Match Thread [FT] Rangers 2 (Cerny 34', 58') - 0 St Johnstone

[locked ward 100]

[Gonzo79 15,292]

30 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Cerny is still rubbish.

Some of his short range passing in the second half last night was shockingly bad.  He misplaced passes to a teammate five or six yards away on at least three or four occasions. 

[Sutton_blows_goats 5,326]

38 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Some of his short range passing in the second half last night was shockingly bad.  He misplaced passes to a teammate five or six yards away on at least three or four occasions. 

At one point he was skinned by the St Johnstone forward, and just gave up, didn't continue tracking. Its easy to work hard, but you have to actually do it.

[Bluedell 5,624]

3 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

Bit unfair to label fans who pay to watch matches having a moan about a player who isn't playing well as 'sheeple'.  

I've got some sympathy with that view. It seems that half our support are ready to jump on any bandwagon to slag off our players over the past few years and a couple of bad games get exaggerated into half a season. To be fair, it seems to me that it's largely the non-match attending fans who are the worst for it, but it does get a bit draining where some players are harassed in person and online. 

[Gonzo79 15,292]

15 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

To be fair, it seems to me that it's largely the non-match attending fans who are the worst for it, but it does get a bit draining where some players are harassed in person and online. 

Fair point.  The 'having a moan' comment was more in relation to a "FFS" shout at the match or criticising players, in a reasonable manner, on a Rangers forum, than some idiot telling Cerny he's a twat on Instagram. 

 

I actually stuck up for Cerny the other day.  It's obvious he's a bit hit and miss (like pretty much every winger ever). 

[Sutton_blows_goats 5,326]

3 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

 

Bit unfair to label fans who pay to watch matches having a moan about a player who isn't playing well as 'sheeple'.  

It would be best if the opinion police had a checklist of criteria that ensured fans didn't give an opinion they didn't like.

 

I could give Elon a call and we can see if he can silence any dissidents on twitter that want to criticise a player via AI.

 

Everything that is not going well with our club will instantly vanish and trebles will appear from no where.

 

'If no one is allowed to criticise then there cant be any problems' - Plato 400 BC, on Facebook.

[Uilleam 5,929]

18 hours ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

How’s var not looking at the essel shirt pull on Dessers there? Looks absolute stonewall 

Funny that you should mention that, unless you are Martin Samuel of The Times' sports pages. I assume that you're not him, because he is, as far as I know. a West Ham man. Mind you......he is opinionated (his job, I shouldn't wonder) and is known to talk a lot of shite (his job, again, I shouldn't wonder), but maybe, sometimes, just sometimes, a coincidence is merely a coincidence. 😉

 

Today, Samuels has a piece on VAR, etc. and, one can only agree with him, that officialdom seems to be improvising, winging it, ie making it up as it goes along. 

He's right to be concerned, as should we, and moreso - this is the country where some officials are manifestly terrified of one particular football club, its influence in  League and Association, and its 'fans', generally, and within the media; where some officials manifestly undertake their professional duties with a view to redressing decades of 'grievances', real, and imagined (the latter, for the most part, frankly), in favour of that same particular football club; and where the rump of officials are, manifestly, no' very guid. 

 

Here is the piece, for your interest:

 

We appear to be entering the post-truth era of refereeing

By blindly backing officials who overlook foul play such as Virgil van Dijk for Liverpool against Crystal Palace, the Premier League is complicit in a charade that is undermining the game

Martin Samuel

Monday October 07 2024, 7.00am, The Times

 

We appear to be entering the post-truth era of refereeing (thetimes.com)

 

Everyone was smiling as the Liverpool defender Virgil van Dijk received his man-of-the-match award on Saturday. Jules Breach, TNT Sports’ post-match interviewer, beamed, Van Dijk grinned happily, as did his team-mate Cody Gakpo by his side. “Congrats, brother,” Gakpo said as he handed over the prize. And no one mentioned the penalty.

Would Van Dijk have been deemed the game’s star turn had Simon Hooper, the referee, correctly identified his tug on Crystal Palace’s Marc Guéhi in the 71st minute? Would he have been man of the match had Palace then scored from the spot and held on for the draw, with Liverpool dropping to third place only a few hours later, after Arsenal and Manchester City had won?

