Leaderboard

In an ideal world the referees would be robots; cold, consistent, repeatable. But variations are tolerated because we're dealing with humans. That's just how it is, so it has to be accepted. On top of that it also adds a bit of interest, another dimension, in having referees with individual styles or personalities. However, what is important is that the referee is consistent within any given match. That way the players know where they stand, and the viewing public know too. That ultimately sets the context of the match and it cannot be dissociated from the decisions made within it. By that I mean that were an event to unfold and be dealt with in that instance and the referee will naturally, subconsciously or not, factors in other incidents and his handling of the game. Decisions could be "levelled up" or scores allowed to be settled within that game. One such scenario would be the McGregor on Ferguson tackle in the recent Aberdeen v Rangers match. McGregor, arguably, pushed his luck and caught Ferguson under the pretence of protecting himself. The referee saw this and made the call to let it go with a warning. Minutes later in a similar play Ferguson drew some revenge and kicked at McGregor. The referee booked Ferguson. Both were arguably red cards, possibly even more so for Ferguson. But it was dealt with within the game. For the Compliance Officer to then take it out of that context is wrong. The referee clearly seen both incidents and dealt with them. The incident is no longer in isolation. You simply cannot start going in and picking individual incidents unless they are particularly violent or unsporting or clearly unseen. Certain members of the press trumpeted the two game ban handed out to McGregor and reassured everyone that it was a victory for justice, that the besieged Compliance Officer had at least got something correct and therefore the system works (a stopped clock). Justice, the noun, means just behaviour or treatment, and it sits in a family with fairness, parity and even-handedness. As an example, if nine people commit an offence and they don’t get highlighted, cited or banned (when evidence exists), but McGregor does, then that isn’t justice. In fact, it’s patently unjust. My understanding of the CO role is that it exists as arbiter for the laws of the game, who will deal with red tape, appeals and such like, whilst also picking up punishment on incidents that the referee missed or didn’t see (blatant diving, cheating or violent acts) or comments (of disrepute) outside the 90 mins of the match. This should give a level of consistency across the board that referees alone cannot achieve, keep the wider world of football in check and to anchor it to some solid common foundation. Of course, the latter role only works if said person or team sits down and watches the six Premiership games for that weekend and applies the same framework and filters to each. As a minimum you must surely review the entire game to understand the context of any highlighted incident. Was Morelos out of control in the Rangers vs Celtic match? Or was it a well contested match where he was involved in physical tussles with opposition players who gave as good as they got, and who could also easily be cited if there were desire to do so? But a full review does not happen. As it stands a black box exists between the point that incidents occur, and the moment the public get informed that a player has been cited (notice of complaint issued) and a ban is proposed/offered. Which is where it leaves itself wide open to conspiracy chatter. And the lack of transparency is a concern. What is there to hide? The intention is only to enforce the rules of football in a fair manner, that should be it. It’s hardly high-level government secrets. There needn’t be a shroud of mystery. All of which leaves us to draw our own conclusions and form opinion on whatever evidence exists i.e. through our own eyes from watching the football matches, as football fans, and the statistics related to those matches and processes. And the statistics are baffling. Nine Rangers players have been cited in the past year or so with zero Celtic players reported. I believe the last Celtic player cited on the pitch for foul play was Glenn Loovens back in 2009. What makes this incredible is that we all saw Leigh Griffiths smack an opposition players head against the turf and Scott Brown kick at an opposition players face who was lying on the ground. I think it's important to say I have no problem with Rangers players being punished when they push the limits but to not even issue those incidents with a notice of complaint is questionable. To further drive this home Scott Brown (again, i know) jumped in and caught Candeias on the lower leg with his studs. Textbook late, dangerous and reckless play. He repeated this act against Hibs, against a backdrop of maximum compliance officiating: (Scott Brown's tackle on Mark Milligan 'could have been a red' - Scott McDonald, BBC Sport). Then in this weekend’s match at Rugby Park he felt suitably comfortable and emboldened in his surroundings to do it again. This gives us three tackles endangering the safety of his fellow professionals in six weeks. The referees opted to hide behind a safe yellow whilst the CO opted to look the other way, at this stage for the first two at least. As did our consistently predictable media - a yellow card for earlier challenge was as far as the BBC's match report was prepared to discuss it. Kilmarnock 0-1 Celtic: (Scott Brown scores then is sent off - BBC Sport). Now this might have some commentators dismissing these points as whataboutery, and they’d be correct, because that is exactly what justice and parity are. The same people said McGregor and Morelos pushed the CO too far with similar examples of foul play - when does Scott Brown receive the same attention and 'justice'? The other problem we now have is that "trial by Sportscene" appears to be a reality. whereby the CO responds to the influence of the media and not to the merit of the incidents. The problem here is that bias does exist. Anyone that listens to Chris Sutton or Tom English knows they are biased. They apply different rules to Rangers, and others clubs, and Celtic. Be it for entertainment, attention, or sensationalism, under orders or just inherent visceral prejudice - they are biased and perform their media duties in that fashion. There is a trail of evidence proving such which I wrote about recently on this site. The referees have a tough job, no-one will deny them that. But at least the referee is out there, under the eye of the crowd, and the cameras, knowing the game (and his career) depends on some level of competence and professionalism with no super-slo mo replays from various angles. A lot their job is quick instinctive decisions based on that experienced practising of the rules and you’d hope there is no time or desire to discriminate. However, it is up for debate if they can be swayed or influenced to make that the call that makes their life a bit easier – the safe yellow that keeps the tabloids or public broadcasting company from their doorstep. As with the CO process the recent statistics for the referees throw up some anomalies that should cause Rangers fans to raise an eyebrow. Is the shorter fuse on Rangers bookings or red cards a direct result of media pressure? Therefore, if it can be a factor one way or another should the media not be held to tighter standards in this regard? Shouldn’t the SFA/SPFL as the governors of the game put integrity, where it can be compromised, above slanted sensationalism from their licensed broadcasters? When one of your main clubs calls out one of said broadcasters then there surely should be a debate? Personally, I believe that the last three compliance officers have questions to ask over their impartiality. Who chose them? Who vetted them? Does previous employment throw up a conflict of interest? As again the veil of secrecy and lack of scrutiny naturally draws suspicion. But even if they shoot 100% true and professionally, it appears that the process they operate is being fed input from a known biased source; therefore, the larger process is compromised and not fit for purpose. And if these professionals are aware that the system is flawed and yet accept it then that must also be a problem. If the rules or process are inadequate, flawed or open to abuse, then stop and change them, surely? After all they are the legal arbiters. They work within the rules and have a responsibility to iron out any glitches where they see them. Or at the very least open the process up to the public, e.g. tell us who has been placing most of the complaints? After all it is only football, I’m sure there is nothing to hide.

