Sportscene Tonight

Barrymoped said:
The goal was a combination of Barasic, Souttar and Mcglaughlin, none of them covered themselves in glory.
Click to expand...

Correct. I know he's had personal issues but most of the blame lies with Souttar, if his mind isn't in it he should be given the time off. Absolutely no idea why he's charging out instead of staying goal side.
 
Wasn't there people on here including certain admin telling us that the BBCs half baked apology was some sort of win?

Some win that is. As many predicted at the time they are openly and quite blatantly ripping the piss again.

Leave the BBC to rot in their own wee pile of bigoted bile and give them absolutely nothing. Hopefully sooner rather than later the main HQ will sink into the Clyde without a trace due to lack of funding , preferably with a few of the rats that work there still inside
 
Private_joker said:
Just watched the Sportscene highlights. Disgraceful. %^*& them. Not a single mention of the legitimate goal wrongly ruled out for offside. But, unsurprisingly a focus on Livi's non-goal. %^*& the BBC.
Click to expand...
This, until they anaylis every contentious decision they can never be taken seriously. Why miss out major talking points in highlights of games?
 
psykal said:
Incredible that they covered the disallowed goals like that. Whistle was loud and clear a couple of seconds before theirs went in. And to not even mention ours which was a clear goal? They also didn't go over the red card Cancar should have got in the first half.
Click to expand...
That's why I'm confused. Livi's "disallowed goal" doesn't happen if the whistle isn't blown. Our players stopped as the whistle blew. I'm sure McLaughlin made no attempt at a fairly easy ball.
 
TN8 said:
Oh my god. Zero analysis of Colak's goal but Rangers "dodged a bullet" as VAR might have allowed Livi's disallowed goal! Absolutely gobsmacked.
Click to expand...
EXcept it 100% wouldn’t because the ref blew his whistle instantly for a free kick so the game was dead before the ball crossed the line. Even in the minds of the demented Rangers haters, VAR can’t change a dead ball situation.
 
Ruben Sosa said:
Let's see if there's any comment from Rangers about them blatantly going back on their promise to give balanced and fair coverage across all clubs in the SPL.

A promise that's been broken in the very first game of the new season.
Click to expand...

No chance.
 
fmp said:
Barisic just decided he wasn't going to mark that guy. Bad from him, Souttar and also McLaughlin. Souttar has to take most of the blame.
Click to expand...
I think McLaughlin is blameless here,he would have expected different outcomes from both Souttar and Barisic .
In an instant the forward is in one on one. The ball sits up perfectly for the lob as he comes to narrow the angle.
 
Rangers cant let them away with this ! First game since peace was called and they only discuss one of the three big calls, the one that goes against Livi, nothing about our onside goal being chopped off or about the easiest red card decision you will ever see ( unless you're Don Robertson ) just tell them to piss off.
 
GreigC said:
They've managed to avoid both of Cancar's tackles, but managed to get a penalty claim in on Kamara

Jesus
Click to expand...
The usual from them mate biased reporting good to know there hurting tho n we still picked up 3 points so get it up them WATP
 
If the club don’t register a complaint with the coverage then it will continue as before

They cannot get away with ignoring the 2 yellow card tackles that Robertson decided not to issue the 2nd yellow card and subsequent red card or the Colak onside goal we scored which was wrongly flagged offside

David Graham has to get onto the BBC and tell them this is exactly why they were not welcome as their employees are biased against our club

The evidence is clear as day in the first game after the dispute was “ended”

It’s clear the editorial stance hasn’t changed at all

An absolute joke of an organisation and after admitting they did not meet their own standards of impartiality we have the perfect example to highlight yet again things have not changed one bit
 
Their “disallowed goal” was a blatant two handed push on Goldson hence the foul

Was nothing to do with a handball etc.

I had a great view of it and as Goldson goes to jump their player pushes him hence why he appeals and Robertson points to him when he blows his whistle for the free kick
 
Div1872 said:
If the club don’t register a complaint with the coverage then it will continue as before

They cannot get away with ignoring the 2 yellow card tackles that Robertson decided not to issue the 2nd yellow card and subsequent red card or the Colak onside goal we scored which was wrongly flagged offside

David Graham has to get onto the BBC and tell them this is exactly why they were not welcome as their employees are biased against our club

The evidence is clear as day in the first game after the dispute was “ended”

It’s clear the editorial stance hasn’t changed at all

An absolute joke of an organisation and after admitting they did not meet their own standards of impartiality we have the perfect example to highlight yet again things have not changed one bit
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Quote them the text of their own "apology" and ask for an explanation as to why their coverage of Rangers is still not meeting their "editorial standards".

They will never change and I don't see the benefit of cooperating with them and their anti Rangers agenda.
 
Family bam said:
When that organisation still employs bigoted filth they'll continue to ignore major decisions that go against us.
The whole rancid organisation within Pacific Quay needs gutted.

They have no intention of being impartial anytime soon.
Click to expand...
What people seem to rail against is what they see. Presenters, pundits and suchlike.

The main issue for us isn’t believe it or not idiots like Michael Stewart and Richard Foster and his jumpers.

It’s the people at pacific quay who edit these programmes like sportscene. They decide what incidents to show, what to highlight, how to put across the narrative they want in any one game. A foul shown a few times from a bad angle and a few “ oooh that’s a late one” from the useful idiots on the couch and that’s all they need. Colak perfectly good goal disallowed? Ach don’t show that. That’s not what the people want to see.

