Sportscene

BigBadJohn said:
If it's anything like the radio they'll focus on the James Sands incident and ignore the fact we mauled them for 90minutes. Not even worth listening to, the pundits they employ don't even know the rules. It's a joke of an organisation.
Click to expand...
Sands was lucky for me. If VAR was in play he was gone. But we did play some great stuff and cruised it. Onwards Bears.
 
NigelSpackmansBowTie said:
The second one is a straight red. No doubt. but if the first yellow isn’t shown Sands is not in the second situation because everything is different afterwards. that’s why the Lundstram red is central to Alfredo being sent off. If Lundstram is not sent off then Alfie is not in the second scenario. it’s why it is pointless saying Goldson’s mistake or the missed penalty cost us the EL final. These are counterfactuals. You can never know what would have happened next if things had been different.
Click to expand...
That is some mega straw clutching
 
Theresa May said:
Genuine question, are you a referee yourself? I'm getting that impression.

Either way, I think it's beyond naive if you think a referee, who is human like the rest of us, won't be influenced by external factors, be that in the moment or indeed as part of a wider narrative. For instance, crowds at all grounds across Scotland scream and jump out of their seat every time Morelos fouls or is perceived to have done something. I've seen Morelos sent off a few times where it was unwarranted. Some, of course, were.

Take Gascoigne circa 1995 against Hibs as another example - do you think McCloskey would have booked any other player for jokingly booking him in a light hearted manner as the player was handing back the cards he himself had dropped? Or was McCloskey "just refereeing what he saw"? Of course he wasn't, he was booking Paul Gascoigne because it was Paul Gascoigne.
Click to expand...
Jeez mate. The Gazza booking was a disgrace but it was 1995. I'm no ref but I'll back them as it's nigh on impossible to get everything right as is the case worldwide for them. People should look at incidents from the referee perspective without watching a thousand replays then complaining because of what you saw. I'd argue that you're naive to believe that refs make decisions based on what they read in the papers or watch on TV. They have a job to do on the day that they try to do to the best of their ability. They aren't the best in the world but they referee in Scotland and are picked from a small pool made smaller because of the reluctance to enter the sport because of the abuse that they're subjected to. They are only going to get worse as numbers dwindle but that doesn't make them biased against Rangers.
 
Theresa May said:
It wasn't a yellow, but that's also irrelevant.

The second one was a red card in itself. Sands was last man and pulled the boy down. By the rules, that's that's straight red.
Click to expand...
It should have been a sending off although Sportscene certainly milked it. We got lucky there. We should have had a penalty for the hand ball and you could certainly argue the elbows against our players could have resulted in red cards.

It just confirms for me that we do need VAR. We would have suffered today with it but we'll benefit overall. And the other lot will definitely suffer if it's applied correctly.
 
bob1873 said:
Literally right in front of me absolutely deliberate and a red in any league with VAR. The referee was looking the other way but his mate the guy with the stick was looking right at it.
Click to expand...

Agreed, looked to me like he had his elbow higher than his shoulder, it wasnt an accident.
 
Was the Sands incident even given as a foul?

I was at the game and as far as I remember, the ref just waved play on as it looked like they were both at it.

Probably 100% wrong, but I was sure play didn't stop.
 
thelangloyal said:
Stewart basically said we shouldn't be playing our strongest team today and should be rotating the squad.

Fuck off ya ginger prick.
Click to expand...
Yeah what the %^*& was that about!! Aye let's rotate the team too much and potentially drop points so he can have a dig at Gio for that!

We have a League cup game against Queen of the South on Tuesday where fringe players will get their chance and we want the team to be firing for Old Firm game next Saturday and a 4-0 win is another decent confidence booster for our starting 11 for next week. They don't need a 10 day rest by early September.
He knows %^*& all!
 
I'd gladly see Sands sent off today if we could have VAR.

Septic 'won' last year with the help from their friends in black and the absence of VAR!

Fairness for me, no matter what!!!!
 
Just watching this wankfest now and the hertz fuukin reject has nae clue what he's talking about and just says shite so the FF team go aff their trollies.

It's a fuukin cert he will go on here to see the usual reactions.

Two elbows today nae action, a fuukin penalty that a blind man could see, this shitshow is a fuukin disgrace.
 
Can we stop repeating all this “Sands should have been off” comments. It only needs to be said once. Stop giving all your personal views that only highlight the incident and adds fuel to the argument. Not only will this be picked and thrashed to death by the Mhedia but we are giving the SFA/SPL/ CO material.
 
insanicdrunk said:
It was Dougie Smith that booked Gazza and it he wasnt booked because he was Gazza. IIRC the ref said years later didnt know what to do and booked him for dissent.
Click to expand...

