Am I The Only One That Thinks..........

[Davie2909 21]

The ref was a joke couldn't even get the basics right just kept giving the cheating tims fouls for nothing.

We picked up yellow after yellow for decent tackles whilest they got away with halfing Diouf constantly and fouling everyone what a joke the SFA need to get our refs sorted out I'm sick watching these muppets give everything to these Jokers.

And in response the the OP's original Question yes play should have been stopped due to a serious head injury.

[robertkay 39]

If you get a chance to see the reply have a look at the referee before the ball goes in...he looks at papac.

I totally get that its a short space of time but if he sees it then he should stop it....and the linesman should be looking down the line anyway...how they can miss it is beyond me

I dont really want to defend the ref but Papac heads the ball of the line - Ref follows the ball Wilson skelfs it back and it goes in - ref blows for a goal notices Papac down and goes and deals with it. where is the time for anyone to recognise Papac is down and hurt and the ref cant chalk the goal of - no offence was committed.

[Wullie! 8]

Where they are in the pitch can't impact how serious a players injury is so how can it impact the referees opinion?

No one can seriously tell me that Papac wasn't seriously injured so how a first aid (I think) qualified referee can't tell that is beyond me!

Who's to say that in Calum Murrays opinion Papac wasn't seriously injured?

Where they are in the pitch increases/decreases the likelihood of play being stopped. If the exact same thing happened in the middle of the park, I have no doubts that the game would have been stopped straight away. It shouldn't happen that way, but it does.

If that was Mark Wilson who had cleared the ball off the line and fell back clutching his head, would you want play to be stopped if Rangers had a clear shot on goal?

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

If you get a chance to see the reply have a look at the referee before the ball goes in...he looks at papac.

I totally get that its a short space of time but if he sees it then he should stop it....and the linesman should be looking down the line anyway...how they can miss it is beyond me

It happened to fast to stop and, as others have said, if it had been at the other end I (and most of us) would havebeen raging if the goal had ben chalked off.

[AldoKrfc 106]

Dont think it could have been stopped tbh. If it was the other way about and got stopped for sa rangers goal i would go mad.

Was the mulgrew header close to being over the line??

From where i was standing it looked close but there wasn't much of a reaction.

[Briton 394]

The ref had a poor game but there's no way he had time to conclude that Papac was injured badly enough to stop the game in the time given. It must have only been a few seconds between Sasa making the clearance and Wilson's scuff.

Talking about stopping the game...was pathetic to hear the Tims booing when the ref did stop the game for a couple of injuries. Lowlife.

[2bob 3]

Your missing the point I think mate.

What you've described isn't being seriously injured it's cheating....what happened with Papac was a serious injury.

If the ref can't tell the difference based on a clear reaction of distress he shouldn't be in the position.

Excuses are excuses however you dress it up, it was a goal look at the result, we got a league to win now, last night is history.

[Briton 394]

Dont think it could have been stopped tbh. If it was the other way about and got stopped for sa rangers goal i would go mad.

Was the mulgrew header close to being over the line??

From where i was standing it looked close but there wasn't much of a reaction.

At first it looked like a goal but the replay showed it didn't cross the line.

[robertkay 39]

Waht I'm saying is that if Calum Murray doesnt know papac is seriously injured based on his reaction then he shouldn't be in his position.

Agree with your comment about where it happens etc, all my point is that according to the rules it doesnt matter where you are in the pitch.

I wouldn't be screaming for play to stop but when the dust had settled I would accept why it had to be if it was on the other foot.

Who's to say that in Calum Murrays opinion Papac wasn't seriously injured?

Where they are in the pitch increases/decreases the likelihood of play being stopped. If the exact same thing happened in the middle of the park, I have no doubts that the game would have been stopped straight away. It shouldn't happen that way, but it does.

If that was Mark Wilson who had cleared the ball off the line and fell back clutching his head, would you want play to be stopped if Rangers had a clear shot on goal?

[robertkay 39]

I wouldn't have been happy at the time no, but I could understand why it was stopped.

As I've said I know it was quick, but thats what refs are paid for

It happened to fast to stop and, as others have said, if it had been at the other end I (and most of us) would havebeen raging if the goal had ben chalked off.

[robertkay 39]

Yeah I know the timeframes small but its the same length of time to make an offside decision or a decision about a foul or even a penalty...I hate excuses but I think the referee has to accept responsibility for not stopping it for a serious injury

The ref had a poor game but there's no way he had time to conclude that Papac was injured badly enough to stop the game in the time given. It must have only been a few seconds between Sasa making the clearance and Wilson's scuff.

Talking about stopping the game...was pathetic to hear the Tims booing when the ref did stop the game for a couple of injuries. Lowlife.

[Gaffbear 4,096]

Should it stop if it was us?

Of course not but we're gods people not fuckin inbred scum like these pricks.

[Briton 394]

I hate excuses but...

Doesn't sound like it mate. I don't think any ref would have stopped the game and we'd all be raging if we had a goal disallowed in those circumstances.

[Andy 69]

On first viewing it looks like a great clearance off the line with no damage done, well thats how the ref would have seen it. There would have been an uproar if he had stopped play as Wilson was pulling the trigger

[robertkay 39]

That's the problem....I'm not saying he's biased (or any referee for that matter), I just don't think they are good or strong enough.

According to the rules if he thinks its serious he stops it, even in the penalty area. If he doesn't think that's serious he should be nowhere near a game in referee gear

Doesn't sound like it mate. I don't think any ref would have stopped the game and we'd all be raging if we had a goal disallowed in those circumstances.

[robertkay 39]

Yep, this is 100% true mate, but....it was the right thing to do and he failed to protect one of our players.

On first viewing it looks like a great clearance off the line with no damage done, well thats how the ref would have seen it. There would have been an uproar if he had stopped play as Wilson was pulling the trigger

[Jacklad 0]

Aye youre the only wan

[robertkay 39]

Nope, was a couple agreed with me lol

Aye youre the only wan

[Jacklad 0]

Only wan but

[robertkay 39]

Only wan but

ok then

[Jacklad 0]

ok

[Andy 69]

Yep, this is 100% true mate, but....it was the right thing to do and he failed to protect one of our players.

Clutching at straws big time if you think the goal shouldn't have stood because of this. Im pretty certain all Rangers Fans, even the players didnt realise he was hurt until afterwards.

[robertkay 39]

I think it was mentioned earlier that boogie looked back at him so at least one of our players noticed, and I for one noticed straight away.

I seriously dont think im clutching at straws for expecting the game to be played by the book.

Clutching at straws big time if you think the goal shouldn't have stood because of this. Im pretty certain all Rangers Fans, even the players didnt realise he was hurt until afterwards.

[Briton 394]

That's the problem....I'm not saying he's biased (or any referee for that matter), I just don't think they are good or strong enough.

According to the rules if he thinks its serious he stops it, even in the penalty area. If he doesn't think that's serious he should be nowhere near a game in referee gear

Yes of course but it's obvious that there was not enough time for him to make that assessment and stop the game. None of us realised how serious it was and it's unreasonable to have expected the referee to do so that quickly either...or are you suggesting the referee should stop play instantly every time a player goes down?