It’s not going to go away just because Rangers buried the hatchet. These mendicants are still in place.
 
Div1872 said:
If the club don’t register a complaint with the coverage then it will continue as before

They cannot get away with ignoring the 2 yellow card tackles that Robertson decided not to issue the 2nd yellow card and subsequent red card or the Colak onside goal we scored which was wrongly flagged offside

David Graham has to get onto the BBC and tell them this is exactly why they were not welcome as their employees are biased against our club

The evidence is clear as day in the first game after the dispute was “ended”

It’s clear the editorial stance hasn’t changed at all

An absolute joke of an organisation and after admitting they did not meet their own standards of impartiality we have the perfect example to highlight yet again things have not changed one bit
Click to expand...
Their argument will be that they only have a certain amount of time to focus on each game so can’t always include every incident, but their editorial duty in terms of creating the highlights should be that they provide an accurate representation of the game as a whole.

Ignoring a blatant red card and an offside goal that was so marginal as to be the very essence of a post match talking point in favour of dwelling on Livingston’s chalked off goal where the whistle had already blown before the ball crossed the line makes it appear that there was a deliberate attempt to portray the game as being much closer than it was and that Livi were effectively robbed of a point, which isn’t an accurate representation of the game at all.
 
Bluebeard said:
What people seem to rail against is what they see. Presenters, pundits and suchlike.

The main issue for us isn’t believe it or not idiots like Michael Stewart and Richard Foster and his jumpers.

It’s the people at pacific quay who edit these programmes like sportscene. They decide what incidents to show, what to highlight, how to put across the narrative they want in any one game. A foul shown a few times from a bad angle and a few “ oooh that’s a late one” from the useful idiots on the couch and that’s all they need. Colak perfectly good goal disallowed? Ach don’t show that. That’s not what the people want to see.

It’s not going to go away just because Rangers buried the hatchet. These mendicants are still in place.
Click to expand...

100% correct.
It's the bigots in the background who should be sacked for being thoroughly incapable of being impartial.
I've complained again ( only takes 5 mins ) and I know learning from previous it gets me nowhere but by f.uck it annoys them.
:)
 
rossgers said:
They think they will run VAR in Scotland and they are probably right.
Click to expand...
Fortunately they can’t. VAR will operate at the game not after a highlights show. By the same token they won’t be able to re referee games either and trigger the compliance officer any more for the same reason. The sooner VAR is in the better. Let them have their opinions that’s all they are.
 
HandsomeHead said:
Their argument will be that they only have a certain amount of time to focus on each game so can’t always include every incident, but their editorial duty in terms of creating the highlights should be that they provide an accurate representation of the game as a whole.

Ignoring a blatant red card and an offside goal that was so marginal as to be the very essence of a post match talking point in favour of dwelling on Livingston’s chalked off goal where the whistle had already blown before the ball crossed the line makes it appear that there was a deliberate attempt to portray the game as being much closer than it was and that Livi were effectively robbed of a point, which isn’t an accurate representation of the game at all.
Click to expand...
Yep, they've ultimately focussed on an obvious free kick for a push, as anything that happens after play has been stopped is completely irrelevant.

And yet to this lot, it's a more important issue than a seemingly valid goal being chopped off, or a possible red card incident.

We all know why that would be the case, it's nothing new and it's ingrained.
 
mcewans lager said:
What about the Kent penalty claim at the end of the first half ?
Click to expand...
Was that in the box only saw one replay the player totally took Kent out never touched the ball or anyway near it for that matter VAR gives a penalty,how the hell did they think that was a clean tackle .
 
Delboy Trotter said:
Their “disallowed goal” was a blatant two handed push on Goldson hence the foul

Was nothing to do with a handball etc.

I had a great view of it and as Goldson goes to jump their player pushes him hence why he appeals and Robertson points to him when he blows his whistle for the free kick
Click to expand...
Exactly. And if the BBC footage wasn’t good enough to pick it up, so be it. But in real time at the ground it was a big push as clear as day.
 
rossgers said:
This is VAR in Scotland. Let's only debate anything that went for Rangers. I think we could have real problems with VAR this season.
Click to expand...
Na they won't be allowed to get away with stuff like offside. Dodgy fouls and cards however. . .
 
As said there excuse is we have to edit the highlights and we can't show every contentious decision, however surely when pundits are discussing a game after it there has to be a segment which shows every contentious decision in the balance of fairness. BBC have started where we left off from previous seasons and it isn't going to change. Ask them straight out why the 2 tackles and the disallowed goal aren't even discussed after the match in the balance of fairness. Would love to hear there reply ?
 
Turrabear said:
To be honest mate did you actually expect anything to change. The BBC sports department is still full of Rangers haters.
Click to expand...

The frustration is TB, why did the club think something would change ?

Why did they back down with no hard evidence to show THE BBC had changed ?

No sackings, etc despite acknowledging bias.

I was angry at the compromise we agreed, and yesterday shows why.
 
Spart7 said:
Wouldn’t have stood anyway, even with VAR, ref had blown the whistle well beforehand anyway. Needs to be a clear and obvious error by the officials to be reviewed.
Click to expand...
Correct, and Martindale post match showed a lack of understanding as well by saying they might have been down to 10 men if VAR had been in place for the second yellow. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top