Smith wasn't a very good ref to begin wi, nae better than the dicks stealing a wage these days.
 
Theresa May said:
I'm not saying it is. All I'm saying is that Sands should have been sent off for what he did himself.

What the ref does after that, and in response to a separate incident, isn't really relevant to the subject being discussed - whether Sands should have been sent off.

You're conflating the Sands incident and your wider disdain for officials.
Click to expand...
Jeez, this is the most blatant Timposter on here I’ve ever seen. Argueing till he’s *ahem* blue in the face that a Rangers player should’ve been sent off. Seriously, why would any true Rangers fan take the time to do this?
 
Elder55 said:
Can we stop repeating all this “Sands should have been off” comments. It only needs to be said once. Stop giving all your personal views that only highlight the incident and adds fuel to the argument. Not only will this be picked and thrashed to death by the Mhedia but we are giving the SFA/SPL/ CO material.
Click to expand...
Aye because the Compliance Officer reads FF for their next cases
 
DougieJones said:
Jeez, this is the most blatant Timposter on here I’ve ever seen. Argueing till he’s *ahem* blue in the face that a Rangers player should’ve been sent off. Seriously, why would any true Rangers fan take the time to do this?
Click to expand...

Does saying Sands shouldn't have been sent off make you more of a Rangers fan?

Geez peace.
 
DougieJones said:
Jeez, this is the most blatant Timposter on here I’ve ever seen. Argueing till he’s *ahem* blue in the face that a Rangers player should’ve been sent off. Seriously, why would any true Rangers fan take the time to do this?
Click to expand...
Honesty?
Most of us accept we get a break now and then.
Most of us believe more go against us than for us.
One major going our way out of every half dozen, isn’t exactly balancing right and wrong.
 
insanicdrunk said:
Believe it is only violent conduct or serious foul play.

I thought it was a booking earlier, but Sands heads it back to the keeper.
Click to expand...
As he's slipping, doesn't get enough on it, then pulls the boy down as he's running through on goal

We'd be going apoplectic if that wasn't given as a foul in our favour

It's a stonewall red card for DOGSO - its also why I can never get on board with threads on here that slate refereeing decisions - theres plenty that go against us, but frankly Robertson got this wrong today, and its a prime example of why the Scottish Game needs VAR - the threads on here won't mention it as a blatant mistake though

Even when it goes against us
 
Sands should've been a straight red really but they won't mention the penalty before that, the fact Sands got an incorrect yellow which might rule him out at some point in the future, the number of fouls their number 3 got away with, the elbows, their right back not being sent off or any other number of decisions the ref got wrong.
Sands going off wouldn't have made much difference, we'd have still won as they wouldn't have taken full advantage. Against Hibs with 10 we were still holding our own, no way Ross County take points.
 
NigelSpackmansBowTie said:
The second one is a straight red. No doubt. but if the first yellow isn’t shown Sands is not in the second situation because everything is different afterwards. that’s why the Lundstram red is central to Alfredo being sent off. If Lundstram is not sent off then Alfie is not in the second scenario. it’s why it is pointless saying Goldson’s mistake or the missed penalty cost us the EL final. These are counterfactuals. You can never know what would have happened next if things had been different.
Click to expand...
There is plenty of doubt.

The Ross County player is giving as good as he is getting at the start of the play. Could have been a foul given against him.

Secondly, one of the factors that has to be considered, by rule, before a red card is given in this situation, in fact in determining if it is indeed a goal scoring opportunity, is the distance to goal. As far out as the player was there has to be consideration for that. Unfortunately there isn’t clear criteria listed in this situation but the referee has to consider that. It’s a moot point as Robertson had a clear view of the situation and by the motion of his hands seemed to indicate they were both at it, which they were.
Spudgun said:
Was the Sands incident even given as a foul?

I was at the game and as far as I remember, the ref just waved play on as it looked like they were both at it.

Probably 100% wrong, but I was sure play didn't stop.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t.
 
Texas ranger said:
There is plenty of doubt.

The Ross County player is giving as good as he is getting, more in fact at the start of the play. Could have been a foul given against him.

Secondly, one of the factors that has to be considered, by rule, before a red card is given in this situation, in fact in determining if it is indeed a goal scoring opportunity, is the distance to goal. As far out as the player was there has to be consideration for that. Unfortunately there isn’t clear criteria listed in this situation but the referee has to consider that. It’s a moot point as Robertson had a clear view of the situation and by the motion of his hands seemed to indicate they were both at it, which they were.

