Printable View
I see they are digging their heels in again even though they are once again wrong. Typical Daily Record article too in saying the ball looked clearly over the line and further in the article says appeared to be over the line . Don’t you just love it when that shower are unhappy and feel aggrieved about something 😆…
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/...seven-35395736
I’ve still not seen a photo that proves it was over the line. The fact the SFA panel think a goal should be awarded because it looks like it might have crossed the line is far more evidence of corruption than anything Sevco are whinging about.
Yet they wanted Hibs done when Irvine Welsh called them Sticky Buns on Hibs TV. Irvine summed them up perfectly as professional victims the day after.
It was an incident in a game that had absolutely nothing riding on it, an end of season dead rubber. If it's that bloody important to them, then they can get their new masters to pay for goal line technology in the premiership :greengrin
**** Rangers. Actually detest that club.
I concurQuote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
The SFA panel has no standing and is mainly a group of people getting a late pay day and often seems to contain members who don’t actually know the Laws of the Game.Quote:
Originally Posted by jakedance
Daily Record, the Hun Pravda.
Well, if they’re not going to win any trophies this season you’ll be damn right they’re winning the statement league !
I think it probably was over the line.
Which I absolutely love. I only wish it had cost them something significant
The hierarchy must have no hope at all in Russell Martin if they are setting up smokescreens already. The only tangible corruption in Scottish Football was the way that the previous Rangers diddled the wage bill and they were suitably punished. Maybe they should pay for anger management courses for John Bomber Brown.
From the article -
Nico Raskin’s effort in the 2-2 last day of the Premiership season draw clearly looked over the line but referee Nick Walsh waved play on.
Hibs went up the pitch and scored, prompting Rangers TV co-commentator Brown to question the integrity of the decision.
Where’s the evidence showing it was clearly over the line? They can greet all they like.
I can't remember any punishment at all. The club/business were liquidated meaning they lost their licence but they were allowed to start the next in a very advantageous position, that wasn't a punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by NORTHERNHIBBY
All their diddled trophies are still in the record books.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Like most right-wing institutions in the UK they are deluded, entitled and more than a tad swivel eyed. If more people just laughed at their antics and went about their business we'd all be better off.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamig
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Not strong enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donegal Hibby
It was actually a decent opportunity to have a sensible debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by jakedance
The images used to assist with making those big decisions in our home games with Celtic and Rangers were atrocious.
It’s lucky really that the decisions didn’t end up significantly impacting on anything.
It shouldn’t be hard to get right - the ball is definitively in or out but I don’t think either situation was conclusive one way or the other based on the available evidence.
The narrative should be that we’ve got to give the officials the best chance possible to get these decisions right because we’re not doing that right now. Instead it’s been a pitiful orgy of paranoia and victimhood from 2 rancid institutions and their followers who live for this sort of utter drivel.
Both were great games, should have been considered good Scottish football spectacles and they just end up being forgotten amidst pointless tedium.
I talked about gaslighting with the Celtic and Dundee United decisions that went for us, where the narrative was that you couldn’t tell and that the video evidence was inconclusive.
Now we have “clearly over the line” and no question about whether it was or wasn’t.
Again, it’s gaslighting - we’re just given the narrative that Rangers have been wronged, almost to the point where they’re suggesting Brown was correct to call the SFA corrupt.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
https://i.ibb.co/93bNshCZ/9-BB44-F1-...43-FD94-DF.jpg
That’s my point though.Quote:
Originally Posted by BILLYHIBS
Looking right down the line, if there’s daylight like that between the ball and the line, you know it’s out.
At an angle, it’s guesswork.
We all have our opinions - my opinion is that it’s out, based on that picture.
But I wouldn’t say it’s anything like definitive.
It’s definitive it is definitely out that was why VAR overruled it yet to see a definitive image showing the whole ball was over the line in The Rangers goal incidentQuote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
Its not. The pic is taken from a position left of the line. Until you see it from a camera in line, its still speculative. It does look as if its out - but its not conclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by BILLYHIBS
Wonder how long into the new season it will take for a statement.
Aye okQuote:
Originally Posted by tamig
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
It was definitely a goal, let's be fair. But then again, **** them and their self-entitled word salad statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pagan Hibernia
It was probably a goal.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Lol. There was no better angle. Its pie in the sky. If there was a better angle we’d all have seen it. Collum would certainly have had access to anything / if it existed. Our VAR system here is pretty pish. Its far from infallible and is probably used more up here for subjective points than to rule on factual matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by BILLYHIBS
Agree all I want is for the correct decision to be made win lose or draw but we are gonna need better VAR more cameras goal line technology and automated offside pretty pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by tamig
But there is conclusive evidence that he said it was corrupt.
They're like Violet Elizabeth-Bott.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
https://images.app.goo.gl/QNpPb7khhVQS7fhQ6Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Bonnie Langford Loyal.
Sent from my SM-A127F using Tapatalk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BILLYHIBS
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.
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
Gollum threw the AVAR under the bus and the VAR review panel voted 4:1 that the Celtic goal should have stood ??Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
What chance have you got ?
Backed his VAR boys the next time it came along ( The Rangers Ghost Goal ) IIRC ?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicoM1875
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.
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 VARQuote:
Originally Posted by BILLYHIBS
That's what happens when you pander to the panel.
Cringe
Not over the line and not too difficult to prove
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 GloryGlory
They always win the statement leagueQuote:
Originally Posted by EdinMike
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."
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.🤣Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
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 playersQuote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
And the purpose of the panel?Quote:
Originally Posted by CentreLine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
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.
Spot the hun?Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
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
New owners but not a thing has changed apparently. Dislikeable bunch of self entitled a***holes.Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
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’
To increase the takings st the Loudon Tavern.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
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.
100% needs to be dealt with otherwise it’s seen as intimidationQuote:
Originally Posted by Carheenlea
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”Quote:
Originally Posted by Carheenlea
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.
:faf::lolrangers:Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875