Jack Ross- Porteous admittted there was contact but it was minimal

I’ve played in defence plenty and if you swing your leg at an opponent then unless the referee somehow misses it, you are giving a penalty away.

Ryan Porteous is a professional footballer.. this can’t be news to him. The direction that Kent was running in… you let him go and turn to face him coming back at you but sticking a leg out at him running past is utterly stupid.
 
Did these muppets not attend school? They clearly don’t understand what the words minimal contact means. There is either contact or no contact.
That’s it. It doesn’t matter how hard or soft it is Boyd got it spot on.
 
He took his leg away so it a penalty. Ross would have got the sack by now his only saving grace is that his team are runners up in this years league cup.
 
Anyone who says it wasn't a penalty needs to go look at the rules of the game, because it's in the box doesn't mean it wasn’t a foul, minimal contact or full contact.
He kicked Ryans ankle when the ball was away.
Exactly. Beaton also gave a foul against Hagi for sliding in on halfway but missing the ball, and player, completely. Don't even need contact for there to be a foul called correctly.
 
If that foul happens outside the box ..its a free kick and no debate ..so what's the difference ...hivs do hate us turning them over ....spoonburners
 
Dross trying to paint Kent as a diver. The guy’s a fcukin’ walloper. His get up last night? Looked like he was going golfing.

Scottish football is the place for locating management hard-ons but he could easily vie for being the prick’s prick.
 
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Porteous ended up at the piggery next season performing the role of the 'new Broony'
 
Why is this even a point of discussion?
It's a good question this and "because it's for Rangers" doesn't wash.

Nearly everyone, including apparently a lot of tims, agrees that this is a clear penalty, even if the contact wasn't so aggressive that it would warrant a booking. So why does it get to the level where the next day, even after near unanimous agreement, are we still getting people searching for an alternative view? I think Sky are the biggest drivers of here. Boyd and Miller both admitted it was a soft penalty but a penalty none the less and yet Eilidh Barbour with her sour face kept going on about it trying to drive home controversy. They get two Hibs representatives out looking glum and then ask us to almost feel sorry for them?

If the same series of events had happened down south you'd cut back to the studio where Sounness, Keane and Richards would have laughed off at the team who conceded the penalty, gone through the defender who gave it away and then moved on to something else in the space of a minute or two. Can you imagine them dealing with Eddie Howe talking utter pish like Ross did yesterday? "Aye he tripped him, kicked his foot and I'd be looking for a penalty but it's not a penalty".
 
The term “soft penalty” suggests we’ve somehow been lucky and got away with something. A new term is needed for what Porteous did, e.g a “sleekit penalty”. He knew Kent had him beaten, he nicked him and then took his leg away. All happened in a split second and not easy for a referee to spot if he was say 20 yards away. In fact Beaton was right on the spot, and it was obvious from that distance.

Porteous’s melodramatic response was in the category of “he doth protest too much”, he knew what he’d done and was playing to the gallery.
 
So let me get this straight…there was contact & he would have claimed for it, but he is 50/50 on whether a pen or not?

What an absolute whopper
 
Rangers haters genuinely believe that every single penalty awarded to us is unjust, and further evidence of some sort of murky conspiracy.

You cannot reason with people like that.

We’re the champions. We’re top of the table. Despite our form being generally poor so far this season, we still have the best squad in the country.

Therefore, it is understandable that we will create more chances and spend more time in the opposition’s penalty area than other teams will. It then stands to reason that we will endure more tackles and fouls in the penalty area, which ultimately translates into more penalties.

Or you can just be a bitter person and say “it’s Rangers, they should never get any decisions” and bury your head in the sand.
 
The term “soft penalty” suggests we’ve somehow been lucky and got away with something. A new term is needed for what Porteous did, e.g a “sleekit penalty”. He knew Kent had him beaten, he nicked him and then took his leg away. All happened in a split second and not easy for a referee to spot if he was say 20 yards away. In fact Beaton was right on the spot, and it was obvious from that distance.

Porteous’s melodramatic response was in the category of “he doth protest too much”, he knew what he’d done and was playing to the gallery.

Beaton’s position was excellent to be fair.

Porteous has built up this cult hero status among the Rangers haters & he played up to that. All night in fact.
 
Back
Top