Officialdom Conspiracy 2020/21?

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,619]

3 minutes ago, TamCoopz said:

Can’t remember who the ref was for that game but he clearly didn’t want Dundee united to get a result, checked their forum and they have a thread not too dissimilar to this and they were complaining about it 

Triggered 😆😆😆

[TamCoopz 19,605]

Just now, Brackley Bluenose said:

Everything that we can possibly say on the contrary to the conspiracy theory just gets passed off as ‘bollocks’, the kind of thing than conspiracy theorists usually do tbf. 
 

but I have a question for you Tam, is the earth even round? 

I’ve just checked the flat earther forum and they don’t seem to believe it is so I’ll go with that 

[TamCoopz 19,605]

Just now, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Triggered 😆😆😆

Absolutely, these things have to be checked 

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

But those things aren't objective. Some aren't rules, some didn't happen, some are never red cards.

Post 1 on this thread lists wrong de unions for and against us. Which scores on the doors aren't fair?

The day we accept listening to the scum saying they're chested as an argument not to discuss us receiving no parity from officials will be the day Hell freezes over.

Which of those things didn’t happen? The problem is you can’t take your opinion as gospel just as I can’t mine for gospel. It’s your opinion that we are being unfavourably treated, just as the tarriers would say they are being unfavourably treated. It tends to be the way of football fans and will be until the end of time.

[BridgeIsBlue 66,599]

2 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Triggered 😆😆😆

Mate what does this mean? 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,619]

2 minutes ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

Everything that we can possibly say on the contrary to the conspiracy theory just gets passed off as ‘bollocks’, the kind of thing than conspiracy theorists usually do tbf. 
 

but I have a question for you Tam, is the earth even round? 

Passed off as bollocks by whom?

Not seen one person saying there isn't incompetence. Nor that its only us that get hard done to. 

Do you accept this season that we've got more big wrong decisions awarded against us than for?

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

2 minutes ago, TamCoopz said:

I’ve just checked the flat earther forum and they don’t seem to believe it is so I’ll go with that 

🤣🤣🤣

[TamCoopz 19,605]

1 minute ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

Mate what does this mean? 

This is his go to phrase when he has nothing else to add 

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

Just now, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Passed off as bollocks by whom?

Not seen one person saying there isn't incompetence. Nor that its only us that get hard done to. 

Do you accept this season that we've got more big wrong decisions awarded against us than for?

No mate I don’t accept that. 
 

in fairness you can’t be the judge and the jury of this either because for example there are things that happened in the game last week that the tarriers would be fuming about that you’ve not even mentioned ie the Davis rake down the Achilles and Madden holding back Morelos to prevent him from doing anything he could have got sent off for. I’m telling you things that THEY are saying. It works both ways.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

We appealed a decision. It's hardly rare. Camelon Juniors appealed one recently too.

Think this is the first appellate tribunal there’s been for their compliance officer. About time we started fighting back albeit we lost this time. 

[Tiger Shaw 30,348]

Referees are all cunts expect when they’re not.

End thread 

[The Dude 20,026]

3 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

Think this is the first appellate tribunal there’s been for their compliance officer. About time we started fighting back albeit we lost this time. 

It's not. There was one in October.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

It's not. There was one in October.

Fair enough. About time we started fighting back. 

[five stars 1,635]

33 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I've not made ANY judgement on how many decisions celtic do/dont get. I have made one based on other games that I've watched regularly this season and have seen other clubs consistently getting wrong decisions against them too.

What matters is that we have a level playing field with our rivals across the city. No one really cares whether East Fife or whoever gets unfair decisions as they've no chance of winning the league.

You've admitted that you can't give  examples of bad decisions in big games that have went against them in the last 2 seasons. You've also admitted that you don't watch enough of their games to do so.

So you really don't have a clue if we get unfair treatment compared to them or not.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,619]

44 minutes ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

I don’t think there’s any kind of conspiracy at all, I do think it’s nonsense to suggest that. Just a few of the things I can think of that other teams won’t be happy that we’ve been on the receiving end of over recent times. 
 