Due to TV black out the ST Pats fans will miss the match more than the Rangers fans!

Both will not be done!!, that is admitting guilt.

@Gonzo79 beat me to it, but: In a statement, BBC Scotland said: "Our coverage, including analysis and comment, is editorially fair."

How many times now has McCoist had the opportunity to defend Rangers players while he was on BT? that is the point, not what he did for us before!.

McCoist has proven himself to be a very adept trough-guzzler, so don't hold your breath. Gerrard speaking out about it is what we need. Then people outside Scotland will pay some attention.

Okay. In the interests of both clarity and transparency, two words oft' repeated by numerous commentators on BBC Scotland; who are the Editors? Sportscene is the ONLY show on TV that refuses to run credits.

I thought the Robertson interview was long overdue and needs to be followed up. Too often we've seen a play that is made at a time to appease disgruntled fans that isn't followed-up. #strategy

Just listened, very good pod thanks for that. To pick up on the bit at the end regarding how the team is looking and what's needed, I think Grezda is being disregarded a bit prematurely by the fans. Fans can get fed up of a player very fast when he's injured. He's only really had a handful of starts and those came during our worst spell of the season in December. I think he has an ability to shoot from the edge of the box (and with both feet) which we don't see from Kent or Candeias or anyone in the team really and that we'll see him come good once he's fit, hopefully this season and not next!

