MrDust Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I never said you did say a draw would have been a fair result. It was another Falkirk fan who I was debating with and then you barged into the conversation only knowing half the story. And now we've been going round in circles due to your laziness. As for the possession stat, you keep bringing up teams who only had 30 odd percent and won. My point was if a team loses by 2 clear goals and only has 30 odd percent they can't have too many complaints about the result. A conversation ? WTF...Until you understand a public forum, I'll let you have as you call it,a conversation with yourself......it's probably for the best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Please remember when discussing referees with 'Rangers' supporters that both teams they've supported over the years have enjoyed 'positive' refreeing to the point that anything short of that seems unjustly harsh to them. Also, given that both managers seem unhappy with the referee - remember the time when John Hughes and Walter Smith were up in front of the beaks in the same week for comments about referees - Smith had claimed that a certain referee had a history of favouring Celtic ahead of Old Rangers and Hughes had stated that Stephen McManus shouldn't be allowed to score with his arm and that his half-time team talk shouldn't be interupted by the referee. Smith's case was thrown out, John Hughes was reprimanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggerG Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Wasn't at the game but I feel the highlights show that it was a foul to neither side, It's supposed to be a contact sport after all. Taiwo very clearly plays the ball and I do think it was Law's momentum that took him into Taiwo and not the other way round. Ref simply shat it, Houstie was right in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Hardly a shocker to hear Houston getting tore into the ref. Wasn't that long ago when he was Dundee United manage he was accusing them of being a cheat, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Dan Otherthing Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Wasn't at the game but I feel the highlights show that it was a foul to neither side, It's supposed to be a contact sport after all. Taiwo very clearly plays the ball and I do think it was Law's momentum that took him into Taiwo and not the other way round. Ref simply shat it, Houstie was right in that. Just where in The Laws of the Game does it say it's a contact sport?!You could also have claimed 'he got the ball' or 'he didn't mean it' or 'the Rangers player wouldn't have got the ball' anyway... All irrelevant, I'm afraid (and I'm a Falkirk man!) Unfortunately the highlights didn't show any (other) referee cock-ups, alleged or otherwise, so while the officials may well have had stinkers, the verdict has to be 'not proven'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Interesting to hear even Peter Houston say that Rangers were right to be upset about some of the refereeing decisions against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggerG Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Just where in The Laws of the Game does it say it's a contact sport?! You could also have claimed 'he got the ball' or 'he didn't mean it' or 'the Rangers player wouldn't have got the ball' anyway... All irrelevant, I'm afraid (and I'm a Falkirk man!) Unfortunately the highlights didn't show any (other) referee cock-ups, alleged or otherwise, so while the officials may well have had stinkers, the verdict has to be 'not proven'. I'm sure it won't mention in the laws of the game that it's a contact sport. If it wasn't however then every instance of contact would result in a foul. It always has been a contact sport although the authorities seem to be doing their best to sanitise it instead. There was no intention on either players part however to make contact or gain an advantage by doing so as far as I could see. In my opinion the contact should not have resulted in a foul and, if the referee felt that there was sufficient contact to merit a foul then it should have gone to Falkirk given that Law's momentum took him into Taiwo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mersey Bear Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 It does seem that way, however had the boot been on the other foot I guarantee Rangers would have felt as hard done by as Falkirk do. Remember we were playing a team who had been running over the top of teams all season and we were 11/1 underdogs and by all accounts holding Rangers relatively comfortably. Afterall Rogers only really had two difficult saves to make. One first half and one second. I think the feeling of injustice is totally understandable. Holt in the first half, then waghorn and law made him pull off decent saves and miller had one cleared off the line. Like I said it was a good game and Falkirk could of gone ahead at 1-1. I am still unsure about the FK. Would probably be annoyed if it was the other way round. But think I would of felt hard done by had it not been given. My point was though that it was closest and most entertaining league game we have been involved in (without either team playing fantastic) and that shouldn't be ignored over poor refereeing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Dan Otherthing Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I'm sure it won't mention in the laws of the game that it's a contact sport. If it wasn't however then every instance of contact would result in a foul. It always has been a contact sport although the authorities seem to be doing their best to sanitise it instead. There was no intention on either players part however to make contact or gain an advantage by doing so as far as I could see. In my opinion the contact should not have resulted in a foul and, if the referee felt that there was sufficient contact to merit a foul then it should have gone to Falkirk given that Law's momentum took him into Taiwo. Intention or gaining advantage are irrelevant. If it's a foul, it's a foul. I've viewed it with blinkers off and can clearly see why ref gave it. You clearly see