Compliance procedure unfit for purpose

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,723]

is there anyone out there that's seen what we've seen in terms of pics, statistics, legislation etc and still thinks we're getting fairly treated by refs, Compliance Officer or the authorities?

 

 

 

Thought not.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

28 minutes ago, Reformation Bear said:

The pattern of wrongful acts by the football authorities against Rangers continues unabated.   There must presumably be an acceptance within the Boardroom at Ibrox that this is going to continue unchecked and unchallenged (by Rangers) for some time to come.   It's become institutionalised within the football authorities in Scotland, and institutionalised in other clubs where the authorities wilfully turn blind eyes to on-pitch events involving other clubs whereas for Rangers any excuse is dug out to throw disciplinary charges at our players.   

The perception of institutionalised bias against Rangers by the football authorities and by the media is there.    That perception gathers strength every time a decision is made against Rangers and every time a comparable incident created by players in other clubs is conveniently overlooked or explained away as somehow not being comparable.  

Odd then that the Board and execs at Rangers simply allow accumulating evidence of decisions against Rangers to simply wash by as though they are of no real consequence.   Silent as though such a tradition of silence was still the appropriate line to take in this modern age.    Have they really nothing to say, no message to give, no comment to make, no protest to be lodged, no demand for enquiry and for the whole disciplinary process to be reformed?    Seems so.

An obvious consequence for SG and the first team squad - apart from toughening up the siege mentality needed to get through football seasons in Scotland - is presumably to train and approach games with the automatic assumption that the referee and asst referees will find reasons to send a Rangers player(s) off for incidents where they would not send opposition players off.   The effect being the assume that we play games with 10 men (or less) and against (effectively) 14 in each game.    And on top of that to be ever ready to find the squad further depleted once compliance officers have undertaken their trial by media to find reasons to hand out consequential punishments after games.

That's the way it is in Scotland.   Means SG can never really have the resources to hand to create a title winning side anytime soon as the football system and officialdom in Scotland will conveniently see to it that such efforts are neutered.     And we all know who that is designed to favour, and why.

Yet still the Board has nothing to say and no effective action to take?      Taking it in silence is what the Club does nowadays.    Facing aft, bending over and silently saluting - all in the name of Scottish Football.

Great post 

Maybe the shareholders can push the board into action, once they realise that all these wrongful acts are costing the club money.

[mclovin9091 1,388]

Thinking about it, should our focus not be towards our board to take action rather than chasing the BBC for factual inaacuracies?

 

Surely someone could be employed to gather evidence and present the video clips where action wasn't taken i.e. the Simnuvic elbow, that Brenda dismissed as a strong challenge and claimed when, as a defender going in for tackles with young attackers you need to go in strong and committed. That clearly should have been a red card. This Kung fu kick should have been red and the many many other inaccuracies where either something should have been done at the time and if not retrospectively. Use some of our penalties such as the Defoe one where there is contact (so should be a penalty)  but gets up straight away looking to carry on and neither he nor any Rangers player claims for a penalty, yet the referee decides to give one anyway.  Bring up the tackle on Jack from the game against them last year.  

Alternatively bring in/borrow a couple of refs from England (not the top level professional ones) on a trial basis for one game each week and see if there are any issues with thier performance. 

The issue is the referees consistency not their allegiance or bias. Then tainted/made worse by the CO who is clearly turning out to be incompetent.

[Rum Ham 2,059]

4 minutes ago, rfc1990 said:

You could bet good money that if something similar happens on Sunday against them, that the ref doesn't see or doesn't send off, that the outrage in the media will be unreal. Calling for bans etc.

Hopefully it does and one of their best players miss the game against us because of it 

[BridgeIsBlue 66,606]

So Morelos not stamping or kicking McKenna is violent conduct, but Ryan Jack getting kicked in the head isn't? 

I challenge anyone to tell us that there's no aganda towards us and keep a straight face at the same time. 

[trueblueal 2,117]

The Power high boot was at least only reckless rather than a deliberate boot to the head, but for the life of me I can't see why McGinn doesn't get about 4-5 games ban for an outright assault against Dundee Utd.  It was so clearly a premeditated elbow smash and near knocked a guy out.  Its time to sack this system and get back to letting go the ref do the job in the pitch. Revisiting incidents clearly isn't working and there are massive contradictions. Morelos wasn't even a yellow yet he gets 2 games. McGinn is worthy of about 3 months for assault and he gets no action. 

[SpidermansGaffer 2,552]

21 minutes ago, Reformation Bear said:

The pattern of wrongful acts by the football authorities against Rangers continues unabated.   There must presumably be an acceptance within the Boardroom at Ibrox that this is going to continue unchecked and unchallenged (by Rangers) for some time to come.   It's become institutionalised within the football authorities in Scotland, and institutionalised in other clubs where the authorities wilfully turn blind eyes to on-pitch events involving other clubs whereas for Rangers any excuse is dug out to throw disciplinary charges at our players.   

The perception of institutionalised bias against Rangers by the football authorities and by the media is there.    That perception gathers strength every time a decision is made against Rangers and every time a comparable incident created by players in other clubs is conveniently overlooked or explained away as somehow not being comparable.  