"UEFA shall consider requests for kick-off time slots overlapping with UEFA competition matches on a case-by-case basis and undertakes to strive to find a positive solution, depending on all circumstances of each individual case. This is the bit that interests me. The fact we have a domestic cup replay, hurriedly arranged to fit the schedule, gives more than enough reason to show our game on an internet platform, thereby not competing with the main tv broadcast of CL fixtures. It is a slam dunk, and this is exactly the rule that PSG will have used to ensure they can broadcast their game. If our game is blacked out, it is because we have not applied to UEFA to allow us to show it, and if we have, we should be announcing that to our fans via our own website and showing the hypocrisy of UEFA yet again by them allowing a league game in France featuring a big powerful club to be televised, but not ours.

Apologies for no podcast this week but good news is that we'll be having our first LIVE pod on Youtube this Sunday at 9.30pm. @rfb1872, @Govan Rear Bear, @JohnMc and myself will all be featuring and, as well as discussing Saturday's game and previewing the Killie cup replay, we're hoping to also take your questions via the chat facility. This will be our first live pod so please be gentle! If it's a success, then we may make this a regular feature before and after games so please support us if you can by watching on Sunday evening.

I wonder how often the Sun has mentioned our fantastic attendances, despite winning nothing of note, during the 2010s. A despicable rag that should be shut down.

None of us would have recognized the name. Some would have asked "where is he coming from". Now we know... best to let the lad prove himself on his own merits. Good to see we are getting the likes of him and Young-Coomes who already looks like a real talent. Too young to know the impact they could have, but good to see us signing technical players, rather than physical, in the Academy.

Yes the interview was both welcome and long overdue. In isolation it won't have much effect and needs to be step one on a journey or else it ends up futile, I'm not holding my breath.

I can't make it tomorrow night, so I'm not poking fun at anyone. I remember the days when Rangers were on TV once or twice a season (and I was a kid, so was only allowed to go to a handful of games). As long as we win, that's what matters.

Yes indeed, there are the likes of me over 4,000 miles away who can never make it.

That's ok for those who can make it!

Kevin Thomson Alex Rae, whilst taking SSB coin, does a decent job at defending the club - could be more aggressive though. Not sure I could name five right enough - though, strangely, we have guys like Negri & Amoruso who defend us on social media at times - but could do with it being a concerted effort.

As far as I know the price is at the insistence of Kilmarnock as Rangers had indicated they wanted to lower the price. The Blue Pound eh!!!!!

McCoist is not the person I would want sticking up for Rangers players, basically because he won't! he is another one who would rather keep his pay masters happy!

Agree with that. Only reason it was mentioned it that it is an indication of his ability that he was playing for the best team in that age group.

Agreed, we need someone savvy enough to challenge the haters and defend our players, we don't have that as far as I can see, maybe one or two should receive a bit of training??

You need ex-players/others who have a level of knowledge of the subject and sufficient media gumption to be able to put points accross and probably field a cross-examination. To simply push forward any Xplayer and give him a line to put accross would end up working against you. To have any hope of success, the whole effort has to be carried out with due care to detail.

Best article on the subject that I've read. Cheers Rick !

Mr Robertson's calls are to little to late as usual with our board what's needed is a Willie Waddle type to handle these things but sadly there is no one like that at Ibrox more the pity .

Do we have any ex-players who are willing to put their head above the parapet? most are happy just to take the coin!. I can't think of one ex-player who is willing to challenge this or the bias on show?.

Exactly. We should have 5 ex-players lined up to make comments in the press about it over the next 5 days.

That is one of the biggest, most obvious, lies I have ever read.

Chelsea reminded me of us sideways/backward passing ,plenty of possession no penetration or end result. Man U. two great goals reminiscent of the old right/left wing crosses with players busting a gut to get finishing touches.

The likes of Graham Spiers, Keith Jackson and Michael Stewart make no attempt to hide their contempt for Rangers. Three gimps.

