Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2024/25

[Bishop Briggs]

On 13/12/2020 at 09:47, Romeo said:

What's worse than Celtic fans making banners about shooting people and taking them to Parkhead?

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Bishop Briggs

[G51]

Just now, buddie06smfc said:

It’s nothing new. Greg Tansey got booked at the time and following squealing by Dikamona was awarded a red card instead not last season but the season before that. Not for violent conduct but for serious foul play. It was a horrendous call by McLean but he has done well in recognising his error.
It’s also in the rules that yellow cards for both serious foul play & violent conduct can be upgraded from yellow to red. I don’t see how you can claim to be some sort of target in all this. It deserved a red card at the time which would have caused more issues for your team than the retrospective red card, if anything you have got away with one here.

Again, to be clear, nowhere am I suggesting that Rangers are being targeted unfairly here (the first part was, I thought, pretty clearly a joke). Indeed, I went on to say that the application of retrospective disciplinary is so scattergun that it's impossible to derive any kind of trend from the notices of complaint - and that's a problem. We're either reviewing every incident from every game in every weekend, or we leave it well alone and just accept that referees will make mistakes. Right now, the current system is neither which means that at some point during the season every team will get pissed off with it. If the intent is only to review "major" incidents, then there's a clear problem here, because that is very subjective.

You're right, there have been precedents before for this (I said this in my post) but this again ties into the consistency part - if you're not consistent with this, you will justifiably piss people off and it looks amateurish.

And it's a very minor point, but I'm interested to see what sets serious foul play and violent conduct apart from other red card offences. Why are only these two issues reviewable, and not, say, offensive, racist, sectarian or homophobic language that a referee has deemed to be unsporting behaviour instead?

And I don't think it's a clear-cut red card. The rule for violent conduct states you cannot be punished for violent conduct if you're challenging for the ball, which Morelos clearly was.

[Bishop Briggs]

Another Sevco crisis is coming - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55321442

"Rangers need to sell players next summer to help boost the club's financial position, says managing director Stewart Robertson. The club posted a £15.9m loss and need £23m by the end of next season, which will be covered by loans from chairman Douglas Park and director John Bennett."

 

[Cptn Hooch]

21 minutes ago, G51 said:

No one is debating this.

erm...

49 minutes ago, G51 said:

Operation Stop The Ten appears to have hit a snag.

 

1) It's an interesting precedent to set and one that is likely to lead to a much bigger workload for the ex-referees (I think there was a similar case last season too IIRC). If we're saying that yellow cards can be upgraded to red cards if we feel that the act itself could constitute violent conduct, I can think of multiple incidents in the last few weeks that could be cited. Which leads me on to...

 

I get it was meant in humour...dont worry. However, you should check out some of the comments on facebook etc about it...some proper delusional teddy bears out there claiming brown envelopes being passed by Lawell etc.

[G51]

1 minute ago, Cptn Hooch said:

erm...

I get it was meant in humour...dont worry. However, you should check out some of the comments on facebook etc about it...some proper delusional teddy bears out there claiming brown envelopes being passed by Lawell etc.

To be clear, when I said "No one is debating this" I was referring to the posters on this thread.

[bennett]

Just watched the press conference and Gerrard talking analysing players stats which affect their whole game, maybe random guy is on to something...

[AJF]

15 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

Another Sevco crisis is coming - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55321442

"Rangers need to sell players next summer to help boost the club's financial position, says managing director Stewart Robertson. The club posted a £15.9m loss and need £23m by the end of next season, which will be covered by loans from chairman Douglas Park and director John Bennett."

 

Not like the press to take quotes out of context to make a sensationalist headline.

Robertson said Rangers need to get better at player trading and this will come in time. Not once did he mention a 'need' to sell players by any specific date.

[G51]

Rangers have accepted the two game ban for Morelos.

Well, that's the end of me.

Edited December 15, 2020 by G51

[AJF]

 

Just now, G51 said:

Rangers have accepted the two game ban for Morelos.

Well, that's the end of me.

The best decision in my opinion. This way he only misses 1 league match which has to be our main focus this month.

[G51]

1 minute ago, AJF said:

 

The best decision in my opinion. This way he only misses 1 league match which has to be our main focus this month.

Aye, you're probably right. I don't think he'd have played tomorrow anyway.

[Romeo]

Starnge, slippy said was no elbow at all.

He must have been mistaken or.....

[Jacksgranda]

On 04/12/2020 at 12:36, AJF said:

I think our team is well suited to European football and depending on the draw, I think we could possibly reach the last 16 again.

For example, of the teams already qualified I would think we'd have a half-decent chance of qualifying against the likes of: Braga, Antwerp, Zagreb, Red Star, Slavia Prague, Granada and PSV. The others in there such as Lille, Milan, Villarreal, Spurs, Leverkusen and Benfica would obviously be more difficult but if you get them on an off day you never know.

This of course doesn't include the Champions League drop-outs where I'd expect the majority would probably beat us, unless as above, you catch them on an off day.

In summary, I think we've now established ourselves as a team that should be aiming to reach the knockout stages each year - anything beyond that would be a bonus in my opinion.

As a matter of interest what is "beyond the knockout stages"?

[kingjoey]

13 minutes ago, Romeo said:

Starnge, slippy said was no elbow at all.

He must have been mistaken or.....

He was factually correct. It was a forearm.

[kingjoey]

44 minutes ago, G51 said:

 

And I don't think it's a clear-cut red card. The rule for violent conduct states you cannot be punished for violent conduct if you're challenging for the ball, which Morelos clearly was.

He did initially challenge for the ball, but two seconds after that he stuck his forearm into Connelly’s throat/jaw.

[G51]

5 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

He did initially challenge for the ball, but two seconds after that he stuck his forearm into Connelly’s throat/jaw.

As part of the same move to challenge for the ball, meaning that it can't be violent conduct by definition of the rule (as I understand it, at least).

Anyway, it's academic now. He'll be back for St Johnstone away next Wednesday.

[DukDukGoose]

1 hour ago, G51 said:

As part of the same move to challenge for the ball, meaning that it can't be violent conduct by definition of the rule (as I understand it, at least).

Anyway, it's academic now. He'll be back for St Johnstone away next Wednesday.

WastecoatG51

[G51]

Just now, Merkland Red said:

WastecoatG51

Spoiler

"Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible."

8gamestoRed.

[DukDukGoose]

5 minutes ago, G51 said:

  Hide contents

"Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible."

8gamestoRed.

He's not challenging for the ball. It's clear and obvious for all to see.

[18May1991]

2 hours ago, AJF said:

 

The best decision in my opinion. This way he only misses 1 league match which has to be our main focus this month.

The game at the weekend v Motherwell? 

[G51]

Just now, Merkland Red said:

He's not challenging for the ball. It's clear and obvious for all to see.

He's clearly challenging the ball. He jumps for the header. Just because he doesn't win it doesn't mean he isn't challenging for it.

Dundee Utd had an almost identical incident later in the game, where the player was miles off winning the ball, but jumped to try and win it and ended up forearm smashing Arfield in the face. These things happen the whole time in football.

But as I said before, a) it's academic now because we decided to accept it, and b) there is almost nothing duller than arguing about the interpretation of a rulebook with the type of people who enjoy these things.