Will the board speak now

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,866]

4 minutes ago, OhW said:

How can you not recall the incident? It was what kicked off the whole thing.

Is that part of the Jack incident ?.

Fuck me I thought it had happened some other time during the game.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,866]

2 minutes ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

I'd need to see it.  Stop being so fucking stupid.

Look at the photographic evidence, then imagine that mid-match at pace. If you raise your hand to an opponent, as per the rules, it's a dismissible offence. That is regardless of whether you're adding in fly-kicks or merely reacting to a tackle.

Tell me or ask me about the Stokes thing. I've no idea what you're talking about, but I'll happily discuss whatever you're going on about because I'm the second person you've said this to.

Stokes, like Dorrans, should have seen red with Jack.

See above.

Didn't even remember Dorrans grabbing him like that when fouled.

Yellow card.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,866]

Just now, OhW said:

Guy tackled Dorrans from behind, Dorrans got up to confront ("throat grab") him and everyone rushed over, resulting in the Jack red card.

Aye every cunt knows that .....?

[SuperAli 1,350]

9 minutes ago, OhW said:

It was 1-1 when Jack was sent off. 

I know but we had the momentum, their goal was against the run of play. I'm sure we would've went on to win the game regardless of their goal at that stage. 

[The Specky Forum Organiser 65,300]

1 minute ago, SuperAli said:

I know but we had the momentum, their goal was against the run of play. I'm sure we would've went on to win the game regardless of their goal at that stage. 

No we didn't, at the point of the sending off it was even at best.

[WeirFleckNRothen 1,789]

1 minute ago, Frank Harrison said:

No we didn't, at the point of the sending off it was even at best.

They're fucking deluded, mate. You're wasting your time.

We'd have won that game 5-0. We were unlucky against Progres.

[LaudrupsPatrickBoots 13,532]

26 minutes ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

Am I comprehending your point right; you think Dorrans' grabbing of that boy's throat was only a yellow?

Only cos he was wearing blue though. It's a straight red if he played for Hibs.

[WeirFleckNRothen 1,789]

1 minute ago, LaudrupsPatrickBoots said:

Only cos he was wearing blue though. It's a straight red if he played for Hibs.

It's fine, he never seen it... the incident that sparked a 10-man rumble.

[LaudrupsPatrickBoots 13,532]

47 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Selective replying to points I posted I see.

Hadn't seen the Dorrans one. It's a yellow, regardless of if he was on one or not.

Instead of whataboutery, why don't you just accept and admit hivs got off Scot free with red card offences.

Specific to stokes his conduct was excessive and not instinctive in either incident. Neither was just one action.

In both his arms were raised high against an opponent. He then continued either by throwing his opponent to the ground or cinfrintationally putting his head to theirs.

If you are saying neither could or should be a red, or that any of our players did similar and walked off with a yellow then you're either oblivious, lying or don't know the rules òf the game.

They did. As did we.

I know the rules of the game quite well. I also understand that they apply to both teams. You seem quite happy to ignore the decisions that went in our favour because they don't fit your agenda.

[LaudrupsPatrickBoots 13,532]

1 minute ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

It's fine, he never seen it... the incident that sparked a 10-man rumble.

Yet he had the cheek to ask me if I actually watched the game

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,866]

7 minutes ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

It's fine, he never seen it... the incident that sparked a 10-man rumble.

??

Forgot the start bit. Remembered he'd reacted but thought at time more of a shove back.

Fucked it ?

[markem 7,287]

12 hours ago, thegambler said:

I wish I could be as optimistic as you but based on what I saw, i just can't if I'm being honest with myself. The game against Motherwell the week before we had 11 players on the park for 90 minutes and were fortunate to take all 3 points imo. Started off strong but again faded, especially in the 2nd half. I could see that happening as a more likely outcome v hibs even if the red card had never been. Each to their own though. 

As you say mate each their own. On your point though around Motherwell. We won the game, of course we didn't maintain that opening 15 pace however that was the first of 3 games we have shown we can go out and get an early goal - a superb habit to get into.  

Away from home, opening day of the season, our team still gelling them typically lifting their game, we went and took 3 points. Previous Rangers managers would have got credit for that. Ground it out would have been said. 

We then destroyed Dunfermline and well Hibs is open to how any individual wants to see it.  

Thats where we are, it's no where near enough 'getting rid' imo (not saying you have said that mate btw). 

I think people forget the enormous risk and cost with replacing a Manager. If it has to be done so be it however for me there are enough signs that the guy deserves a bit more time yet.  

Saturday is now a massive game for him. 

[graeme_4 34,777]

10 minutes ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

They're fucking deluded, mate. You're wasting your time.

We'd have won that game 5-0. We were unlucky against Progres.

No ones saying we'd have won 5-0, or that we were unlucky against Progress. 

You seem raging that people think being reduced to 10 men for an hour, while the other side gets cart blanche to do what they want, could effect a result.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,866]

8 minutes ago, LaudrupsPatrickBoots said:

They did. As did we.

I know the rules of the game quite well. I also understand that they apply to both teams. You seem quite happy to ignore the decisions that went in our favour because they don't fit your agenda.

Quite the opposite.

Parity is key.

Yep Dorrans could have easily walked for that. Jack shouldn't have.

So that's 10 men Rangers v 8 men hivs then yeah?

 

[Smile 26,611]

Just now, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Quite the opposite.

Parity is key.

Yep Dorrans could have easily walked for that. Jack shouldn't have.

So that's 10 men Rangers v 8 men hivs then yeah?

 

The Ref would have just given them Penalties.

[SuperAli 1,350]

22 minutes ago, OhW said:

Your sureness means absolutely nothing to anyone else. 

