by way of warning letter for potential breaches deemed insufficiently serious to be progressed to a Notice of Complaint.

This system of proportionality has been adopted since the inception of the Judicial Panel Protocol in 2011. Indeed, such discretion was exercised last season when the Compliance Officer wrote to the club to warn of the future conduct of players following matters involving Vaclav Cerny, Dujon Sterling and Mohamed Diomande.

We also note that Rangers intend to contact the association to seek clarity on the Judicial Panel Protocol and its application. The club is, in fact, already represented on the JPP Working Group.

We have requested written reasons from the panel chair involved in the tribunal and in the interests of transparency will publish in due course.

JPP Rule 38 was introduced in response to the referee strike of 2010, when match officials campaigned for greater protection after enduring sustained personal criticism from clubs and fans. Ahead of a new season, we remind clubs of their responsibilities in this regard’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Can anyone tell me the purpose of the "Key Match Incident Panel"?

Do they review one Key Match or is it just badly named and who is on it?

---

To increase the takings st the Loudon Tavern.

Don’t think they can be allowed to get away with the “watched closely” line.

The underlying tone is a menacing one and no accident of speech.

Whatever the fine was for Brown’s outburst was just double it for this statement. Heading down a similar road to media darling McCoist demanding names and addresses of people.

A horrible club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carheenlea

Don’t think they can be allowed to get away with the “watched closely” line.

The underlying tone is a menacing one and no accident of speech.

Whatever the fine was for Brown’s outburst was just double it for this statement. Heading down the road of media darling McCoist demanding names and addresses of people.

A horrible club.

---

100% needs to be dealt with otherwise it’s seen as intimidation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carheenlea

Don’t think they can be allowed to get away with the “watched closely” line.

The underlying tone is a menacing one and no accident of speech.

Whatever the fine was for Brown’s outburst was just double it for this statement. Heading down a similar road to media darling McCoist demanding names and addresses of people.

A horrible club.

---

They are a horrible club. Not a good day for them yesterday. Another costly episode in the life of The Rangers. Lord Sandison not really impressed with the “agreement”
His quotes are quite funny in the context of a big court case



https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/...court-session/

We also note that Rangers intend to contact the association to seek clarity on the Judicial Panel Protocol and its application. The club is, in fact, already represented on the JPP Working Group.


The above says it all about that club. Everything done for the hard of thinking in that support. Similar as in previous post to McCoist demanding names which he already knew of.

[QUOTE=Bishop Hibee;7985918]SFA 1-0 Huns final score.

‘Scottish FA Statement - Judicial Panel Tribunal

Friday 20 June 2025
We note Rangers’ response to the determination of a recent independent Judicial Panel Tribunal. In the interests of accuracy, we wish to address some of the misleading comments contained therein:

The sanction imposed by an independent panel was entirely in keeping with the application of the rules. The most recent and relevant example of a similar breach, the sanction imposed on Richard Foster of Motherwell FC for comments of a similar nature in the media, attests to that.

Furthermore, to address the comments regarding “rationale behind differing outcomes”, we wish to point to the fact that investigations were undertaken in previous cases outlined and that the Compliance Officers of the time saw fit to issue a censure by way of warning letter for potential breaches deemed insufficiently serious to be progressed to a Notice of Complaint.

This system of proportionality has been adopted since the inception of the Judicial Panel Protocol in 2011. Indeed, such discretion was exercised last season when the Compliance Officer wrote to the club to warn of the future conduct of players following matters involving Vaclav Cerny, Dujon Sterling and Mohamed Diomande.

We also note that Rangers intend to contact the association to seek clarity on the Judicial Panel Protocol and its application. The club is, in fact, already represented on the JPP Working Group.

We have requested written reasons from the panel chair involved in the tribunal and in the interests of transparency will publish in due course.

JPP Rule 38 was introduced in response to the referee strike of 2010, when match officials campaigned for greater protection after enduring sustained personal criticism from clubs and fans. Ahead of a new season, we remind clubs of their responsibilities in this regard’[
In addition to Richard Foster’s suspension, Paul McGinn was suspended for two matches after calling Referee John Beaton’s performance “inept” during Hibs v Celtic League Cup Final a few seasons ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

oh STFU for the love o the wee man, shower of pathetic Gimps

Rangers say the Scottish FA "will be watched closely" after a fine of £3,000 was imposed following a remark made by former player John Brown on club media.
The Ibrox club said they would "firmly deny any breach of Scottish FA rules" after former Ibrox defender Brown called a refereeing decision "corrupt" on Rangers TV.
In the final match of Rangers' league season, Nicolas Raskin appeared to bundle the ball over the line, with the SFA's key match incident panel later ruling the goal should have stood.
Citing being found in breach of SFA disciplinary rule 38, Rangers said: "If this is now the standard, they will be watched closely to ensure it is applied across the board, consistently, without exception and without favour."

---

:faf::lolrangers: