Do you believe Rangers are refereed to a different standard from other teams?

Are we refereed to a different standard from other SPFL clubs?

  • Yes

    Votes: 846 93.2%
  • No

    Votes: 63 6.9%

  • Total voters
    908

nybear

Well-Known Member
Indeed.

Come on guys, out yourselves, so the rest of us can just ignore everything else you ever say again :D

Being serious, would it be possible for admin to just publish the list and make it a sticky :rolleyes:. A sort of users helpful resource :D
remember the days when you knew who voted for what :))
 

bilkobear

Well-Known Member
Off the scale dude, totally off the scale.

Carry on though.
This isn't a carry-on.
This is serious and if you cannot work your way through the conclusive evidence on your own, then it is worrying.
I suggest you look again.
This isn't knee jerk one-eyed bias from supporters who can't properly see through their blue-tinted specs, this is evidence-based and the evidence isn't being compiled by Bears, it is there recorded on the SFA's own statistics.
 

bilkobear

Well-Known Member
And what everyone forgets to acknowledge that when we were winning, it wasn't appearing at all on here.
Were you on here back then?
Because when we have been winning in the past, we still discussed refereeing errors...back then!
We understood they were discussing them and we balanced their usual allegations against our own.
More or less there was a balance of sorts.
Perhaps you can lead us through the balance of this season.
In fact, your stance on this thread almost demands that you do, lest you become ridiculous.
 

muttley

Well-Known Member
Simple fact is if we were winning shit like this wouldn’t appear on here.
It’s not a coincidence they believed all this shit when we were winning everything in sight
Aye, and Morelos would have the same amount of red cards and warned of his conduct by refs before games even start if he played for the Peasants. :rolleyes:
 

Bearsden Bear

Well-Known Member
Simple fact is if we were winning shit like this wouldn’t appear on here.
It’s not a coincidence they believed all this shit when we were winning everything in sight
Sorry, but it ain't shit.

What they thought when we genuinely had better players is of no consequence here.

This thread is not about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the respective squads . . . there are numerous threads covering these aspects.

This thread relates to the double standards which clearly exist, and your refusal to acknowledge these is actually a large part of our problem in progressing.
 
Were you on here back then?
Because when we have been winning in the past, we still discussed refereeing errors...back then!
We understood they were discussing them and we balanced their usual allegations against our own.
More or less there was a balance of sorts.
Perhaps you can lead us through the balance of this season.
In fact, your stance on this thread almost demands that you do, lest you become ridiculous.
I've been on this website in some form since 2004.

Refereeing errors were discussed - which I've not disputed - but certainly not in the same level, depth or scrutiny. There are several reasons for this, I'd anticipate.

I would take umbrage at the idea of there being a "balance of sorts", though.

I've also not said anything about the "balance" of this season, and I'm certainly not going to lead you through a blow-by-blow account of the decisions that have gone against us this season.
 

Shoutin

Active Member
I think you need to climb down off your moral high horse and spare me the fake outrage.

I was making an exaggerated analogy of just how bonkers it is to deny we're subject to shit refereeing. I also allude to paedophilia in the same way in my post - should you not be outraged about that as well - or were you too busy jumping in arse first thinking you could score some cheap points about Auschwitz and respect?
You used the Holocaust in the context of anyone not agreeing with your view.

No need for my high horse or fake outrage

You've shown yourself up enough without my help

As for the Paedo reference

Again you really need to drag yourself out the gutter
 
Sorry, but it ain't shit.

What they thought when we genuinely had better players is of no consequence here.

This thread is not about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the respective squads . . . there are numerous threads covering these aspects.

This thread relates to the double standards which clearly exist, and your refusal to acknowledge these is actually a large part of our problem in progressing.
Is acknowledging that the refs are the sole barrier - as some on here believe - towards success not actually a hindrance towards our chances of success, as it implies that there is nothing we can do because of them? What's the point in even trying?
 

Kirbys House

Well-Known Member
So you're arguing that we've always argued about refs on here, thereby weakening the claim made by many on here that it's only recently (as we're a far poorer team) that we've come to be reffed differently?
I can't think of a time we didn't discuss poor refs on here.

You said 'when we were winning, it wasn't appearing at all on here' which, again, is bull,
 

bilkobear

Well-Known Member
I've been on this website in some form since 2004.

Refereeing errors were discussed - which I've not disputed - but certainly not in the same level, depth or scrutiny. There are several reasons for this, I'd anticipate.

I would take umbrage at the idea of there being a "balance of sorts", though.

I've also not said anything about the "balance" of this season, and I'm certainly not going to lead you through a blow-by-blow account of the decisions that have gone against us this season.
No, I was always sure you would not.

I accept you have been on this forum all that time, I just don't recognise your username, which I suppose you have changed.

But you could expand some more about your 'anticipation' and your 'umbrage'.
It will be interesting to read what you write and whilst I accept the needlessness of going through a blow by blow account of what has gone against us this season, (I think we all know this), I confess I was actually more interested in the blow by blow account of those decisions given in our favour that were in any way controversial.

That at least cuts down my challenge to you by a considerable percentage. :)
 
I can't think of a time we didn't discuss poor refs on here.

You said 'when we were winning, it wasn't appearing at all on here' which, again, is bull,
I was being unnecessarily general, granted, but I did later state:

Refereeing errors were discussed - which I've not disputed - but certainly not in the same level, depth or scrutiny.
 
No, I was always sure you would not.

I accept you have been on this forum all that time, I just don't recognise your username, which I suppose you have changed.

But you could expand some more about your 'anticipation' and your 'umbrage'.
It will be interesting to read what you write and whilst I accept the needlessness of going through a blow by blow account of what has gone against us this season, (I think we all know this), I confess I was actually more interested in the blow by blow account of those decisions given in our favour that were in any way controversial.

That at least cuts down my challenge to you by a considerable percentage. :)
I'm not arguing that we've been on the awful end of some decisions this year, or that we've not been on the receiving end of more beneficial decisions but - and you've done this really quite skilfully, so you deserve credit for your approach to the strawman argument - that's not what I'm on here to argue about at all.
 

bilkobear

Well-Known Member
I'm not arguing that we've been on the awful end of some decisions this year, or that we've not been on the receiving end of more beneficial decisions but - and you've done this really quite skilfully, so you deserve credit for your approach to the strawman argument - that's not what I'm on here to argue about at all.
Strawman argument?
What strawman argument?

This is a thread about referee's and their approach to dealing with Rangers our team and our players in contrast to how they deal with other sides and more particularly how they referee Filth games.

There is no deflection from this singular issue.
No other false case to dissemble from the particular.

The case stands on facts, it stands on statistics it stands on evidence.
These are relevant, they are tangible and they are independently compiled and they are conclusive.

Your choice to ignore them, your argument that dismisses them, all your posts that want them not to be there is the crux of my debate with you.
Either they are relevant and conclusive or in order to support your position you dismantle them in word and phrase on here now.
Go on. you either do this or admit you are wrong!
 
Strawman argument?
What strawman argument?

This is a thread about referee's and their approach to dealing with Rangers our team and our players in contrast to how they deal with other sides and more particularly how they referee Filth games.

There is no deflection from this singular issue.
No other false case to dissemble from the particular.

The case stands on facts, it stands on statistics it stands on evidence.
These are relevant, they are tangible and they are independently compiled and they are conclusive.

Your choice to ignore them, your argument that dismisses them, all your posts that want them not to be there is the crux of my debate with you.
Either they are relevant and conclusive or in order to support your position you dismantle them in word and phrase on here now.
Go on. you either do this or admit you are wrong!
I came on here to acknowledge my belief that when we were winning games the support, as a whole, generally strayed away from criticising refs.

Whether I believe that refs are out to get us or not - a viewpoint I've not actually stated either way - does not actually invalidate what was a fairly routine comment I made simply because I've got work to finish and I'm procrastinating.

For what it's worth, I've actually started to believe that we're probably reffed differently to some degree. Sensing blood or the chance of an easy victory you've jumped in like a clown trying to have a go at me when I hadn't even suggested that one way or another.

Wind it in next time or you'll look even more like an idiot.
 

Bearsden Bear

Well-Known Member
Is acknowledging that the refs are the sole barrier - as some on here believe - towards success not actually a hindrance towards our chances of success, as it implies that there is nothing we can do because of them? What's the point in even trying?
At no time have I suggested that refs are the sole barrier.

I simply posted a poll addressing one major issue, and it is an issue that needs addressed.
 

Bearsden Bear

Well-Known Member
In as broad a church as the Rangers support is, and it is a broad church rather than a monoculture like certain other clubs, I can not recall a poll producing such a huge percentage voting one way as this.

At least that is encouraging that folk realise this now.
 

bilkobear

Well-Known Member
I'm not arguing that we've been on the awful end of some decisions this year, or that we've not been on the receiving end of more beneficial decisions but - and you've done this really quite skilfully, so you deserve credit for your approach to the strawman argument - that's not what I'm on here to argue about at all.
Forget it mate, I am messing with you.
Your opinions are irrelevant as are mine.

The important thing is that the club itself realises that this is indeed the case and that we are being fckd over by the SFA and referees for whatever reason.
I am sure that the club do.
In fact, I am positive that they have been aware of this for a considerable time, and there is evidence to support this.

What is the problem, is that the club from the very top might know this, but they don't have a solution to overcoming what is a substantial disadvantage in clawing our way above Filth FC.

But know this, I am positive that they do.
 
In as broad a church as the Rangers support is, and it is a broad church rather than a monoculture like certain other clubs, I can not recall a poll producing such a huge percentage voting one way as this.

At least that is encouraging that folk realise this now.
The Rangers support is broad, but FF probably isn't, so it's hardly that conclusive.

Anyone arguing otherwise is automatically being labelled a Tim, for instance.
 

bilkobear

Well-Known Member
The Rangers support is broad, but FF probably isn't, so it's hardly that conclusive.

Anyone arguing otherwise is automatically being labelled a Tim, for instance.
I struggle to see why anyone arguing against a fairly conclusive evidence based narrative can escape some sort of criticism.
I think there is a choice.
Tim.
Idiot.
Or just a troll.

Should we give the 6% a chance to vote on this? ;)

By the way, the FF poll isn't the conclusive evidence.
But you knew that already of course.
 

bilkobear

Well-Known Member
I came on here to acknowledge my belief that when we were winning games the support, as a whole, generally strayed away from criticising refs.

Whether I believe that refs are out to get us or not - a viewpoint I've not actually stated either way - does not actually invalidate what was a fairly routine comment I made simply because I've got work to finish and I'm procrastinating.

For what it's worth, I've actually started to believe that we're probably reffed differently to some degree. Sensing blood or the chance of an easy victory you've jumped in like a clown trying to have a go at me when I hadn't even suggested that one way or another.

Wind it in next time or you'll look even more like an idiot.
Oh, I am always prepared to wind it out, mate.
I will always take the chance of looking like an idiot when I feel the need to challenge those who make a religion of it. ;)
 
We are refereed to the same standard it is just a poor standard of referee, they consistently get decisions wrong, but what I will say is that ref's are under extra pressure from the media when they referee our games due to trial by Sportcene, it's trial by TV that's the driving force for the Compliance Officer who is definitely judging us to a different standard.
 
Your opinion is so blinkered, you should feel bad.
You dont know what my opinion is but i will tell you
Do we get treated different? Sometimes
Is that why we are behind the tims? No
I shouldnt feel bad for that opinion, you are everything that is wrong with supporters on a forum. Its your way and nothing else can be right. Have a good evening brother
 
Delusion?
Naivety?
Stupidity?
Misguided sense of staunchness and desire not to 'act like a tim'?
Being contrary for the sake of it?
All of the above?

I genuinely can't decide.
My point stands . It has been proven . No matter who you support you will believe that referees have it in for your club. It is nonsense. The fact is that referees are brutal but what chance do they have ?
 

BrooklynBlue

Well-Known Member
Referees are intimidated. Decisions are then made against a backdrop of potential professional and personal harassment.

One member club created a strike and there was no censure. Oddly that same club got away with various public statements following December 29th. Again, referees were not defended.

A dubious decision given in favour of Rangers and against Celtic is met with days of coverage.

Does anyone have confidence in the Scottish Cup Final officiating? A decision to deny their treble. I'd imagine a referee will think before giving Hearts a penalty but won't hesitate if at the other end of the field.
 

Onslow52

Active Member
Yes, not many 50/50 decisions go our way. Some of the assaults carried out and going unpunished by other teams is a disgrace. Skill and ability is viewed as a flaw and show boating where as being able to cripple an opponent sees you as a legend and a star of the future.
 

Barryhopez

Well-Known Member
I'm not quite sure I see the point of this poll, OP. It's hardly generating rational discussion on a discussion board. The thread could've been closed after your follow up post to avoid all the accusations and demand to know who voted 'no' o_O
 

Macdonsj

Well-Known Member
you can pick several "similar" incidents and look at how they are dealt with
example:
McGregor of Hibs throws arm back as Morelos is harrying for ball - hits him in the face = yellow
Morelos is stamped on the ankle by Brown, reacts and throws arm in chest = red

and even more damning is the case of a penaly not given and one given

ball into box at Easter Rd - Arfield clearly pushed as he is about to head towards goal = play on
ball into St Johnstone box vs St Mirren, slight nudge = penalty given

SAME ref in both of those penalty incidents
 

chosen few

Well-Known Member
The difference is the sheep and every other club are allowed to act like thugs against us , and the tims are protected and allowed to be shall we say overly physical against just about everyone . I still dont believe that 70% of refs are corrupt , but it has become easier for refs to take the easy option when officiating against us , the other 30% however are hateful bigots .
 

ChiefWahoo

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
you can pick several "similar" incidents and look at how they are dealt with
example:
McGregor of Hibs throws arm back as Morelos is harrying for ball - hits him in the face = yellow
Morelos is stamped on the ankle by Brown, reacts and throws arm in chest = red

and even more damning is the case of a penaly not given and one given

ball into box at Easter Rd - Arfield clearly pushed as he is about to head towards goal = play on
ball into St Johnstone box vs St Mirren, slight nudge = penalty given

SAME ref in both of those penalty incidents
Mickey Devlin sent off against Kilmarnock for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, though the foul was 40 yards from goal.

Aberdeen appeal and publicly get involved in a spat with the SFA regarding the decision.
The SFA appeal agrees with the refs decision, it was a red card and he got it right.

The referees very next game, after being backed in giving a red card is faced with the same scenario, only this time it's alot closer to the goal.

Once again same ref, one decision would have meant sending off a filth player though.
Boyata was booked.
 

ChiefWahoo

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
My point stands . It has been proven . No matter who you support you will believe that referees have it in for your club. It is nonsense. The fact is that referees are brutal but what chance do they have ?
Sure fans of every club believe this.
So why not take this opportunity to prove us wrong?
You say yourself that refs are brutal, feel free to list their mistakes that went in our favour.
 

Lono

Well-Known Member
Simple fact is if we were winning shit like this wouldn’t appear on here.
It’s not a coincidence they believed all this shit when we were winning everything in sight
We were an outstanding football team, for the most part, during the nine-in-a-row era, under DA, often with McLeish and for a second spell with Walter...during nine-in-a-row they were good under Burns but decent and mostly average otherwise.

Currently they are not 'outstanding', no where near it. Even when Brenda got them up at a high level within the Scottish league they were awful in Europe...something were only on occasion.

So, is it any wonder then when Bears are increasingly angry at the strong-arm tactics and disgraceful dangerous tackles we regularly must deal with whilst are not allowed to give back ? This regularly destroys us in games.

That's my take on it at least. We are handicapped severely in competing against the majority of the league's hammer-throwers again and again. Do you think Aberdeen would have seen all those reds yesterday against us with Thompson in charge ? They've been given free reign to kick fvck out of us all season. Yesterday ? Buckled and shorn of their major tactic because it was the taigs...Us ? It would have been open season all over again.
 

Sebo1872

Well-Known Member
Of course i f*cking do.

People can label it paranoia or say it's a way to excuse poor results but if you compare and contrast similar situations it just doesn't sit right with me.

The proof is in the pudding as they say.
 
Top