Celtic win - no controversy

[Castilian 8]

Celtic won that match fair and square on Sunday. They were individually and collectively the better team.

That's just the same as the first Old Firm game, only in reverse. Rangers were individually and collectively the better team.

But hold on! There was a hullabaloo after the first Old Firm game. The Rangers penalty was forensically examined for controversy. You show it once, it looks dodgy, and then you move on. No, it was examined and re-examined. Everything about it, even the referee's postioning, his vision, the angle of his body in relation to the incident, was scrutinised. Replayed continually in slow motion.

Other incidents were given the same treatment, especially the McCulloch fouls.

The hi-octane criticism of the referee contributed to a referee's strike.

Fast forward to Sunday. No forensic examination of the penalty. It appears that there were no contoversial moments, in the entire 90 minutes of an Old Firm game.

This has been the pattern for years. When we win there is controversy, when Celtic win it's okay - nothing happened.

I'll take our defeat like a man. I just wish Celtic would do the same.

[minstral 5,375]

Celtic won that match fair and square on Sunday. They were individually and collectively the better team.

That's just the same as the first Old Firm game, only in reverse. Rangers were individually and collectively the better team.

But hold on! There was a hullabaloo after the first Old Firm game. The Rangers penalty was forensically examined for controversy. You show it once, it looks dodgy, and then you move on. No, it was examined and re-examined. Everything about it, even the referee's postioning, his vision, the angle of his body in relation to the incident, was scrutinised. Replayed continually in slow motion.

Other incidents were given the same treatment, especially the McCulloch fouls.

The hi-octane criticism of the referee contributed to a referee's strike.

Fast forward to Sunday. No forensic examination of the penalty. It appears that there were no contoversial moments, in the entire 90 minutes of an Old Firm game.

This has been the pattern for years. When we win there is controversy, when Celtic win it's okay - nothing happened.

I'll take our defeat like a man. I just wish Celtic would do the same.

They will never change and just wait when they lose their next game and you will hear them once again.

[ScottBF2 3,540]

Celtic won that match fair and square on Sunday. They were individually and collectively the better team.

That's just the same as the first Old Firm game, only in reverse. Rangers were individually and collectively the better team.

But hold on! There was a hullabaloo after the first Old Firm game. The Rangers penalty was forensically examined for controversy. You show it once, it looks dodgy, and then you move on. No, it was examined and re-examined. Everything about it, even the referee's postioning, his vision, the angle of his body in relation to the incident, was scrutinised. Replayed continually in slow motion.

Other incidents were given the same treatment, especially the McCulloch fouls.

The hi-octane criticism of the referee contributed to a referee's strike.

Fast forward to Sunday. No forensic examination of the penalty. It appears that there were no contoversial moments, in the entire 90 minutes of an Old Firm game.

This has been the pattern for years. When we win there is controversy, when Celtic win it's okay - nothing happened.

I'll take our defeat like a man. I just wish Celtic would do the same.

Bougherra should have been red carded, there's your controversy.

IMO Kayal should have walked and Charlie Mulgrew should have received an uppercut at some point.

[Papa Sasac 164]

It was a shite game. What was it, 5 bookings or something? Nothing to analyse.

[Gaz52 11,837]

One of the first things I said when they scored the penalty "They won't be moaning about Referees the night"

They can't take defeat graciously, Lennon wants CSI on the scene and all we want is to move on and forget about it

[simon 1,758]

First of all, the penalty was a penalty. No doubt about it. I didn't think the referee a particularly good game but that was not the reason we lost.

We were very poor, as much as it hurts we accept that we played badly. Celtic don't lose with dignity.

[Gaz52 11,837]

I honestly believe that if that Penalty had been given in our favour rather than theirs they would have found something wrong with it, it's just how deluded they are. The ref would have been approx 4.5cm behind play therefore was in no position to award the penalty, Ya prick ye

[covenanter 158]

Celtic won that match fair and square on Sunday. They were individually and collectively the better team.

That's just the same as the first Old Firm game, only in reverse. Rangers were individually and collectively the better team.

