Honest mistakes or something more sinister?

[Gaffer 1,665]

Unfortunately, all this talk of politics is clouding the issue. The original question was around honest mistakes or something sinister. I think we had very good 'evidence' of something sinister from the ref at the Hibs game. Surely the question is then about how far does this go. Seriously, is there anyone that has another example of our team being victimised by referees? As I've said, this is the only example I have where it was obvious that there was something sinister rather than poor performance by the ref. Are there any others?

[StuGers 477]

All depends on who replied to the questions.....the process could be re-run & a completely different set of results obtained.

 

One thing I would say is that the majority of those questioned have no interest in football, therefore why would they go out of their way to "punish" Rangers??? Part of the discussion here is that the victimisation of our club/players stems from the Govt, passing on their views down the chain & actively trying to work against the club.....but I've yet to see ANY evidence that supports that theory.

 

I would say that there is plenty circumstantial evidence to suggest that influence & agendas are being pushed within the footballing bodies, but I don't believe it goes any further than that.

 

We’ve already covered the “why”.

Because they would want to destabilise what is (or is perceived to be) a pro-union. It’s as simple as that. Either that or a religious thing.

[StuGers 477]

Unfortunately, all this talk of politics is clouding the issue. The original question was around honest mistakes or something sinister. I think we had very good 'evidence' of something sinister from the ref at the Hibs game. Surely the question is then about how far does this go. Seriously, is there anyone that has another example of our team being victimised by referees? As I've said, this is the only example I have where it was obvious that there was something sinister rather than poor performance by the ref. Are there any others?

 

The majority of matches this season has had the refs give every 60/40 in favour of the other team.

[Big Jaws 570]

You can self identify as a tractor, a pony or even a rhombus for all I care. Equally the political make up of any given supporters bus is of little interest to me in as much as I'm not having conversations with those folk on those buses. When I did go on a supporters bus of course there would be discussions of all types in the bar's and cafe stops before and after the match travelling to and from the grounds. Some of those conversations were of a political nature as the people were mostly of a similar background. They lived in and around each other they were known to each other, its natural, so yes debates would ensue but even at that not all people I encountered were monarchists never mind unionist. I make reference to a majority of Rangers supporters having those political opinions above, and again I reiterate there is nothing wrong with having those opinions, but that is not, as far as I'm aware, a club policy. On a side note we fly 4 flags on match day the two important ones for this discussion are the Union flag and the Saltire both take pride of place above the main façade of Ibrox. It shows Rangers are a Scottish club playing in a Scottish league system in Scotland, Scotland is, by proxy of the UK state, part of Great Britain which is also represented in these two flags.

 

What is interesting from my liberal perspective (to declare my perspective fully at times classical liberalism other times social liberalism) is that the discussion seems to revolve, improperly analogous, around the SNP which incidentally has deep links to Presbyterianism especially the Solemn League and Covenant and indeed through that also to Scottish conservatism. The argument seems to be centred around the pursuit of independence and the SNP's use of the symbol as a political weapon although the Scottish conservative party has used the symbol in a similar way, arguably for much longer, yet rarely seems to draw attention or be questioned.

 

I do not wish to throw a spanner in the works here but at the time of the creation of the Union the Church in Scotland had the clause written into the document 'FOR ALL TIME' that its religious autonomy and practices would remain separate from that of the newly created state. So just to be clear we have a separate Presbyterian church and the sovereignty of this land is given via the grace of the people therein unlike our southern cousins who's church and head of state is a magisterial sovereign whom reigns supremely over vassals.

 

Back to the OP's topic.

 

Rangers asked an extremely pertinent question in their last public address on the subject of referee's..

 

'We do not know and will not be told who referred this matter, nor what motivated them.'

 

Its pertinent in that it is an important tenet of society to have the opportunity/ability to face ones accuser and have the case tested. The question then becomes who made the referral and what was their motivation in doing so? Is it virtuous or politically motivated? We then have to look at the amount of time spent by various media sources on such referrals. We need to do this because these are popular sources of information and indeed they can also set agenda. Included in this examination there has to be an acknowledgement of political or religious bias or conditioning within such institutions. Take for example BBC Scotland which is supposed to be impartial. Its fairly clear to most observers that BBC Scotland is littered with labour party members, associates and place men. Again there is nothing particularly wrong with holding that political view point. You'll always have Richard Gordon, Stewart Cosgrove types who despise everything about our football club and to a certain extent they are outliers who have been allowed to rise to station above their intelligence by the cabal who runs that particular media hub in Glasgow purely because they meet the agenda they wish to set. Agend setting is where it becomes problematic for such an institution and the reason for it being a problem is that it is dominated by labour party supporters from the west coast and in particular Glasgow. Now a labour party meeting in Glasgow is made up very differently from one in Fife or indeed Ayrshire in terms of cross sections of those regionally internal societies. Dipping briefly back into the political and in particular BBC Scotlands relationship with the SNP. Its true that the SNP want to achieve political independence, we can debate such propositions in the Bluenose Lounge section of the forum but not here. However SNP ideas and policy with regards to the monarch and the church have not changed in the near 100 years of their existence nor did they need to either as they are entirely consistent with their original premise, Scottish Assembly, which incidentally, from above, already acknowledged that religious autonomy and acceptance of the premise in those clauses included and enshrined within the Union document which would not change in the event of a review of the political union.