Odd then that the Board and execs at Rangers simply allow accumulating evidence of decisions against Rangers to simply wash by as though they are of no real consequence.   Silent as though such a tradition of silence was still the appropriate line to take in this modern age.    Have they really nothing to say, no message to give, no comment to make, no protest to be lodged, no demand for enquiry and for the whole disciplinary process to be reformed?    Seems so.

An obvious consequence for SG and the first team squad - apart from toughening up the siege mentality needed to get through football seasons in Scotland - is presumably to train and approach games with the automatic assumption that the referee and asst referees will find reasons to send a Rangers player(s) off for incidents where they would not send opposition players off.   The effect being the assume that we play games with 10 men (or less) and against (effectively) 14 in each game.    And on top of that to be ever ready to find the squad further depleted once compliance officers have undertaken their trial by media to find reasons to hand out consequential punishments after games.

That's the way it is in Scotland.   Means SG can never really have the resources to hand to create a title winning side anytime soon as the football system and officialdom in Scotland will conveniently see to it that such efforts are neutered.     And we all know who that is designed to favour, and why.

Yet still the Board has nothing to say and no effective action to take?      Taking it in silence is what the Club does nowadays.    Facing aft, bending over and silently saluting - all in the name of Scottish Football.

Great post.

It's the only thing they have left to try to fuck us over with.

They tried to kill us off - we didn't die.

They kicked us down the leagues - we came back up.

We lost most of our top players - we bought new ones.

They tried to take our titles - they failed.

They thought we would walk away - we didn't, it only galvanised us & we sold out week on week.

It must be absolutely killing them to see us getting closer & closer to our rightful place as the top side in Scotland. If this is all they have, we'll see this new pathetic attempt to hurt us/slow us down off with the same contempt as the other failures.

 

We ARE the people, and don't they fucking know it...

[Robmc1 4,741]

1 hour ago, gogzy said:

Despite it all we are only a 2 game swing from being back at the top of the table.  They must be truly shitting themselves.

Agreed, when you actually think about how we have been unfairly disadvantaged by means of this joke of a process and where we sit at the moment. This is compounded by the fact that since the winter break our matches have been far more challenging (both in opposition and in venue) than them. Hopefully some points can be drawn back when they face difficult opposition away from home...

[gogzy 31,195]

20 minutes ago, Rum Ham said:

Not really bothered tbh. 

Means he won't miss the game against the taigs. 

It was going to be a lose-lose situation from the start

 Really don't care about that.  I want the rules to be applied with parity. If any of our players had done what Power did he would 100% be cited and banned by the same Compliance Officer that just let off Power.

The uneven way this system is being used is the major issue.  The tarriers have not been done once under this CO and that in itself shows a level of bias that is unacceptable.

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

I actually think you’d get a custodial sentence if you got caught on cctv kicking somebody like that, but on a football pitch it’s not even a red card, outrageous! 

how it’s not an instant red is beyond me but these fucktards have reviewed the incident an they still think it’s only a yellow 🤔

[Sweetheart 8,458]

9 minutes ago, mclovin9091 said:

Thinking about it, should our focus not be towards our board to take action rather than chasing the BBC for factual inaacuracies?

 

Surely someone could be employed to gather evidence and present the video clips where action wasn't taken i.e. the Simnuvic elbow, that Brenda dismissed as a strong challenge and claimed when, as a defender going in for tackles with young attackers you need to go in strong and committed. That clearly should have been a red card. This Kung fu kick should have been red and the many many other inaccuracies where either something should have been done at the time and if not retrospectively. Use some of our penalties such as the Defoe one where there is contact (so should be a penalty)  but gets up straight away looking to carry on and neither he nor any Rangers player claims for a penalty, yet the referee decides to give one anyway.  Bring up the tackle on Jack from the game against them last year.  

Alternatively bring in/borrow a couple of refs from England (not the top level professional ones) on a trial basis for one game each week and see if there are any issues with thier performance. 

The issue is the referees consistency not their allegiance or bias. Then tainted/made worse by the CO who is clearly turning out to be incompetent.

I'm all for the board hiring a legal team to build a case and take it to the very top of football governance if need be.

[Robmc1 4,741]

Just now, Sweetheart said:

I'm all for the board hiring a legal team to build a case and take it to the very top of football governance if need be.

I’m not sure of the feasibility of this but if it was possible and the shoe was on the foot with them, you can bet they would be all over this idea...

[Inigo 32,526]

23 minutes ago, mclovin9091 said:

Imagine VAR in Scotland. 😄 😄 😄 😄 😄 😄

 

The CO has the luxury of watching a video clip days after the event and still finds against us, despite the video evidence showing a high boot connecting with a players face while the player kicked was off the ground, how the fuck would that change when an answer is required within 5 mins, from a panel who no doubt would NOT have our interests anywhere in sight.