This is an opinion board, where people, surprisingly, are allowed to voice their opinions whether YOU agree with them or not. Must be difficult knowing you live in a world where people will, at some point, disagree with you. You better start getting used to that prospect. 

I'm not Pedro's biggest fan but I thought we would've gone on to win the game. Seems we'll need to agree to disagree on this one which might be a difficult concept for you but one you'll need to accept nonetheless. 

[markem 7,287]

Just watching that video I would question whether Mcgeogh shoves the ref (and then points in his face) out the road. Shoves is extreme but he's not meant to put his hands on the ref at all, and he's definitley aggressive towards him - get that its time to move on, that's the first time I have brought myself to watching it in detail -  whole game was a fucking farce. 

 

[WeirFleckNRothen 1,789]

16 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

No ones saying we'd have won 5-0, or that we were unlucky against Progress. 

You seem raging that people think being reduced to 10 men for an hour, while the other side gets cart blanche to do what they want, could effect a result.

I was being ironic, clearly wasted on you.

I'm raging at nothing; I'm bored of stupid cunts blaming the referee and Club 1872 blaming Lennon when our first priority should be our shite, second rate defending.

This isn't the odd slip-up; it's been a regular thing under Caixinha.

[LaudrupsPatrickBoots 13,532]

35 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Quite the opposite.

Parity is key.

Yep Dorrans could have easily walked for that. Jack shouldn't have.

So that's 10 men Rangers v 8 men hivs then yeah?

 

Jack was very fortunate to win that appeal. So no, it wouldn't have been 10 v 8.

[graeme_4 34,777]

19 minutes ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

I was being ironic, clearly wasted on you.

I'm raging at nothing; I'm bored of stupid cunts blaming the referee and Club 1872 blaming Lennon when our first priority should be our shite, second rate defending.

This isn't the odd slip-up; it's been a regular thing under Caixinha.

I don't think anyone's justifying the defending, it was shocking - Cardoso in particular was Kiernanesq. 

You obviously are raging. Calling fans cunts because of your own inability to acknowledge the impact that Beaton had. 

[With Heart and Hand 8,949]

2 hours ago, JacktonBear said:

No more statements! As a club we need to work on restoring the integrity we've lost over the last few years and continually hitting out when things don't go our way is not helping. Let's concentrate our energies on promoting what's great about our club! 

Fuck up

[WeirFleckNRothen 1,789]

2 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

I don't think anyone's justifying the defending, it was shocking - Cardoso in particular was Kiernanesq. 

You obviously are raging. Calling fans cunts because of your own inability to acknowledge the impact that Beaton had. 

"No one is saying..." and "you're raging".

Is that all you're offering here?

[graeme_4 34,777]

Just now, WeirFleckNRothen said:

"No one is saying..." and "you're raging".

Is that all you're offering here?

More than your 'fans are cunts' and 'I hate Pedro'...

[Johnny Dangerously 7,562]

I'd like to have seen them comment on Lennons behaviour.

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

I see Lennon is quoted as saying Pedro disrespected him after the game and that if Pedro wants respect he's going to have to earn it.

Why refer to this in a thread raising the issue of whether the Rangers Board might make a statement about the red card incident?  Well what we have here is the manager of another club who set his team up to play in such a way as to provoke Rangers and to provoke the referee and see what they can get away with.   As we know they got away with a win and created the means to do it by creating a sending off situation, and then (with the help of incompetent, or worse, refereeing) got away with other offences which meant they could play 11 v 10 and exploit the game.   Now with the red card rescinded they choose to go on the attack again by insinuating that Pedro disrespected Lennon after the game.   

The intent from Hibs in the game and post-match has, imo, the hallmarks of not only sustaining already hostile relations but intensifying them.   In the knowledge that any sanction by the SFA is ineffective (the Cup Final episode proved that).   Creating a continuing media shit storm against Rangers, against the Rangers manager, and against Rangers supporters.  The aim being to seek to create such bad feeling among SPFL sides about Rangers throughout the season that it becomes a lever in trying to impede Rangers' efforts on the pitch to win the league title, or failing that to be significantly more competitive than last season.  Perhaps also an effort to undermine the Rangers manager and to force him out of the door.      

Reading too much into yet another Lennon attack on Rangers?   Maybe.   Or maybe not.    Point is the Rangers Board can sit silent on all of this if it chooses to - a continuation of the dignified silence days - or it can make it publicly clear that efforts by others to unfairly or improperly prevent or hinder Rangers efforts to win games and to win the league title fairly and squarely will not be tolerated.   When it is clear there are no bridges to be built with Hibs or with certain other teams in the active harm group because their actions and statements are evidence enough that they don't want bridges then there is no point in Rangers' efforts at bridge building being a one-way process.  

Sometimes silence is not the right answer.   In choosing to remain silent and seemingly dismissive of the issues arising from the game with Hibs and the subsequent Hibs 'disrespect' comments in the media the Board may think this garners respect from within the corridors of power in the game, and among the majority of the Rangers support.   If that is their view, borne out of long corporate experience of dignified silence, then I hope it works out for them.   Thing is though, the world has moved on a long way from the staid days of appearing to be above the shit storm fray and being respected for doing so.   Sometimes there is a need to speak and make the Club's view on these matters clear.    Whether this is one of these times is clearly for the Board to decide.  

One thing this season though is maybe a closer eye than normal needs to be kept on acts or omissions from match officials which patently go against Rangers, and the acts / statements of officials from opposing clubs - the point being to monitor the extent to which any underlying issue exists of circumstances or statements being created which are designed to unfairly or improperly hamper Rangers' efforts to win fairly and squarely.   

The best response is to win all the remaining games against Hibs, and to win enough points to win the league or failing that to show that a much more competitive Rangers side was in evidence than the one we all saw last season and then build on that for next season.