Officialdom Conspiracy 2020/21?

[Malkytfp1 18,594]

[billscott 2,463]

1 hour ago, Robmc1 said:

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... 

what do you expect from someone with a name of dylan mcgeuoch

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

3 minutes ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

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! 

No its clearly not a topic of conversation because its not been conversed about here or on social media that I can see. Outwith a couple of your mates it doesn't seem to be does it, despite how much you try to make out it is.

The thread discusses refs not adhering to rules, Beaton did. Why on earth would you use that as an example of anything. You're actually suggesting because a ref follows and applies the rules rather than following what supporters wrongly suggest then yeah that demonstrates no bias. Fucking hell man.

Which Morelos decision exactly?

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

Just now, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

No its clearly not a topic of conversation because its not been conversed about here or on social media that I can see. Outwith a couple of your mates it doesn't seem to be does it, despite how much you try to make out it is.

The thread discusses refs not adhering to rules, Beaton did. Why on earth would you use that as an example of anything. You're actually suggesting because a ref follows and applies the rules rather than following what supporters wrongly suggest then yeah that demonstrates no bias. Fucking hell man.

Which Morelos decision exactly?

You’re talking about refs being involved in conspiracies, I’m saying you’re talking shite and to quantify that I’m saying he could have got away without giving him a red if they are intent on cheating as you suggest - as even Rangers fans on this thread are saying it was harsh. So what do you think scum and Aberdeen fans would say about it? Big bad conspiracy for Rangers to win the league. 
 

The red card he never got against Dundee United is the Morelos one I’m talking about.

[the cry was no 3,034]

The penalty was a stonewall red by the rules of the game. 

Main was a stonewall red but he's bottled it. 

How Cosgrove lasted the full match and wasn't booked is baffling. He must have committed at least 8/9 fouls

The handball by Ferguson with his hands raised was a foul. Whether it was inside the box is debatable but to just ignore it was strange.

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

2 minutes ago, the cry was no said:

The penalty was a stonewall red by the rules of the game. 

Main was a stonewall red but he's bottled it. 

How Cosgrove lasted the full match and wasn't booked is baffling. He must have committed at least 8/9 fouls

The handball by Ferguson with his hands raised was a foul. Whether it was inside the box is debatable but to just ignore it was strange.

 

I think he'd have sent Main off if they'd still been on 11 men.

The Ferguson one was a definite handball. I've watched it again a few times and its borderline whether penalty or free kick, but it was 100% a foul.

Said same here about Cosgrove.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

3 minutes ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

You’re talking about refs being involved in conspiracies, I’m saying you’re talking shite and to quantify that I’m saying he could have got away without giving him a red if they are intent on cheating as you suggest - as even Rangers fans on this thread are saying it was harsh. So what do you think scum and Aberdeen fans would say about it? Big bad conspiracy for Rangers to win the league. 
 

The red card he never got against Dundee United is the Morelos one I’m talking about.

So you actually are saying that a ref correctly applying the rules, giving us a justified penalty in some way demonstrates there's no bias. Fucking hell.

Onto Morelos: This is my update in post one:

 

Game 17: Dundee Hivs (Mclean)

Blatant red card elbow by Morelos, only given a yellow. Huge break early in 1st half.

Foul on Goldson, arms wrapped round him and held, penalty wrongly not awarded.

Possible hand to ball by their defender around 70th minute but Arfield was quite close as he flicked it so a 50/50 one.

1 huge decision for, 1 against.

*** Compliance Officer retrospective red for Morelos

 

So included in the scores for wrong decisions on our favour. No shying away from how pivotal it was. Oh and whilst missed by the match official the compliance officer rightly nailed him retrospectively.  No issues with any of that, the same is applied consistently with other teams players to eh...

[the cry was no 3,034]

2 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

So you actually are saying that a ref correctly applying the rules, giving us a justified penalty in some way demonstrates there's no bias. Fucking hell.

Onto Morelos: This is my update in post one:

 

Game 17: Dundee Hivs (Mclean)

Blatant red card elbow by Morelos, only given a yellow. Huge break early in 1st half.

Foul on Goldson, arms wrapped round him and held, penalty wrongly not awarded.

Possible hand to ball by their defender around 70th minute but Arfield was quite close as he flicked it so a 50/50 one.

1 huge decision for, 1 against.

*** Compliance Officer retrospective red for Morelos

 

So included in the scores for wrong decisions on our favour. No shying away from how pivotal it was. Oh and whilst missed by the match official the compliance officer rightly nailed him retrospectively.  No issues with any of that, the same is applied consistently with other teams players to eh...