Because it makes it harder to be biased without it being obvious. Because it's harder to hide behind hide technicalities (like 'did the ref see it' etc) and a citing system that people barely understand. Because we see what images they're looking at, as they're looking at them. Because the media driven drama, which is invariably against us, is taken out of the equation and it's instead understood that everything is being seen and looked at, rather than what the media choose to dramatise.

VAR isn't perfect, but it's better than these behind the scenes, faceless, poorly understood and explained processes. Keep the referee as being responsible for the decisions. At very least then we'll know exactly what we're dealing with in black and white. Makes any bias clearer to define.

[BlueAvenger 10,240]

At least the Compliance Officer will deal with it tomorrow because on Thursday night she will be busy supporting her new club....Separate Entity FC 

[mclovin9091 1,388]

7 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Because it makes it harder to be biased without it being obvious. Because it's harder to hide behind hide technicalities (like 'did the ref see it' etc) and a citing system that people barely understand. Because we see what images they're looking at, as they're looking at them. Because the media driven drama, which is invariably against us, is taken out of the equation and it's instead understood that everything is being seen and looked at, rather than what the media choose to dramatise.

VAR isn't perfect, but it's better than these behind the scenes, faceless, poorly understood and explained processes. Keep the referee as being responsible for the decisions. At very least then we'll know exactly what we're dealing with in black and white. Makes any bias clearer to define.

I don't believe it would because who checks that the decisions made are fair, balanced and comparative?

 

Who signs off on todays decision at a higher level? No one. So why would that change with the introduction of VAR.

[trueblueal 2,117]

Can someone post the McGinn forearm smash? Now of that's not worthy of a red I think the CO should resign as she's clearly unfamiliar with this sport. 

[KingKirk 25,647]

30 minutes ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

So Morelos not stamping or kicking McKenna is violent conduct, but Ryan Jack getting kicked in the head isn't? 

I challenge anyone to tell us that there's no aganda towards us and keep a straight face at the same time. 

Insufficient evidence they say ffs

[Sweetheart 8,458]

18 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Because it makes it harder to be biased without it being obvious. Because it's harder to hide behind hide technicalities (like 'did the ref see it' etc) and a citing system that people barely understand. Because we see what images they're looking at, as they're looking at them. Because the media driven drama, which is invariably against us, is taken out of the equation and it's instead understood that everything is being seen and looked at, rather than what the media choose to dramatise.

VAR isn't perfect, but it's better than these behind the scenes, faceless, poorly understood and explained processes. Keep the referee as being responsible for the decisions. At very least then we'll know exactly what we're dealing with in black and white. Makes any bias clearer to define.

I'm for VAR also. I agree it isn't perfect but it will stop the BBC acting like VAR. I would like to see some sort of CO for refs to monitor any complaints of inconsistency.

[Inigo 32,526]

2 minutes ago, mclovin9091 said:

I don't believe it would because who checks that the decisions made are fair, balanced and comparative?

 

Who signs off on todays decision at a higher level? No one. So why would that change with the introduction of VAR.

Because it's all up front. All top flight games are assessed, and those making the decisions can be seen. AND the media aren't involved in the decision making proxess.

If you have a ref assisted by 2 or 3 VAR people in the stand of all top flight games reviewing everything on an ostensibly equal basis, and not resorting to stupid technicalities, then bias becomes more obvious. You also know who's making the final decisions, unlike now. Real people are actually accountable for a decision.

Or, you know, just keep it as it is with behind the scenes decision making days later driven by media furore, decisions being made by unseen people making decisions using parameters that are poorly understood and easy to manipulate. It's ripe for abuse. VAR is in the open at very least. It's better than the old way too in terms of bias, because a VAR assisted ref can't hide behind 'it's difficult to see at high speed' or 'I had a bad angle' or whatever else. A bad decision made when VAR is used is harder to get away with without it looking really, really bad for those involved, and harder to bury under unknown rules and processes.

[Bluekev 43,940]

I think have thought this compliance officer joke has been a shambles from the start, I’m also not a massive fan of VAR. let’s go back to the days when the referees decision was final and move on to the next game without worrying if some septic whore is going to get you banned.

[aird 3,774]

13 minutes ago, trueblueal said:

Can someone post the McGinn forearm smash? Now of that's not worthy of a red I think the CO should resign as she's clearly unfamiliar with this sport. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47215971

 

2nd video.

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

Out of curiosity, anybody know how much the compliance officer makes? 

Ive never known a lawyer to be cheap, sack that rat cow and bring in v.a.r or would that be too honest or just too expensive, after all liewell would have to pay 3 people instead of the 1, assuming it’s a 3 man panel

[sandyinroyalblue 16,478]

The compliance officer and the tarriers are the perfect marriage where any wee incident involving a Rangers player is highlighted and seen in the context that the masonic referees have been cheating the tarriers for 100 years.

[Robmc1 4,741]

1 minute ago, aird said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47215971

 

2nd video.

First time I’ve seen that and can honestly say it’d be harder to find a more blatant dangerous ‘intended’ foul in a game of football. Farce of a referee and farce of a follow up procedure...

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,723]

7 minutes ago, aird said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47215971

 

2nd video.

A shocker.