Hibs clearly not given a penalty at our place when Hagi (I think it was) kicked the boy in the head. 
 

We’ve not had a red all season or a pen against in the league all season.

 

Tarriers are screaming for a red for Davis last week when he went in late down a players Achilles. (Albeit they should have had two reds with the shocking challenge from Duffy IMO)

 

Was a ref also not pictured drinking in a Rangers pub after officiating an OF game that we won? 
 

just a few of the things that OTHER teams would look at and say it’s a conspiracy in favour of Rangers. 
 

I don’t happen to think it is either way but I think some people need to be more objective in their outlook. 

 

26 minutes ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

Which of those things didn’t happen? The problem is you can’t take your opinion as gospel just as I can’t mine for gospel. It’s your opinion that we are being unfavourably treated, just as the tarriers would say they are being unfavourably treated. It tends to be the way of football fans and will be until the end of time.

Hagi didn't kick anyone in the head. You can take that for gospel. Even a high foot wouldn't be a penalty despite what some like Michael Stewart suggests.

If we are to discuss incidents, and fans reactions to incidents, then I agree unlike with this incident there needs to be knowledge of rules as well as objectivity. Thats why wrong decisions for are listed not just the ones we feel hard done by. And why there's discussions around the incidents its not solely my opinion. Oh, and you'll have seen there's also been a few 50/50s that I've not included as being against us.

Talking about objectivity, the amount of shite spouted about their red card is hysterical, its almost like rules don't exist (goal scoring opportunity) never mind lack of objectivity (Ajer was never covering). I dont think this thread is anywhere near lacking in objectivity as that, but each to their own.

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

4 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

 

Hagi didn't kick anyone in the head. You can take that for gospel. Even a high foot wouldn't be a penalty despite what some like Michael Stewart suggests.

If we are to discuss incidents, and fans reactions to incidents, then I agree unlike with this incident there needs to be knowledge of rules as well as objectivity. Thats why wrong decisions for are listed not just the ones we feel hard done by. And why there's discussions around the incidents its not solely my opinion. Oh, and you'll have seen there's also been a few 50/50s that I've not included as being against us.

Talking about objectivity, the amount of shite spouted about their red card is hysterical, its almost like rules don't exist (goal scoring opportunity) never mind lack of objectivity (Ajer was never covering). I dont think this thread is anywhere near lacking in objectivity as that, but each to their own.

Let’s take the Hagi one, could we have grumbled IF a penalty was given? I don’t think we could have, it COULD be considered reckless play/endangering an opponent. Same with Morelos elbow if there was a conspiracy they’d have jumped at the chance to red card him. There’s two examples whereby if there was conspiracy to stop the league they could have jumped all over it and they’d have been tangible decisions, especially Morelos it’s a red all day long. 
 

The very fact that we’ve not had a red or a pen against surely highlights we’ve not been that hard done by. I think it’s best to agree to disagree, we could go into the minutia of it all for bloody yonks.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,619]

37 minutes ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

No mate I don’t accept that. 
 

in fairness you can’t be the judge and the jury of this either because for example there are things that happened in the game last week that the tarriers would be fuming about that you’ve not even mentioned ie the Davis rake down the Achilles and Madden holding back Morelos to prevent him from doing anything he could have got sent off for. I’m telling you things that THEY are saying. It works both ways.

Well tell me which big match affecting decisions?  He had 3 to make and got 2 wrong. Just because they demand more doesn't make their claims right.

Tarriers will take a different outlook but then they believe their own narrative. Soro and Morelos could have been booked but fheyre not big game affecting decisions or rules wrongly applied. And if you listen to their claims Morelos should have been sent off without calling out their shite then more fool you.

 

[Bears 792]

Occasional islands of on-topic content in the whole thread.

Should change the thread title to 'Officialdom Conspiracy 2020/21? and Loads of Chuntering by the Same Few About This Thread Existing and Trying to Derail It'.