something else, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Both the ref and the baldy linesman were horrendous for both teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggerG Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Intention or gaining advantage are irrelevant. If it's a foul, it's a foul. I've viewed it with blinkers off and can clearly see why ref gave it. You clearly see something else, so we'll have to agree to disagree. So how do you view it as a foul to Rangers and not Falkirk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradHorse Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 For me it was a pretty contentious situation. It was hardly a clear cut foul or a dive; it was one of those ones where whichever side was on the receiving end they'd feel aggrieved. I've only seen it once, mind, so I'm not stating that as absolute fact. Football definitely has an element of giving bigger teams the decisions, it's just something that can't really be helped due to the fact there is a human refereeing the game. Surplus to having a literal robot calling the shots, there is always going to be a psychological element in a sense that if one team (or player) is in general perceived to being better than the other then in a situation where it is a 50/50, the natural human thing to do is to lean in favour of the perceived 'better', or more likely, side/player. It's not right and if possible it'd be great to remove that element, but that's simply a fact. The other thing to consider is that the bigger - or better - teams tend to be in the opposing teams' half more often and therefore more fouls are just statistically likely to occur there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Hardly a shocker to hear Houston getting tore into the ref. Wasn't that long ago when he was Dundee United manage he was accusing them of being a cheat, Better watch , he might cause a strike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Football definitely has an element of giving bigger teams the decisions, it's just something that can't really be helped due to the fact there is a human refereeing the game. Surplus to having a literal robot calling the shots, there is always going to be a psychological element in a sense that if one team (or player) is in general perceived to being better than the other then in a situation where it is a 50/50, the natural human thing to do is to lean in favour of the perceived 'better', or more likely, side/player. It's not right and if possible it'd be great to remove that element, but that's simply a fact. The other thing to consider is that the bigger - or better - teams tend to be in the opposing teams' half more often and therefore more fouls are just statistically likely to occur there. That's absolutely correct - and yet the bigger teams in our shitty little country still think every c'nt is against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggerG Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 For me it was a pretty contentious situation. It was hardly a clear cut foul or a dive; it was one of those ones where whichever side was on the receiving end they'd feel aggrieved. I've only seen it once, mind, so I'm not stating that as absolute fact. Football definitely has an element of giving bigger teams the decisions, it's just something that can't really be helped due to the fact there is a human refereeing the game. Surplus to having a literal robot calling the shots, there is always going to be a psychological element in a sense that if one team (or player) is in general perceived to being better than the other then in a situation where it is a 50/50, the natural human thing to do is to lean in favour of the perceived 'better', or more likely, side/player. It's not right and if possible it'd be great to remove that element, but that's simply a fact. The other thing to consider is that the bigger - or better - teams tend to be in the opposing teams' half more often and therefore more fouls are just statistically likely to occur there. Pretty much spot on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Even the Rangers TV guys (David McKinney - remember him? Used to do Football First. Didn't know he was a raving Sevconian) said it was soft. Now if they're saying it's soft, it's probably the worst decision in the history of the world as they are the most biased commentators I have every heard, including Celtic TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughing gravie Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Guy who works with me states Sevco are getting so many free kicks and penalties is because this season they have players that are technally mopre aware than those from last season. Isn't that a euphemism for guys who know when to dive to gain advantage when the going gets tough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I would read that more as players who are quicker and have better feet so are more likely to be fouled than clumsy defenders. Having watched the highlights I think it's a poor decision but I can see why he gave it. Great tackle but Law went flying due to the momentum of the two of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Halliday Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 it was a soft free kick, had it been again Rangers I wouldn't have been happy however Tav still had to score the free kick and we kicked on and got another. That one point just distracts from the overall howler the referee & his linesmen had. The Falkirk support should be happy they didn't play 60 minutes with 10 men when their GK handled outside the area, blatantly. Rangers won by two clear goals, they dominated possession & chances. I don't think the FK cost them a point as Rangers won 3-1 so even had we not scored it we would still have won 2-1. Couple of weeks break now and we move to the next game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 That one point just distracts from the overall howler the referee & his linesmen had. The Falkirk support should be happy they didn't play 60 minutes with 10 men when their GK handled outside the area, blatantly. It was offside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.