How many games did Edouard get for his stamp on the DUFC player?

Not cited you say? Maybe the CO's still on holiday.......... maybe Dubai? maybe Santa Ponsa?

[Dickie 12,905]

28 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.

So you weren’t serious when you said that’s all I will say 2 posts ago. Should have stuck to your promise,it’s a fucking red card your opinion isn’t worth a shit.

[bluenoz 30,843]

6 minutes ago, Dickie said:

So you weren’t serious when you said that’s all I will say 2 posts ago. Should have stuck to your promise,it’s a fucking red card your opinion isn’t worth a shit.

A lot of angry bears today, I've noticed. Even pre match. 

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

16 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

So you actually are saying that a ref correctly applying the rules, giving us a justified penalty in some way demonstrates there's no bias. Fucking hell.

Onto Morelos: This is my update in post one:

 

Game 17: Dundee Hivs (Mclean)

Blatant red card elbow by Morelos, only given a yellow. Huge break early in 1st half.

Foul on Goldson, arms wrapped round him and held, penalty wrongly not awarded.

Possible hand to ball by their defender around 70th minute but Arfield was quite close as he flicked it so a 50/50 one.

1 huge decision for, 1 against.

*** Compliance Officer retrospective red for Morelos

 

So included in the scores for wrong decisions on our favour. No shying away from how pivotal it was. Oh and whilst missed by the match official the compliance officer rightly nailed him retrospectively.  No issues with any of that, the same is applied consistently with other teams players to eh...

I see that you’ve highlighted it, but if there a conspiracy surely they’d have jumped all over any opportunity to get one over on us? If they want to stop 55 we’d have almost certainly dropped points that day with 10 men. It doesn’t add up. I don’t want to go round in circles with a good bear, we’ll agree to disagree my friend. All the best to you 

[Prso's headband 35,459]

Not booking Cosgrove cost me £150

[Dickie 12,905]

17 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

A lot of angry bears today, I've noticed. Even pre match. 

Strange thing to say. I would say fellow bears but then I’m not suspect and getting worked up about one of our most hated opponents having a player correctly red carded.

[The Dude 20,026]

34 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

So you actually are saying that a ref correctly applying the rules, giving us a justified penalty in some way demonstrates there's no bias. Fucking hell.

Onto Morelos: This is my update in post one:

 

Game 17: Dundee Hivs (Mclean)

Blatant red card elbow by Morelos, only given a yellow. Huge break early in 1st half.

Foul on Goldson, arms wrapped round him and held, penalty wrongly not awarded.

Possible hand to ball by their defender around 70th minute but Arfield was quite close as he flicked it so a 50/50 one.

1 huge decision for, 1 against.

*** Compliance Officer retrospective red for Morelos

 

So included in the scores for wrong decisions on our favour. No shying away from how pivotal it was. Oh and whilst missed by the match official the compliance officer rightly nailed him retrospectively.  No issues with any of that, the same is applied consistently with other teams players to eh...

He shouldn't have been done for it. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

31 minutes ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

I see that you’ve highlighted it, but if there a conspiracy surely they’d have jumped all over any opportunity to get one over on us? If they want to stop 55 we’d have almost certainly dropped points that day with 10 men. It doesn’t add up. I don’t want to go round in circles with a good bear, we’ll agree to disagree my friend. All the best to you 

I 

Don't 

Think

There

Is 

A

Conspiracy.

 

You do get that the referee didn't see the Morelos incident properly?

Thats why he wasn't red carded which on being asked to view it again he confirmed should have been a red. Hence they corrected it via the Compliance Officer route. The Morelos incident is an awful example of showing us getting treated lightly and hence no bias against us.

 

[eejay the dj 31,964]

45 minutes ago, the cry was no said:

How many games did Edouard get for his stamp on the DUFC player?

Not cited you say? Maybe the CO's still on holiday.......... maybe Dubai? maybe Santa Ponsa?

It’s so blatant .The media practically ignore it .It’s corrupt IMO 

Maybe the refs aren’t obvious to many but the compliance working with the BBC most certainly is ..Corrupt as fuck and I do believe our club think the same 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

16 minutes ago, The Dude said:

He shouldn't have been done for it. 

I think it was a red card offence. If the ref is asked to review it and says he didnt see it properly and Morelos is then retrospectively banned then imo fair enough.

