Officialdom Conspiracy 2020/21?

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Howsitgoing said:

I can’t make up my mind if referees have become more transparent lately because we have become less dominant or we have become less dominant because the referees have become more transparent. We weren’t really mentioning them until lately, coincidentally it started at the same time as that bastardised team going through a bad spell. 

Surely there was a bias shown against the teams who have now had their punishment redacted after successfully arguing against them. Scottish football’s governance isn’t in a good place. 

We've been going on about them for years - and certainly long before they had a bad spell. We had this same thread last season too.

Their punishment has been suspended pending the outcome of appeals. It's fairly normal practice when a sanction is appealed. No idea how that can be construed as some sort of 'bias'.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

We've been going on about them for years - and certainly long before they had a bad spell. We had this same thread last season too.

Their punishment has been suspended pending the outcome of appeals. It's fairly normal practice when a sanction is appealed. No idea how that can be construed as some sort of 'bias'.

From about early December to today this thread has been kept active daily, prior to then it was lucky if it was one comment a week. It was disappearing out of the screen onto the second page. We have seen an increase in incompetence from referees at least on the opinion of some of us in this forum. 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

From about early December to today this thread has been kept active daily, prior to then it was lucky if it was one comment a week. It was disappearing out of the screen onto the second page. We have seen an increase in incompetence from referees at least on the opinion of some of us in this forum. 

And none of those several posts answer my original question of how does referees making the same mistakes fit into the idea that it is 'beyond incompetence'?

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

13 minutes ago, The Dude said:

And none of those several posts answer my original question of how does referees making the same mistakes fit into the idea that it is 'beyond incompetence'?

It’s obviously argumentative and you will no doubt not agree with my opinion but I would put an argument in that it’s “beyond incompetence” due to the fact that their bad form coincided with the compliance officer over turning a refs decision against us and referees decisions getting more scrutiny in the media than previous, especially decisions against us, which in turn influences the decisions they make. 

[The Dude 20,026]

4 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

It’s obviously argumentative and you will no doubt not agree with my opinion but I would put an argument in that it’s “beyond incompetence” due to the fact that their bad form coincided with the compliance officer over turning a refs decision against us and referees decisions getting more scrutiny in the media than previous, especially decisions against us, which in turn influences the decisions they make. 

So how does that fit with referees making woeful decisions in Falkirk v Clyde or Dunfermline v Morton? Is that just incompetence or is that 'beyond incompetence' too?

There was no decision against us "overturned".

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

So how does that fit with referees making woeful decisions in Falkirk v Clyde or Dunfermline v Morton? Is that just incompetence or is that 'beyond incompetence' too?

There was no decision against us "overturned".

Morelos yellow card was over turned to a red, if their compliance officer didn’t involve herself it would of stayed yellow.

 

It’s all relevant, the compliance officer and the media ramp up the pressure on the refs to make sure that the 50/50 decisions go only one way. 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

Morelos yellow card was over turned to a red, if their compliance officer didn’t involve herself it would of stayed yellow.

 

It’s all relevant, the compliance officer and the media ramp up the pressure on the refs to make sure that the 50/50 decisions go only one way. 

It wasn't overturned. Morelos was booked and then charged separately for an offence missed by the referee.

Again, how does the woeful officiating in games like Dunfermline v Morton fit into this anti-Rangers agenda?

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,626]

2 hours ago, .Williamson. said:

Guy running it is more concerned with conspiracy theories and what celtic are at than Rangers

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It wasn't overturned. Morelos was booked and then charged separately for an offence missed by the referee.

Again, how does the woeful officiating in games like Dunfermline v Morton fit into this anti-Rangers agenda?

 

It doesn’t, they aren’t competing against Rangers for any league titles.

That doesn’t disqualify the fact that recently we have seen the compliance officers involvement in one of our on field decisions and the media ramping up the scrutiny on decisions made by referees. This latest one in where a player runs into Hagi with a high leg “being a penalty all day long” just sums it up. 
 

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,626]

1 hour ago, beararse said:

Still not furnished me with an answer to what ‘wrong results are going against us this season?’

Post 1 documents them.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Howsitgoing said:

It doesn’t, they aren’t competing against Rangers for any league titles.

That doesn’t disqualify the fact that recently we have seen the compliance officers involvement in one of our on field decisions and the media ramping up the scrutiny on decisions made by referees. This latest one in where a player runs into Hagi with a high leg “being a penalty all day long” just sums it up. 
 

 

So if they get a decision wrong in games not involving Rangers or Celtic it's simply incompetence but if they get the same decisions wrong in one involving either it is "beyond incompetence"?

Tinfoil hat bollocks.

[beararse 6,366]

6 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Post 1 documents them.

So by ‘them’ you mean the Hibs game at Easter Road?

The only other game we dropped points in was v Livi and you state there were no contentious decisions. 

Hardly ‘wrong results going against us’  is it?

 

 

[eejay the dj 31,964]

1 hour ago, Howsitgoing said:

I thought it was a dive but I guess we are all going to have differing opinions. 

Take referees out of the equation, do you honestly believe that Scottish footballs governance is being run fairly without any bias?
 

This thread is welcome in my opinion. 

It won’t be unless it’s all about him😄

Bores the pants of me but sure I’m not alone in thinking that 

[Bears 792]

13 minutes ago, The Dude said:

So if they get a decision wrong in games not involving Rangers or celtic it's simply incompetence but if they get the same decisions wrong in one involving either it is "beyond incompetence"?