It wasn’t.
Click to expand...
Due respect, running clean through on the goal keeper with no opposing player other than the one fouling you within 25 yards is a pretty good goalscoring opportunity regardless of whether you're 40 yards out or 18

We'd be screaming for a red card if that was a County defender, and in all honesty, we'd have (correctly) received it

Robertson got it wrong, we got away with one, it won't fall into the threads on her about refereeing howlers, and plenty won't accept the fact it was a red card
 
Early in the game, as regards Sands, Goldson was careering into the County penalty area leaving Sands 1 on 1 at the back, this was the real problem. Gio was unhappy with this and it stopped. Either a full back or a midfielder should stay back in this scenario.
 
Sheuchans said:
Stewart frothing at the mouth about Sands. 100% it’s a red. Just as 100% Lundstrum wasn’t a red last week. One decision influences the game and one doesn’t yet Stewart is more excited at the one that wouldn’t make any difference
Click to expand...
Probably with next week in mind. You've got to laugh.
 
GreigC said:
Due respect, running clean through on the goal keeper with no opposing player other than the one fouling you within 25 yards is a pretty good goalscoring opportunity regardless of whether you're 40 yards out or 18

We'd be screaming for a red card if that was a County defender, and in all honesty, we'd have (correctly) received it

Robertson got it wrong, we got away with one, it won't fall into the threads on her about refereeing howlers, and plenty won't accept the fact it was a red card
Click to expand...

A goal scoring opportunity doesn't mean anything anymore. As long as the defending player is deemed to have made an attempt to win the ball then it isn't a red card
 
GreigC said:
Due respect, running clean through on the goal keeper with no opposing player other than the one fouling you within 25 yards is a pretty good goalscoring opportunity regardless of whether you're 40 yards out or 18

We'd be screaming for a red card if that was a County defender, and in all honesty, we'd have (correctly) received it

Robertson got it wrong, we got away with one, it won't fall into the threads on her about refereeing howlers, and plenty won't accept the fact it was a red card
Click to expand...
If that was the case, it wouldn’t be a specific criteria, it simply wouldn’t be listed. But it is.

“DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY (DOGSO)

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling,
pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).

A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence.

The following must be considered:

  • distance between the offence and the goal
  • general direction of the play
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
  • location and number of defenders”

So with all respect, I think most of us discussing this on this thread, myself included, have not received the training to be in a position to interpret that requirement of the rule. But it needs to be interpreted in every case.

www.thefa.com

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game
www.thefa.com www.thefa.com
 
Last edited:
The Bonnie Blue said:
It should have been a sending off although Sportscene certainly milked it. We got lucky there. We should have had a penalty for the hand ball and you could certainly argue the elbows against our players could have resulted in red cards.

It just confirms for me that we do need VAR. We would have suffered today with it but we'll benefit overall. And the other lot will definitely suffer if it's applied correctly.
Click to expand...
AHA the applied correctly theory I have my concerns TBH
 
Texas ranger said:
If that was the case, it wouldn’t be a specific criteria, it simply wouldn’t be listed. But it is.

“DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY (DOGSO)

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling,
pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).

A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence.

The following must be considered:

  • distance between the offence and the goal
  • general direction of the play
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
  • location and number of defenders”

So with all respect, I think most of us discussing this on this thread, myself included, have not received the training to be in a position to interpret that requirement of the rule. But it needs to be interpreted in every case.

www.thefa.com

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game
www.thefa.com www.thefa.com
Click to expand...
Logic - It'll never catch on.

Two points I made earlier, Sands was fouled prior to his first yellow. Robertson didn't give it.
Last man is not a thing anymore. Even if it was a foul, it wasn't a clear goal scoring opportunity.

It was never a straight red card. Too many have fallen in line with the mhedia and their agenda. Message this week will be that they've justified our two stolen points from last week.
 
Texas ranger said:
If that was the case, it wouldn’t be a specific criteria, it simply wouldn’t be listed. But it is.

“DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY (DOGSO)

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling,
pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).

A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence.

The following must be considered:

  • distance between the offence and the goal
  • general direction of the play
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
  • location and number of defenders”

So with all respect, I think most of us discussing this on this thread, myself included, have not received the training to be in a position to interpret that requirement of the rule. But it needs to be interpreted in every case.

www.thefa.com

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game
www.thefa.com www.thefa.com
Click to expand...
There are more qualified referees on the board than you realise...