For that is what could, and maybe should, have happened. Liverpool were better than Palace and might have run out winners anyway, but the point is: we’ll never know. Once again the match officials failed to spot what was clear and obvious to most observers. But no matter. The Premier League has its own way of negotiating these moments now. It makes it up.

 

 

The league, and the PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Ltd), look supporters and viewers in the eye and tell them that what they saw is not what happened at all. Premier League statements explaining contentious calls should come with those blue pills offered in The Matrix. Continue experiencing the illusion, people. There was no pull, there was no foul. Van Dijk was faultless. Look, here is his player-of-the-match award. And see how happy we all are.

Referees make mistakes, and that’s fine. That’s football as it has always been. Calls are often subjective. A lot of decisions are just judgments, matters of opinion. All of this we accept. So Hooper didn’t think Van Dijk having two hands on Guéhi, pulling him backwards as he tried to attack the ball, was a foul. Yes, it’s frustrating, but unexceptional. David Coote, the VAR, must then have agreed, because he didn’t even suggest a check.

 

And as exasperating as it is that two referees appear not to know the rules, it isn’t the first time this has happened. Coote was the official who also didn’t see the Manchester United centre half Lisandro Martínez’s two-footed lunge towards Daichi Kamada as a red card at Selhurst Park last month. The locals will be familiar with the standard of his work and of the leniency famous names and famous clubs often receive. In United’s game away to Aston Villa on Sunday, Marcus Rashford stayed on the pitch courtesy of Rob Jones, the referee, because instead of a second booking for a deliberate foul, he received an indulgent verbal reprimand. As Erik ten Hag swiftly took him off, United retained 11 men throughout too.

 

Yet, back to Saturday’s game, and what appears to have changed this season is the way the league is now complicit in this pretence of competence. In rushing out statements to explain decisions that look controversial — or, to put it bluntly, wrong — it has committed to backing its officials, no matter the evidence. “The referee’s call of no penalty for the challenge by Van Dijk on Guéhi is checked and confirmed by VAR — deeming that the challenge was not sustained holding and had no impact on the play,” the league said. Feel the certainty in that statement. The unequivocal nature of its language.

 

The Premier League’s justification for Van Dijk’s let-off against Palace beggars belief

ASHLEY WESTERN/REX/COLORSPORT

 

And now think about it. What is meant by “not sustained holding”? So — you can hold now? Is that what it is saying? Did anyone notice this rather important rule change? You can now just get hold of a player’s arm and impede his movement, as long as it is not sustained.

And what is meant by sustained? Are we measuring in time, or distance? How long can a non-sustained hold last; or for how many strides? In a sport in which the explosion of speed is crucial, when even one second seems a decent hold time, this is a significant shift. Grab an Olympic sprinter by the arm as he comes out of the blocks and see what impact that has on his race — it’s no different for a centre forward, or any player trying to reach the ball. That’s why holding has always been a foul.

As for having no impact on play, this is a body that struggles to spot a simple infringement in the penalty area but can, somehow, see the future. Yes, it would have been hard for Guéhi to get to Trevoh Chalobah’s pass, but we cannot say for certain that he would not have made it, or that his presence in the vicinity might not have forced a mistake out of Alisson in Liverpool’s goal. Instead the goalkeeper was allowed to collect the ball unchallenged. And that didn’t make a difference? We know this?

 

The same thing happened when Chelsea visited West Ham United last month. Wesley Fofana seized the arm of Crysencio Summerville to stop him running. The foul began outside the area and continued inside, where Summerville fell. Samuel Barrott, the referee, waved it away, and Stuart Attwell, the VAR, described it as “fleeting”. This would appear to be another word for non-sustained holding. Yet, for the foul to start outside the area and continue inside, it must have been sustained across a yard or two.

 

So will we now get a directive on this, so that defenders can work out how long they get to foul an opponent before the officials respond? It’s the not knowing that makes it so difficult. What is it? One, Mississippi? Two, Mississippi? Imagine conceding a penalty just because the defender wasn’t aware how long his legal foul could last?