Tinfoil hat bollocks.

Incompetence and bias are not mutually exclusive traits.

[five stars 1,636]

People have short memories. We've had some baffling decisions go against us in the last few seasons. They have cost us points in the league, cup semi finals and finals.

This season's been better so far, although we lost 2 points at Easter Road due to the officials.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Bears said:

Incompetence and bias are not mutually exclusive traits.

I completely agree but when the incompetence is on show regardless of whether it is Rangers v Hibs, St. Mirren v Aberdeen or Dunfermline v Morton, it seriously reduces the likelihood of bias being the cause for their fuck ups.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,626]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

So if they get a decision wrong in games not involving Rangers or Celtic it's simply incompetence but if they get the same decisions wrong in one involving either it is "beyond incompetence"?

Tinfoil hat bollocks.

There's no doubting there's incompetence. Which affects likely most teams throughout the season. 

But when the ref such as Clancy is perfectly competent with decisions in one game for one side as he was when making correct decisions against us, but so abysmal in decisions that should have went against us then thats inexplicable. So many were missed that day.

We seem to have few fans at the sfa yet some believe that couldn't transcend to refs/ CO. That general incompetence balances itself out yet it does not appear to. The current msm narrative is that we get the breaks with penalties yet we've no more than the scum - is it outwith the realms of possibility that refs may not give penalties for fear of being seen compounding some alleged bias in our favour?

I'd love to see us have equal wrong decisions for as against yet still don't see it season after season. And that's more than strange imo.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,626]

8 minutes ago, beararse said:

So by ‘them’ you mean the Hibs game at Easter Road?

The only other game we dropped points in was v Livi and you state there were no contentious decisions. 

Hardly ‘wrong results going against us’  is it?

 

 

Wrong decisions made in every game for and against are listed on the 1st post. The outcome of the game  shouldn't matter.

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

There's no doubting there's incompetence. Which affects likely most teams throughout the season. 

But when the ref such as Clancy is perfectly competent with decisions in one game for one side as he was when making correct decisions against us, but so abysmal in decisions that should have went against us then thats inexplicable. So many were missed that day.

We seem to have few fans at the sfa yet some believe that couldn't transcend to refs/ CO. That general incompetence balances itself out yet it does not appear to. The current msm narrative is that we get the breaks with penalties yet we've no more than the scum - is it outwith the realms of possibility that refs may not give penalties for fear of being seen compounding some alleged bias in our favour?

I'd love to see us have equal wrong decisions for as against yet still don't see it season after season. And that's more than strange imo.

So that will also hold true for, say Falkirk v Clyde then? Gets all the decisions in favour of falkirk right but gets some for clyde badly wrong, then it must me a conspiracy?

You're conflating what a few hacks are saying with reality. Just because Michael Fucking Stewart says we get the breaks, it doesn't mean we actually do.

I'm almost certain that you could do the same for any number of clubs and come out with more going against them than in favour. Ive even heard managers this season claim that officials are scared to give decisions against Falkirk at home because they are the favourites in that division. Do we think there's a pro-Falkirk conspiracy at Hampden?

[KBOO72 4,359]

Don't feed the troll. 

[beararse 6,366]

5 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Wrong decisions made in every game for and against are listed on the 1st post. The outcome of the game  shouldn't matter.

You said ‘wrong results against us’ this season.

So I presume it’s  wrong decisions,  not results. 

Given the most up to date technology used in VAR can’t eradicate contentious decisions from the game then it’s highly unlikely some fella running around the middle of the pitch watching the game in real time will get everything right.

Just because they fail in their duties from time to time doesn’t point towards conspiracy and to list them all is on a par with celtic submitting their dossier of ‘evidence’ back in the day when we were ruling the roost.

[The Dude 20,026]

27 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

It won’t be unless it’s all about him😄

Bores the pants of me but sure I’m not alone in thinking that 

The irony. I've lost count of the number of threads now where your only contribution is some whine about me. 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, eejay the dj said:

Begs the question .Who is the ref for next weekend then 

We had Collum and Walsh last 2 games .So my money is on Clancy .They have been saving him for this 😄

Madden. Already announced last week. 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, eejay the dj said:

And I’ve lost count of the amount of threads that have been pulled or locked because of your trolling 

 

Debating the topic is trolling? 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,626]

16 minutes ago, The Dude said:

So that will also hold true for, say Falkirk v Clyde then? Gets all the decisions in favour of falkirk right but gets some for clyde badly wrong, then it must me a conspiracy?

You're conflating what a few hacks are saying with reality. Just because Michael Fucking Stewart says we get the breaks, it doesn't mean we actually do.

I'm almost certain that you could do the same for any number of clubs and come out with more going against them than in favour. Ive even heard managers this season claim that officials are scared to give decisions against Falkirk at home because they are the favourites in that division. Do we think there's a pro-Falkirk conspiracy at Hampden?

Do Falkirk have the same issues with the SFA as we seem to? Do they have the same insolvent retrospectively with the CO as we have had over the years? I dint know btw.

I guess it comes down to whether you think we get even number of wrong decisions for / against. If you do, I'm surprised as that's not apparent. If not, why not? If not and its incompetence should it typically even itself out over time, does it, if not why not?

BTW I'm at work today, won't be able to reply much 👍