stewarty

As quickly as our lead has disappeared, it could be regained. And we have a proper Rangers man at the helm in Super Ally. I understand your misgivings but a time of adversity is not the time to lose faith (although I accept you perhaps lost it/were losing it long before now).

Think we are reading too much into these quotes which could be read in different ways. Smacks of a journalist selecting one or two lines which make good copy, slam them together without context and voila, you have a wee headline grabber that will draw some hits on a website. I'd be interested to hear/see/read the full interview.

Its better to have as many players as possible available. Up until his red card, he was playing reasonably well in a team that was a goal to the good and in control of the game.

A purist's view. I respect that. But what I see are darker and more sinister forces at work. I realise as I type those words that it sounds more and more conspiratorial by the second so i guess I'll just need to take it on the chin. Or wait till the drink wears off... Fair do's.

Just read this thread and a number of Craig's points I have agreed with here and in another thread. I don't subsribe to conspiracy theories particularly but when you see the pressure exerted by Celtic last season upon referees and the SFA, and when you see the influence of Lawwell on the wee fud Regan; and set within the context of a number of strange decisions and retrospective actions, this is more than just mere coincidence.

But the stats referred to are not about the number of fouls. Rather, it is the number of fouls per yellow card. In other words, how many fouls do each team commit, on average, before a yellow card is issued.

I don't have all the pertinent facts to hand. But here's a couple: Hooper. Elbow to Motherwell centre half, draws blood, player goes down and Celtic get a goal about 20 seconds later. Referee doesn't see it and no retrospective action. Week or two later: Naismith uses forearm/elbow v Dunfermline, refereee misses it. Retrospective 2 match ban dished out. Colour me paranoid all you like but I see a flawed and unfair disciplinary which is not even being consistently applied. There are other incidents and utterings, particularly from that muppet Regan at the SFA, which lead me to this conclusion.

I don't think its paranoia. I understand that we expect THEM to partake in it; but to ignore what is going on, to retain a dignified silence to not challenge what seems to be a Pro-Celtic and therefore anti-Rangers agenda, on the back of the furore kicked up by Celtic last season, is to bend over and take it up the shite pipe. Not for me, I'm afraid.

It may be the copious libations partaken so far this Xmas day but I find myself in complete agreement with Leggo's blog today. http://leggoland2.blogspot.com/2011/12/refs-row-regan-and-lawyer-lunny.html

Festive greetings to all at Gersnet. Hope you and your families have a good time and that Santa brings you everything you wanted. Merry Christmas! Stewarty

So, say Carey had only claimed the foul but hadn't gone down like he did, and stayed down, would the red card have been shown? I think the reaction of the St Mirren player had a big part to play in the decision and as I said, I don't think his reaction was proportionate. Sure the game situation and the nature of the foul are different, but the end result is a player over-reacting to get the decision he wants. I'm not disputing it was a foul, I just think there's a hint of double standards at play.

I think it was quite a harsh red but I don't see any mileage in appealing. For it to work, and I would bow to someone else's knowledge of the rulebook, but wouldn't there need to be some sort of tangible evidence that the referee made a mistake? The evidence is pretty clear that he made contact with the elbow so there is no point taking this further. Plus the referee had a clear view of it. Saying that, Carey made an absolute sow's ear of that. The reaction was not proportionate to the contact, at least from the various tv angles we saw. So why is that any different to Aluko going down when there was contact v Dunfermline?

I know what you are saying. But he did get past his man on the right a couple of times so I don't think in Aluko's case its as much of an issue.

Too early to write the guy off. He's not had a run in the team to allow us to properly assess the guy. But then, I do accept the point that he hasn't been able to force his way into the team despite our recent mediocrity

But then, you've got to imagine he keeps in contact with his old mucker Alistair. So its not out with the bounds of possibility that he does know something is happening.

Indeed. Like I said, I'm sure he sells punters a line every day.

Asked the same question as the OP to Mark Hateley last night. Straight away he said Nacho Novo is coming back. Personally I don't think it stacks up that he'll be able to play on Wednesday if indeed he is coming back. But he did say something about Novo being out of contract so unless we know for definite, there is a chance we could be dusting down our best rendition of "There's only one Nacho Novo" for the visit to the Phiggery.

Bumped into Mark Hateley last night who assured me that Nacho will be re-signing with the Teddy Bears. I'm sure he sells a line to loads of punters all the time but he did seem very sure. Also said no way that Boyd would be coming back. But that could just be because he thinks Boyd is pish.

Its a nice theory. I can see the sense in experimenting in "lesser" fixtures.

Sort of like a metaphor for our season?

Was in the pub last night and the Shalke v Bremen game was on. Every time I looked up it seemed to be a cracking game, end to end stuff, good technique, tactical awareness, pace, the works. Basically everything that Scottish football is not.

And Fleck. And Healy. And McKay. And Weir.

I think its a case of him having lost a bit of confidence. And with him, when it goes, it really goes.

Does he not have a post-season tour of Japan or somewhere to organise? Deny, deflect, condone. Tis the Septic way.

Agreed. But they have a responsibility to satisfy themselves that an appropriate and diligent process has been followed.