Have to say though I'm not convinced the ref missed any of it.

 

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

6 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

I 

Don't 

Think

There

Is 

A

Conspiracy.

 

You do get that the referee didn't see the Morelos incident properly?

Thats why he wasn't red carded which on being asked to view it again he confirmed should have been a red. Hence they corrected it via the Compliance Officer route. The Morelos incident is an awful example of showing us getting treated lightly and hence no bias against us.

 

It 

was 

you 

that 

started

the 

thread 

and 

you’ve 

named 

it 

officialdom 

conspiracy 

[The Socrates. 1,415]

13 minutes ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

It 

was 

you 

that 

started

the 

thread 

and 

you’ve 

named 

it 

officialdom 

conspiracy 

Very good point this. How can you start a thread with the word conspiracy in the title and then claim ye don't think there's a conspiracy well that makes absolutely no sense

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

36 minutes ago, Brackley Bluenose said:

It 

was 

you 

that 

started

the 

thread 

and 

you’ve 

named 

it 

officialdom 

conspiracy 

With

A

Question

Mark

😂

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

22 minutes ago, The Socrates. said:

Very good point this. How can you start a thread with the word conspiracy in the title and then claim ye don't think there's a conspiracy well that makes absolutely no sense

It started years back under that title. Might have been after the Beaton Hivs game which was scandalous refereeing. Its has pretty much the same title since.

I don't think there's a conspiracy in the sense of secret meetings. I do think Rangers are widely hated in Scotland. Morelos and Jack previously imo have been victimised for things others routinely got away with.

In the same vein that I don't think the Compliance Role has been impartial, I think refs will wrongly not give us things that theyd never dare deny the scum. I can't imagine refs being hounded by their bosses for failing to give us big decisions. 

I dont think its even debatable that more wrong decisions go against us than for. The reason why is open to question.

[The Socrates. 1,415]

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

It started years back under that title. Might have been after the Beaton Hivs game which was scandalous refereeing. Its has pretty much the same title since.

I don't think there's a conspiracy in the sense of secret meetings. I do think Rangers are widely hated in Scotland. Morelos and Jack previously imo have been victimised for things others routinely got away with.

In the same vein that I don't think the Compliance Role has been impartial, I think refs will wrongly not give us things that theyd never dare deny the scum. I can't imagine refs being hounded by their bosses for failing to give us big decisions. 

I dont think its even debatable that more wrong decisions go against us than for. The reason why is open to question.

To be honest to truly find out for sure if we are treated differently means you need to watch every game in this league and compile a list fir every game every week or else this is all meaningless. 

A take it you watch all of they cunts games?

[TamCoopz 19,605]

5 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

It started years back under that title. Might have been after the Beaton Hivs game which was scandalous refereeing. Its has pretty much the same title since.

I don't think there's a conspiracy in the sense of secret meetings. I do think Rangers are widely hated in Scotland. Morelos and Jack previously imo have been victimised for things others routinely got away with.

In the same vein that I don't think the Compliance Role has been impartial, I think refs will wrongly not give us things that theyd never dare deny the scum. I can't imagine refs being hounded by their bosses for failing to give us big decisions. 

I dont think its even debatable that more wrong decisions go against us than for. The reason why is open to question.

If it’s not debatable that more goes against us then it’s a pointless fucking thread then

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

1 minute ago, The Socrates. said:

To be honest to truly find out for sure if we are treated differently means you need to watch every game in this league and compile a list fir every game every week or else this is all meaningless. 

A take it you watch all of they cunts games?

Nope. I watch what I can but not near all their matches.

As I said to a previous poster we're down on decisions so ultimately others are benefitting. Id agree id need to watch all mins of all other games to demonstrate who benefits most. But I think we could likely all guess that.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

3 minutes ago, TamCoopz said:

If it’s not debatable that more goes against us then it’s a pointless fucking thread then

How exactly Tam.

Its not debatable to me but some don't agree, some thing theres no disparity. Others think there is disparity but its purely down to incompetence so its fine. Some seem to not even care about the figures, they don't like talking about decisions this way as its 'taigy'.

What do you think Tam?

Big wrong decisions for / against, do we by and large benefit or suffer? Is it the odd decision or more? Is it coincidence, just the way it happens, purely incompetence etc? How fair is the compliance process?

Would you be surprised to hear of a time a ref blatantly ignored applying a rule he'd already imposed in the very same game, telling a player his wrong interpretation, which was to that player's benefit?