Officialdom Conspiracy 2020/21?

[TamCoopz 19,605]

1 minute ago, Bears said:

Would be good of you!

Care to mention when I went off topic? Other than right now obviously 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

Just now, Brackley Bluenose said:

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. 

See post above. Folk discuss incidents following games. Feel free to bump the thread with your thoughts following a match, far better that than later and repeatedly telling us what taeriers might think and arguing for penalties against that didn't  breach any rule that would warrant it 👍

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

Just now, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

See post above. Folk discuss incidents following games. Feel free to bump the thread with your thoughts following a match, far better that than later and repeatedly telling us what taeriers might think and arguing for penalties against that didn't  breach any rule that would warrant it 👍

Perhaps be more objective and look at all incidents rather than just the ones that YOU think could be game changing decisions. Then we might get a more accurate picture within this thread. 

[trueblue 64 613]

Two weeks in a row the ref has shat a second red, stone wall red and career threatening assault.

[Robmc1 4,741]

5 minutes ago, trueblue 64 said:

Two weeks in a row the ref has shat a second red, stone wall red and career threatening assault.

Great work by Boyd there slapping McGeogh’s opinion to where it belonged. Of course it was a red card for the penalty and if Main’s challenge isn’t a straight red after having the luxury of watching it on replay then that fool should never be asked to appear on a show again... 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

1 hour ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

Perhaps be more objective and look at all incidents rather than just the ones that YOU think could be game changing decisions. Then we might get a more accurate picture within this thread. 

Why on earth would we discuss as a possible red a yellow card incident, that was only ever a yellow card challenge, that hasn't been discussed anywhere I've seen and certainly not on this forum as a red card?

Its not been considered as a red because only tarriers looking for scapegoats claim it (from your claims they are).

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

Plenty to discuss after today's game then it seems 😁

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

3 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Why on earth would we discuss as a possible red a yellow card incident, that was only ever a yellow card challenge, that hasn't been discussed anywhere I've seen and certainly not on this forum as a red card?

Its not been considered as a red because only tarriers looking for scapegoats claim it (from your claims they are).

This is my point AGAIN, that’s your opinion. How would a late challenge down someone’s Achilles not invoke a discussion about a red card or not in the eyes of non-Rangers fans? You’re failing to see how your conspiracy theories work both ways, when in fact it’s a lot of nonsense as I stated in my very first post today. 
 

 

[bluenoz 30,843]

It's a soft red card for me. That's all I will say. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

1 hour ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

This is my point AGAIN, that’s your opinion. How would a late challenge down someone’s Achilles not invoke a discussion about a red card or not in the eyes of non-Rangers fans? You’re failing to see how your conspiracy theories work both ways, when in fact it’s a lot of nonsense as I stated in my very first post today. 
 

 

Well why hasn't it up until you've mentioned it?

How did you hear this being discussed as a potential red or is it just something you've concocted? 

[Inigo 32,532]

Just now, bluenoz said:

It's a soft red card for me. That's all I will say. 

 It's stonewall based on the rules.

[Inigo 32,532]

Thought pen/red was right, should probably be a second red for Main, should probably have had a second penalty for handball. Would need to see it closer.

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

2 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Well why hasn't it up until you've mentioned it?

How did you hear this being discussed as a potential red or is it just something you've concocted? 

Sorry ofcourse you didn’t highlight it so it can’t possibly be considered 👍🏻

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

3 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

It's a soft red card for me. That's all I will say. 

Stonewaller based on the rules but yeah kinda feel a rule allowing for a yellow would be more warranted for the challenge itself. But can't knock Beaton for applying rules properly and giving it.

[Malkytfp1 18,594]

3 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

It's a soft red card for me. That's all I will say. 

Let's check the rules....

1) was it a foul?

2) was he denying a goal scoring opportunity?

3) did he make an attempt at the ball?

 

If you answered 'yes' 'yes' 'no' then it's a penalty and red card.

If you answered differently then what you doing on this forum instead of being at mass.

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

Today’s talking points - should have been two reds. The first one as much as some people are saying it’s soft it doesn’t matter that it’s accidental it’s still a red as far as I can see on the IFAB rule book. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

Just now, Brackley Bluenose said:

Sorry ofcourse you didn’t highlight it so it can’t possibly be considered 👍🏻

It wasnt mentioned on any part of the match thread that I read. Its not been on any thread that I've read. Its not been mentioned until now on this thread which talks about match decisions.

Now this potential red card challenge, is it scum fans throwing that around or just you?

[bluenoz 30,843]

1 minute ago, Malkytfp1 said:

Let's check the rules....

1) was it a foul?

2) was he denying a goal scoring opportunity?

3) did he make an attempt at the ball?

 

If you answered 'yes' 'yes' 'no' then it's a penalty and red card.

If you answered differently then what you doing on this forum instead of being at mass.

shut the fuck up!

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

It wasnt mentioned on any part of the match thread that I read. Its not been on any thread that I've read. Its not been mentioned until now on this thread which talks about match decisions.

Now this potential red card challenge, is it scum fans throwing that around or just you?

I’ve had conversations with my pals about it both tarriers and Rangers fans. It’s a talking point if you’re not a Rangers fan that’s for sure. My original point again. 

[Malkytfp1 18,594]

5 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

shut the fuck up!

Fuck up. It's a red all day long. If you canny take a bit of banter log off.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

3 minutes ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

I’ve had conversations with my pals about it both tarriers and Rangers fans. It’s a talking point if you’re not a Rangers fan that’s for sure. My original point again. 

I actually googled it to see if its even a thing out there, its not. No chat on it on social media at all as far as I can see.. But yeah I can see how it should have been discussed in great detail because you and your pals chatted about it 😂

Though it does come across strangely as though YOU want it to be a thing.

 

[bluenoz 30,843]

Just now, Malkytfp1 said:

Fuck up. It's a red all day long. If you canny take a bit of banter log off.

It wasn't an intentional foul and therefore my opinion is a red card was harsh. Penalty all day long. That's my opinion.

You comments about mass were offside and I saw no humour in it.

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

Just now, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

I actually googled it to see if its even a thing out there, its not. No chat on it on social media at all as far as I can see.. But yeah I can see how it should have been discussed in great detail because you and your pals chatted about it 😂

Though it does come across strangely as though YOU want it to be a thing.

 

Believe what you like, it’s clearly not a topic of discussion because you don’t think it is! As per usual. What you’d say about the tarriers is that they’re paranoid if they were talking about it, a bit like you with your mad conspiracy theories on this forum. 
 

point ultimately proved again today if they didn’t want to give a red card today because of your big conspiracy then there’s enough jeopardy around the decision that it could have gone been a yellow. Plenty people saying a penalty and red is harsh (I don’t happen to think that but if he wanted to go down that road he could have) Still waiting as to where Morelos’ red card that wasn’t given fits into your grand theory as well. Or are we just skimming over that as well?! 
 

Conspiracy pish! 

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

4 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

It wasn't an intentional foul and therefore my opinion is a red card was harsh. Penalty all day long. That's my opinion.

You comments about mass were offside and I saw no humour in it.

Has this clearly been defined yet? According to the IFAB rules that I can see, it doesn’t matter that it’s accidental he’s still denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. So letter of the law is a red as far as I’m concerned, which we have to remember the refs get judged on.

[Malkytfp1 18,594]

7 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

It wasn't an intentional foul and therefore my opinion is a red card was harsh. Penalty all day long. That's my opinion.

You comments about mass were offside and I saw no humour in it.

But that's wrong, even the fucking dolly manager admitted it. If there is no attempt to play the ball then it's a red card. There wasn't..It was a red card.