The rule is goalscoring opportunity, not a goal must be scored

Much like Rugby, to determine the fact, you effectively negate the presence of the person committing the foul

There's not another Rangers player in the half for crying out loud

We're not talking about a foul in the outside channel where defenders might get back

We're talking a foul in the middle third of the park, with a ball heading towards goal, and a goalkeeper that isn't getting there first

I'd genuinely love to know what part of the situation you genuinely believe wouldn't qualify as a goalscoring opportunity

Edited to add - Madden sent off Bitton (maybe) in an Old Firm game for a foul on Alfredo that was probably equally distant from the goal, and wider - and incredibly similar, no-one disputed that
 
Last edited:
I’ve just watched Sportscene on BBC Iplayer and was utterly sickened with these two clowns McFadden and Stewart. They scrutinised and milked as I thought they would the Sands incident of the game. As for Malky MacKay ranting at the side of the pitch today the guy is an utter clown. He should instead focus his attention and energies on the shortcomings of his own side which were there for everyone to see. Sums up the anti- Rangers agenda these people have.
 
Theresa May said:
See my latest post. If you're looking at the Sands incident in isolation, it's a red card, I fail to see an argument otherwise.

I also think the RC should have been carded for his yellow. They are not mutually exclusive viewpoints. Both can be true. Equally, some might see them differently.
Click to expand...
You have posted several times on this incident, always adamant that Sands should have been sent off, insisting no less, why are you so demanding about this Michael ? Also, your last bit of that post makes no sense !
 
two2tango said:
That’s what I seen they both get tangled up and sands get his head on it
Click to expand...
Being honest the angle I saw this from, it looked like a coming together of both players (possibly a foul on Sands to begin with, then they tangled and they took each other down. I fully admit to being biased, but I can see why the ref may have thought 'no foul'...
 
Just catching up with Sportscene this morning.

These 3 need to break out their comfort blankets.
It's like a tearfest when Rangers have a good result.
 
Every beneficial decision we get will be analysed to death on this programme - umpteen replays from multiple angles, huge amount of programme time dedicated to each incident. Stewart in particular wouldn’t let it go & was struggling to contain his anger about it.

He then tried to play down the penalty hand ball claiming “it wasn’t deliberate” ie quoting something that isn’t even in the rules to justify us not getting the decision. McFadden put him right on that this time, but watch out for much more of the same.
 
heresto55 said:
You have posted several times on this incident, always adamant that Sands should have been sent off, insisting no less, why are you so demanding about this Michael ? Also, your last bit of that post makes no sense !
Click to expand...

So I've to change my opinion simply because I've had to give it multiple occasions? Why does it matter that I've given it several times? Haha

Christ man, anything said on here that doesn't seem to toe the line just sends everyone into a frenzy. You continue living in you're little echo chamber mate.
 
GreigC said:
There are more qualified referees on the board than you realise...

The rule is goalscoring opportunity, not a goal must be scored

Much like Rugby, to determine the fact, you effectively negate the presence of the person committing the foul

There's not another Rangers player in the half for crying out loud

We're not talking about a foul in the outside channel where defenders might get back

We're talking a foul in the middle third of the park, with a ball heading towards goal, and a goalkeeper that isn't getting there first

I'd genuinely love to know what part of the situation you genuinely believe wouldn't qualify as a goalscoring opportunity

Edited to add - Madden sent off Bitton (maybe) in an Old Firm game for a foul on Alfredo that was probably equally distant from the goal, and wider - and incredibly similar, no-one disputed that
Click to expand...

Do you think the PSV player should have been sent off for taking out Wright late on midweek ?
 
StuGers said:
The more I see Sands’ second event, the more I don’t think it’s a foul.
Click to expand...

That is the problem with Sportscene, they set the narrative by showing isolated incidents from multiple angles and in slow motion.

They were quite happy boycotting us and would rather not be back so don’t expect any fair reporting or controversial incidents that went against us being discussed.

Every time their forward went for the ball he was more interested in playing the man first.

Both him and Sands slipped neither of them had the ball under control at any point. Sands was the only one trying to play the ball.
 
struth 1872 said:
There were a few alfies from ross county players and i am ok with this as these things happen in games but when alfie does it we know what happens
Click to expand...
Yip 2 elbows. First one on Sands, the player raised his elbow prior to connection. The second was a red, the RC player led with the elbow into the aerial dual which connected flush with King. Straight red.

No outrage from the anti Rangers Sportscene panel.
 
It’s incredible that Stewart is allowed to continually look at incidents through the lens of what he thinks the rules should be, rather than what the rules actually are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top