It used to be that English football played a version of the rules. That a level of physicality viewed as unacceptable abroad was permitted here. It was why some of our more robust players — such as Mark Hughes — encountered problems when signing for foreign clubs. Yet, this is new. The idea that holding — and with both hands in Van Dijk’s case — must be sustained to constitute foul play appears to be a Premier League invention. Either that or we have entered the post-truth era of refereeing. And neither is encouraging, frankly.

 

 

 

[Yorkie Bear 586]

2 hours ago, Uilleam said:

Funny that you should mention that, unless you are Martin Samuel of The Times' sports pages. I assume that you're not him, because he is, as far as I know. a West Ham man. Mind you......he is opinionated (his job, I shouldn't wonder) and is known to talk a lot of shite (his job, again, I shouldn't wonder), but maybe, sometimes, just sometimes, a coincidence is merely a coincidence. 😉

 

Today, Samuels has a piece on VAR, etc. and, one can only agree with him, that officialdom seems to be improvising, winging it, ie making it up as it goes along. 

He's right to be concerned, as should we, and moreso - this is the country where some officials are manifestly terrified of one particular football club, its influence in  League and Association, and its 'fans', generally, and within the media; where some officials manifestly undertake their professional duties with a view to redressing decades of 'grievances', real, and imagined (the latter, for the most part, frankly), in favour of that same particular football club; and where the rump of officials are, manifestly, no' very guid. 

 

I await Willie Collum's edict on shirt pulling with interest

 

[Blue Moon 1,289]

4 hours ago, Uilleam said:

Funny that you should mention that, unless you are Martin Samuel of The Times' sports pages. I assume that you're not him, because he is, as far as I know. a West Ham man. Mind you......he is opinionated (his job, I shouldn't wonder) and is known to talk a lot of shite (his job, again, I shouldn't wonder), but maybe, sometimes, just sometimes, a coincidence is merely a coincidence. 😉

 

Today, Samuels has a piece on VAR, etc. and, one can only agree with him, that officialdom seems to be improvising, winging it, ie making it up as it goes along. 

He's right to be concerned, as should we, and moreso - this is the country where some officials are manifestly terrified of one particular football club, its influence in  League and Association, and its 'fans', generally, and within the media; where some officials manifestly undertake their professional duties with a view to redressing decades of 'grievances', real, and imagined (the latter, for the most part, frankly), in favour of that same particular football club; and where the rump of officials are, manifestly, no' very guid. 

 

Here is the piece, for your interest:

 

We appear to be entering the post-truth era of refereeing

By blindly backing officials who overlook foul play such as Virgil van Dijk for Liverpool against Crystal Palace, the Premier League is complicit in a charade that is undermining the game

Martin Samuel

Monday October 07 2024, 7.00am, The Times

 

We appear to be entering the post-truth era of refereeing (thetimes.com)

 

Everyone was smiling as the Liverpool defender Virgil van Dijk received his man-of-the-match award on Saturday. Jules Breach, TNT Sports’ post-match interviewer, beamed, Van Dijk grinned happily, as did his team-mate Cody Gakpo by his side. “Congrats, brother,” Gakpo said as he handed over the prize. And no one mentioned the penalty.

Would Van Dijk have been deemed the game’s star turn had Simon Hooper, the referee, correctly identified his tug on Crystal Palace’s Marc Guéhi in the 71st minute? Would he have been man of the match had Palace then scored from the spot and held on for the draw, with Liverpool dropping to third place only a few hours later, after Arsenal and Manchester City had won?

For that is what could, and maybe should, have happened. Liverpool were better than Palace and might have run out winners anyway, but the point is: we’ll never know. Once again the match officials failed to spot what was clear and obvious to most observers. But no matter. The Premier League has its own way of negotiating these moments now. It makes it up.

 

 

The league, and the PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Ltd), look supporters and viewers in the eye and tell them that what they saw is not what happened at all. Premier League statements explaining contentious calls should come with those blue pills offered in The Matrix. Continue experiencing the illusion, people. There was no pull, there was no foul. Van Dijk was faultless. Look, here is his player-of-the-match award. And see how happy we all are.

