Originally Posted by
theonlywayisup
I believe that with the Old Firm, a referee needs to be 70% to 80% convinced that one of their players has breached the rules before awarding anything against them. Whereas, when it's the other way round, he only needs to be 20% to 30% convinced to award something in their favour.
Whilst the percentages can be argued against, the general idea can't. Just look at how many 50/50s seem to go in their favour.
And who can blame then anyway. If they give a wrong decision against the non-Old Firm teams, it's all "these things even themselves out over the season" spin from the media. When the Old Firm teams are on the end of a wrong decision, it's front page news for days.