He spoke well and made his point. His "we're being treated differently from every other club" line nails it. Interesting to hear that the BBC wanted to come back and cover matches but not interview players or managers. Whilst the lack of coverage of our home matches angers me I support the club in saying 'no' to that. As Robertson says, just treated us the same way you treat every other club. I said last night I thought Gerrard should say this, but I'm delighted someone has said it.

I can't be the only fan who is struggling to even watch games anymore. Corruption ? Inconsistency ? Honest mistakes ? When the majority of them go against you, or in favour of your biggest rivals for trophies, it effectively removes the word "competition" from the equation. It obliterates your energy for it, knowing that it isn't a level playing field, unless of course we actually believe that "they even themselves out over a season". We are currently 8 points behind Celtic, fair enough We have dropped points of our own making too many times, fair enough. But if you ask yourself how many points Celtic have dropped that were because of poor officiating - and how many points they have gained because of poor officiating.... and that is before you even begin looking at the same thing for us, it is galling. We had a 3 point swing in the 1st OF game (Jack foul, game would otherwise have ended 0-0, despite us being pumped), you also then have a 2 point swing this past weekend where a player scored a winner who should not have been on the pitch to score it - and, indeed, their opponents were down to 10 men AFTER he should have been sent off). That is 5 points in just two games (one game I watched, obviously - the other I just saw the images. I don't watch them but you can be sure there are more examples of points gained due to poor officiating. That is 5 out of 8 of a difference. Now, not for one minute am I excusing us dropping points we shouldn't, or indeed even poor performances against teams we should be beating - but when your rivals seem to be getting an unproportionate amount of "good luck" from officiating, and when the national media cover up any misdeeds (or show inconsistency - BBC said Brown's was a yellow card, yet absolutely hounded the authorities to give McGregor a two game ban) and attempt to derail us at every opportunity.... then your energy and passion for it just vanishes. We aren't playing on a level playing field - and that is the most galling aspect. If we were, and ended up second best, then fair enough. But I would just like to know how close we are if there actually was a competition in place. Lawwell has exactly what he always wanted - Rangers back at the top table but being crippled to prevent us from challenging, not just financially but from his vice-like grip on the media narrative, a very compliant media and a CO who, it seems, is more than willing to further assist in ensuring that Rangers will not challenge their run at the title. It is his dream scenario. It's sickening - and is edging me towards just shutting off from Scottish football - I probably would in fact, if it weren't for the love of Rangers that I have.

I wasn’t comparing ability, though. You don’t have to be a skilful footballer to do the basics and never give up. Harry Davis and Bobby Shearer couldn't do slide rule passes or nutmegs but their mental sleeves were rolled up before they ran out of the tunnel and they kept at it for ninety minutes.

Gang Hut Speak. Looking through BBC Scotland's website this morning, I note they have a most peculiar take(spin) on events effecting Kris Boyd yesterday. Of course, the article is unattributed. It begins : 'Kilmarnock striker Kris Boyd has criticised Celtic fans after being hit by a coin and being subjected to what he considers sectarian abuse on Sunday'. BBC Scotland's multi layered defence of Sellik begins with redefining sectarianism, are we to believe that only Kris Boyd considers being subjected to to continuous chants of, 'you're just a fat orange bastard', is an expression of sectarianism? Obviously, in the PQ Gang Hut, being referred to as an orange bastard is a term of endearment. The piece goes on, 'The former Rangers and Scotland striker had been warming up as a substitute when apparently struck by an object'. Having watched BBC Scotland's very own Sportscene last evening, there is no ambiguity, the footage clearly shows a pound coin striking Boyd's arm. Why the need for the adverb, 'apparently'? Now, this particular adverb could have been utilised to speculate on the source of the coin, the Green Brigade. Sportscene stated the coin emanated from, 'the crowd'; they didn't speculate on which set of supporters, let alone specify a grouping. It allowed Michael Stewart to include the coin thrown at Livi. Remember, that coin thrower has been arrested, charged, and appeared in court. Whoever tossed the pound coin at Boyd will be arrested, charged, and appear in court, the same time as the Fernando Ricksen lighter thrower at ra Stade de Gadd, 18 years ago.