Referees make mistakes, and that’s fine. That’s football as it has always been. Calls are often subjective. A lot of decisions are just judgments, matters of opinion. All of this we accept. So Hooper didn’t think Van Dijk having two hands on Guéhi, pulling him backwards as he tried to attack the ball, was a foul. Yes, it’s frustrating, but unexceptional. David Coote, the VAR, must then have agreed, because he didn’t even suggest a check.

 

And as exasperating as it is that two referees appear not to know the rules, it isn’t the first time this has happened. Coote was the official who also didn’t see the Manchester United centre half Lisandro Martínez’s two-footed lunge towards Daichi Kamada as a red card at Selhurst Park last month. The locals will be familiar with the standard of his work and of the leniency famous names and famous clubs often receive. In United’s game away to Aston Villa on Sunday, Marcus Rashford stayed on the pitch courtesy of Rob Jones, the referee, because instead of a second booking for a deliberate foul, he received an indulgent verbal reprimand. As Erik ten Hag swiftly took him off, United retained 11 men throughout too.

 

Yet, back to Saturday’s game, and what appears to have changed this season is the way the league is now complicit in this pretence of competence. In rushing out statements to explain decisions that look controversial — or, to put it bluntly, wrong — it has committed to backing its officials, no matter the evidence. “The referee’s call of no penalty for the challenge by Van Dijk on Guéhi is checked and confirmed by VAR — deeming that the challenge was not sustained holding and had no impact on the play,” the league said. Feel the certainty in that statement. The unequivocal nature of its language.

 

The Premier League’s justification for Van Dijk’s let-off against Palace beggars belief

ASHLEY WESTERN/REX/COLORSPORT

 

And now think about it. What is meant by “not sustained holding”? So — you can hold now? Is that what it is saying? Did anyone notice this rather important rule change? You can now just get hold of a player’s arm and impede his movement, as long as it is not sustained.

And what is meant by sustained? Are we measuring in time, or distance? How long can a non-sustained hold last; or for how many strides? In a sport in which the explosion of speed is crucial, when even one second seems a decent hold time, this is a significant shift. Grab an Olympic sprinter by the arm as he comes out of the blocks and see what impact that has on his race — it’s no different for a centre forward, or any player trying to reach the ball. That’s why holding has always been a foul.

As for having no impact on play, this is a body that struggles to spot a simple infringement in the penalty area but can, somehow, see the future. Yes, it would have been hard for Guéhi to get to Trevoh Chalobah’s pass, but we cannot say for certain that he would not have made it, or that his presence in the vicinity might not have forced a mistake out of Alisson in Liverpool’s goal. Instead the goalkeeper was allowed to collect the ball unchallenged. And that didn’t make a difference? We know this?

 

The same thing happened when Chelsea visited West Ham United last month. Wesley Fofana seized the arm of Crysencio Summerville to stop him running. The foul began outside the area and continued inside, where Summerville fell. Samuel Barrott, the referee, waved it away, and Stuart Attwell, the VAR, described it as “fleeting”. This would appear to be another word for non-sustained holding. Yet, for the foul to start outside the area and continue inside, it must have been sustained across a yard or two.

 

So will we now get a directive on this, so that defenders can work out how long they get to foul an opponent before the officials respond? It’s the not knowing that makes it so difficult. What is it? One, Mississippi? Two, Mississippi? Imagine conceding a penalty just because the defender wasn’t aware how long his legal foul could last?

It used to be that English football played a version of the rules. That a level of physicality viewed as unacceptable abroad was permitted here. It was why some of our more robust players — such as Mark Hughes — encountered problems when signing for foreign clubs. Yet, this is new. The idea that holding — and with both hands in Van Dijk’s case — must be sustained to constitute foul play appears to be a Premier League invention. Either that or we have entered the post-truth era of refereeing. And neither is encouraging, frankly.

 

 

 

I've heard the supporters (of that team) who populate the football programmes in Scotland  say on many occasions "it wasn't enough of a foul".  They are treating us like fools.

[RANGERRAB 3,653]

14 minutes ago, Blue Moon said:

I've heard the supporters (of that team) who populate the football programmes in Scotland  say on many occasions "it wasn't enough of a foul".  They are treating us like fools.

Think back to last seasons SC final & Joe Hart getting a foul to deny Sima his goal.

would that be ‘enough for a foul’ do u think?

Or was the referee just a cheat?