But hold on! There was a hullabaloo after the first Old Firm game. The Rangers penalty was forensically examined for controversy. You show it once, it looks dodgy, and then you move on. No, it was examined and re-examined. Everything about it, even the referee's postioning, his vision, the angle of his body in relation to the incident, was scrutinised. Replayed continually in slow motion.

Other incidents were given the same treatment, especially the McCulloch fouls.

The hi-octane criticism of the referee contributed to a referee's strike.

Fast forward to Sunday. No forensic examination of the penalty. It appears that there were no contoversial moments, in the entire 90 minutes of an Old Firm game.

This has been the pattern for years. When we win there is controversy, when Celtic win it's okay - nothing happened.

I'll take our defeat like a man. I just wish Celtic would do the same.

Well said, sums up the situation exactly.

When Rangers were awarded a penalty at ra Stydome in October, it was our first in eleven years(23 games). Billy Dodds scored our last penalty award in August'99. Ra Sellik are averaging a penalty at Ibrox every 5-6 games.

You think someone in both broadcast and print media might be utilising the 'CLARIFICATION' word?

[Castilian 8]

Bougherra should have been red carded, there's your controversy.

IMO Kayal should have walked and Charlie Mulgrew should have received an uppercut at some point.

If Rangers had somehow won the match, the alleged "Bougherra red card" incident would have been replayed continuously.

There would have been complaints about the referees' decision, the high incidence of decisions that go against Celtic, how it's impossible to get justice at Ibrox, how historically Celtic have blah blah blah.......

[BolloBollo 36]

... and Charlie Mulgrew should have received an uppercut at some point.

Brilliant!

[Castilian 8]

First of all, the penalty was a penalty. No doubt about it. I didn't think the referee a particularly good game but that was not the reason we lost.

We were very poor, as much as it hurts we accept that we played badly. Celtic don't lose with dignity.

It looked like a clean cut penalty to me. I've no complaints.

However, would the Celtic people have the same attitude. It would have been examined for errors. If you look hard enough you'll find something. It might have been a few moves before the actual penalty, but if you want to find fault, you'll find it somewhere.

As I said, it was a penalty fair and square. I doubt if my attitude would be reciprocated at Celtic Park.

[Castilian 8]

It was a shite game. What was it, 5 bookings or something? Nothing to analyse.

You're missing the point. You don't think there is anything to analyse, because you are a Rangers supporter.

If they lost it would still be "a shite game", but with plenty to "analyse."

[simon 1,758]

It looked like a clean cut penalty to me. I've no complaints.

However, would the Celtic people have the same attitude. It would have been examined for errors. If you look hard enough you'll find something. It might have been a few moves before the actual penalty, but if you want to find fault, you'll find it somewhere.

As I said, it was a penalty fair and square. I doubt if my attitude would be reciprocated at Celtic Park.

Honestly I don't care. I despise them and don't like talking about them or what they do. Fuck them.

[achaleven 38]

Brilliant!

Double brilliant!

[Jelle1880 300]

I said it before: If they go top they would not say a thing anymore about referees.

[MartinGers93 388]

Nothing new there then

[joker69 60]

Who cares its always the Celtic way and always will be.

Dignified isn't in their vocabulary...

We were shite and we know it but...

Fuck them :chopometer:

[Smile 26,622]

I honestly believe that if that Penalty had been given in our favour rather than theirs they would have found something wrong with it, it's just how deluded they are. The ref would have been approx 4.5cm behind play therefore was in no position to award the penalty, Ya prick ye

The filth have always been that way nothing changes.

Scott Brown in one game heading lafferty in the chest was not a foul in filthland, the media and the patsy Rangers supporters who back the filth trying to be fair minded also dont help.

[butthole 152]

Is this thread not making a controversy out of the fact there's no controversy?

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

Charlie Mulgrew should have received an uppercut at some point.

I sometimes take an instant and irrational hatred for some players. Mulgrew is the latest fhud in a long line of players I loathe.

[Castilian 8]

Is this thread not making a controversy out of the fact there's no controversy?

No, it's an observation that when Celtic beat Rangers there is no controversy. However, there would be controvery if Rangers had won. So I'm not being contoversial. I'm stating a fact. Facts aren't controversial, however if you're a Celtic fan, then facts can actually become contoversial because.........and so it goes on.