Or better would be to have a separate thread to discuss whether this thread has the right to exist.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,619]

7 minutes ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

Let’s take the Hagi one, could we have grumbled IF a penalty was given? I don’t think we could have, it COULD be considered reckless play/endangering an opponent. Same with Morelos elbow if there was a conspiracy they’d have jumped at the chance to red card him. There’s two examples whereby if there was conspiracy to stop the league they could have jumped all over it and they’d have been tangible decisions, especially Morelos it’s a red all day long. 
 

The very fact that we’ve not had a red or a pen against surely highlights we’ve not been that hard done by. I think it’s best to agree to disagree, we could go into the minutia of it all for bloody yonks.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy with refs sitting huddled in rooms at the sfa plotting our demise. I'm saying more wrong decisions seem to consistently go against than for us. And see it as likely bias as it continues with such ease.

Post 1 illustrated the type of decisions and numbers.

Re Hagi...

An indirect free kick is awarded if a player: plays in a dangerous manner. impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made. is guilty of dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures or other verbal

No contact was made. Why are you persisting with trying to find an offence which doesn't exist to punish us in a way we shouldn't be punished?

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Well tell me which big match affecting decisions?  He had 3 to make and got 2 wrong. Just because they demand more doesn't make their claims right.

Tarriers will take a different outlook but then they believe their own narrative. Soro and Morelos could have been booked but fheyre not big game affecting decisions or rules wrongly applied. And if you listen to their claims Morelos should have been sent off without calling out their shite then more fool you.

 

Mate this is exactly my point, it’s your opinion. You say there were 3 big match decisions, they would say that if Davis got a red card for raking down a players Achilles then that is also a big match decision but you’ve just forgotten to mention that one. I’m not saying the Davis one was a red but they would - and that whole discussion is my entire point in a nutshell. 
 

 

[TamCoopz 19,605]

2 minutes ago, Bears said:

Occasional islands of on-topic content in the whole thread.

Should change the thread title to 'Officialdom Conspiracy 2020/21? and Loads of Chuntering by the Same Few About This Thread Existing and Trying to Derail It'.

Or better would be to have a separate thread to discuss whether this thread has the right to exist.

Try keep on topic please 

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy with refs sitting huddled in rooms at the sfa plotting our demise. I'm saying more wrong decisions seem to consistently go against than for us. 

Post 1 illustrated the type of decisions and numbers.

Re Hagi...

An indirect free kick is awarded if a player: plays in a dangerous manner. impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made. is guilty of dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures or other verbal

No contact was made. Why are you persisting with trying to find an offence which doesn't exist to punish us in a way we shouldn't be punished?

I actually didn’t know that the infringement would have only been an indirect free kick. So you’re right a penalty could not have been awarded anyway but regardless an indirect free kick wasn’t given when it could have been. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,619]

4 minutes ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

Mate this is exactly my point, it’s your opinion. You say there were 3 big match decisions, they would say that if Davis got a red card for raking down a players Achilles then that is also a big match decision but you’ve just forgotten to mention that one. I’m not saying the Davis one was a red but they would - and that whole discussion is my entire point in a nutshell. 
 

 

So you're arguing on behalf of others who are promoting a pov that is not only wrong but that you disagree with. Got you now.

If anyone raises incidents following matches such as the Davis tackle being a possible red then they get discussed. Unsurprisingly no one has until you've mentioned it.

[Bears 792]

2 minutes ago, TamCoopz said:

Try keep on topic please 

Would be good of you!

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

Just now, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

So you're arguing on behalf of others who are promoting a pov that is not only wrong but that you disagree with. Got you now.

Haha now you’ve shown your colours, I’m not arguing for anyone I’m playing devils advocate to show how ridiculous your conspiracy theory is now you’re passing it all off as bollocks as expected. The fact you don’t think something is a big decision should be the end of it should it? Stroll on almighty one.