 

During the debate in 2014 the labour party through BBC Scotland and other MSM mouth pieces made much political capital out of that particular SNP position. They referred to it as 'picking and choosing'. In this case, its a blunt weapon, the SNP are a red herring or patsy, the church and monarch and indeed Scotlands institutions have nothing to do with the debate on whether Scotland is an independent state or not as they are already independent and have been since the creation of the union. Its actually an attack on Scottish religious autonomy and through it the sovereign and its institutions which the labour party has long held a preference to dismantle. We could argue whether it is or not the republican element of the labour party that has, since 97', held sway in the annals of BBC Scotland and also certain UK government departments and institutions that has lead to a dearth of impartiality or not? For me BBC Scotland is extremely important in this discussion because an endorsement from a source regarded as an authority lends credibility and also sets the agenda regardless if it was first to print or not.

 

With credibility and agenda being set by certain journalist working within the state broadcaster it is not necessarily a leap of faith to suggest that there is a bias in the reporting of a particular party or at the very least a subjective magnifying glass that is not equally used to examine the other SPFL football clubs.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Big Jaws

[Gaffer 1,665]

I liked the good old days when we used to call 'them' the paranoid ones. If any party seriously wanted to destroy the union (as the SNP does), there's not much point wasting your time on Rangers. There are more direct ways of achieving this, which is exactly where they are spending their time. And if pro union parties really believed that Rangers was an important pillar of the union, wouldn't you expect the Labour and Tory MSPs to support Rangers? I've now attempted to bring this back into topic 4 or 5 times without success. Can we stick to the topic, which is about refs and decisions against Rangers?

 

I was listening to the podcast as I normally do and thought they made a good point about the Jack red card. They suggested that he wouldn't have had a red card if he had acknowledged that he injured the player, but didn't mean it. They thought that by him carrying on, it demonstrated a f@@@ you attitude which suggested to the ref it was deliberate. I thought it all happened too quickly for that to be the thinking of the ref. Of course, I did think it was red. My issue is why the other two tackles from their players were not punished consistently. One of them was right next to the linesmen so why didn't he intervene? I see it very rarely. Why? Are they too scared to put their heads above the parapet?

[Big Jaws 570]

Price hikes are almost everywhere. In Holland the VAT on food is going from 6 to 9% and last year the top VAT went from 19 to 21%. They have promised lower income-tax but only the well paid will really benefit from that. Given that the oil price is again in the lift and Electric and gas are going to be far more expensive to cover the costs of the Paris Climate agreement. Health care insurance is hiked almost every year then we are certainly going to have to tighten our belts.

 

Its an odd one Pete and since you're an ex-pat I'm assuming you'll not really know much about it other than a headline perhaps?

 

I can understand why Gonzo is whining because it'll affect the price of alcopops and cheap drink like Thunderbird and his Mad dog 20/20 but wont affect the price of a bottle of single malt for me or in your case the price of your bottle of Bolly.

[Big Jaws 570]

.

..

 

Can we stick to the topic, which is about refs and decisions against Rangers?

 

I was listening to the podcast as I normally do and thought they made a good point about the Jack red card. They suggested that he wouldn't have had a red card if he had acknowledged that he injured the player, but didn't mean it. They thought that by him carrying on, it demonstrated a f@@@ you attitude which suggested to the ref it was deliberate. I thought it all happened too quickly for that to be the thinking of the ref. Of course, I did think it was red. My issue is why the other two tackles from their players were not punished consistently. One of them was right next to the linesmen so why didn't he intervene? I see it very rarely. Why? Are they too scared to put their heads above the parapet?

 

I've heard this argument a few times in the last few days and as much as I understand why its being made I have one question to ask.

 

How many times have we seen a players act of contrition lead to a more lenient judgement from referee's?

 

I'm asking because I feel the the referee had already made up his mind.

[Gaffer 1,665]

I've heard this argument a few times in the last few days and as much as I understand why its being made I have one question to ask.

 

How many times have we seen a players act of contrition lead to a more lenient judgement from referee's?

 

I'm asking because I feel the the referee had already made up his mind.

 

That's fair because I can't recall any instances recently where that's made any difference. I do remember when Ally injured Snelders that his immediate response to help the player did help the situation but that's about 30 years ago I think so nothing recent.

 

I still don't know why refs don't punish tackles like the one on Tav. Those are career ending tackles and surely the simplest of all reds to give. Very rarely is that being punished appropriately.

[Gonzo79 15,299]

I can understand why Gonzo is whining because it'll affect the price of alcopops and cheap drink like Thunderbird and his Mad dog 20/20 but wont affect the price of a bottle of single malt for me or in your case the price of your bottle of Bolly.

 

I drink Scottish ales mainly. I love a Speyside malt too (I'll refrain from suggesting what I think you might drink). I'm more concerned about poor people not feeding their kids in order to fund their drinking.

 

But the referees and the like...I think those who hate our club have their tentacles everywhere. We all went to the pub while they went to the library...

[pete 2,499]

The people that invented money, work and the alarm clock should have been hung drawn and quartered. I would happily run around the woods with my spear looking for swine and collecting wood. Today people can't see the woods for their smart telephones.

Most of the world have become little piggies. The big boys are up there scraping up the fodder while keeping the little piggies happy with their Iphones and Galaxies.