Colin Traive 22,717 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 20 minutes ago, The Dude said: He saw him jump into Connolly leading with his arm, he never saw the wee bit at the end. I’m sorry but if buy that, you’re a simpleton. Again you seem determined to defend and justify clear unfairness aimed at Rangers. The idea that the referee saw Morelos jump into the United player but was somehow distracted (a passing seagull perhaps?) halfway through the contact is an insult to the intelligence. To be perfectly honest, I find the idea that they think they can sell that shite and people will buy it, to be offensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 18 minutes ago, Sweetheart said: Morelos jumps, starts to turn, then and only then is contact made with his arm. There's something not adding up here and it stinks. He's been given the outcome most fans felt he deserved. What exactly stinks? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Colin Traive said: I’m sorry but if buy that, you’re a simpleton. Again you seem determined to defend and justify clear unfairness aimed at Rangers. The idea that the referee saw Morelos jump into the United player but was somehow distracted (a passing seagull perhaps?) halfway through the contact is an insult to the intelligence. To be perfectly honest, I find the idea that they think they can sell that shite and people will buy it, to be offensive. Whats unfair in giving Morelos the outcome most feel he deserved? Rather than a passing seagull, perhaps the body of a leaping Colombian? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladytonbear 373 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 The impact of losing Allie for two games just now compared to the impact it would have had this time last year is a remarkable testament to how far we have progressed in the last twelve months Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetheart 8,458 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 12 minutes ago, The Dude said: He's been given the outcome most fans felt he deserved. What exactly stinks? He was guilty of an infringement but the ref sees the infringement and gives him a yellow. The ref can only book him when contact is made with his arm, he can't book him for jumping. The ref gives him a yellow. rightly or wrongly it's dealt with on the pitch. What stinks is the CO had no reason to intervene because the ref saw the infringement. The CO saying the flick on the end is the reason for their involvement is splitting hairs to re-ref decisions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Traive 22,717 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 Just now, The Dude said: Whats unfair in giving Morelos the outcome most feel he deserved? Rather than a passing seagull, perhaps the body of a leaping Colombian? He absolutely merited a red. I’ve been 100% consistent on that since it happened. As I said on another thread, the guy is a fucking idiot sometimes and you feel like kicking his arse or trying to shake some sense into him. I really hope we can sort out the red tape and get young Alegria in because I think having a compatriot, one he can be a big brother to, might help him mature and eliminate these episodes. However, all of that is beside the point. These proceedings are simply corrupt and anyone defending this process is no friend of Rangers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_4 34,365 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 8 minutes ago, The Dude said: Whats unfair in giving Morelos the outcome most feel he deserved? Rather than a passing seagull, perhaps the body of a leaping Colombian? The outcome isn’t unfair in this instance. However, the process certainly seems to be being bent to fit here, and other just as severe instances are completely ignored. There’s a real lack of consistency, or in some people’s eyes bias, but you already know that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 1 minute ago, graeme_4 said: The outcome isn’t unfair in this instance. However, the process certainly seems to be being bent to fit here, and other just as severe instances are completely ignored. There’s a real lack of consistency, or in some people’s eyes bias, but you already know that. Just because some people think the process is biased, it doesn't mean I need to play along and agree the process is biased. Personally, I'm not even convinced it is worth a red but can see how it can be viewed as one. It doesn't mean I think there's some agenda at work here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 7 minutes ago, Colin Traive said: He absolutely merited a red. I’ve been 100% consistent on that since it happened. As I said on another thread, the guy is a fucking idiot sometimes and you feel like kicking his arse or trying to shake some sense into him. I really hope we can sort out the red tape and get young Alegria in because I think having a compatriot, one he can be a big brother to, might help him mature and eliminate these episodes. However, all of that is beside the point. These proceedings are simply corrupt and anyone defending this process is no friend of Rangers. The club agreed he merited a two-game ban ffs. And that was AFTER Gerrard spoke post-match and said there was nothing in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,141 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 25 minutes ago, billscott said: why does the club need to speak every sane and honest would admit it was a red card all day long we would have been screaming on here if it happened in reverse I think you’ve misinterpreted what I wrote as it was a deserved 2 match ban but the club need to speak out about the ‘parity’. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetheart 8,458 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 12 minutes ago, The Dude said: The club agreed he merited a two-game ban ffs. And that was AFTER Gerrard spoke post-match and said there was nothing in it. He said there was no elbow which is correct it was his forearm. The club have acknowledge the infringement and it probably suits for the ban to happen now rather than appeal and get a 3 match ban after Christmas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,141 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 1 hour ago, The Dude said: An increased punishment not a second one. So the CO identified 2 different things in the incident which are worth an increased punishment? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky True Legend 2,682 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 7 minutes ago, The Dude said: Just because some people think the process is biased, it doesn't mean I need to play along and agree the process is biased. Personally, I'm not even convinced it is worth a red but can see how it can be viewed as one. It doesn't mean I think there's some agenda at work here. So what you are saying is that every missed (or ignored) similar offence committed by players of other teams, especially the mhanky mhob, has been looked at by the CO. If so, you must be high on drugs - again. If not, then you cannot deny that there is an agenda against Rangers players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMB 14,167 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 10 minutes ago, The Dude said: The club agreed he merited a two-game ban ffs. And that was AFTER Gerrard spoke post-match and said there was nothing in it. The club agreed because our next two fixtures are St.Mirren and Motherwell. Any appeal and a 2 game ban could become a 3 game ban. If there was an appeal Morelos could feature tonight but miss the Hibs or celtic game later. The club have done the sensible thing by taking the ban, it doesn't mean they agree with it. In the past, clubs have appealed reds with full expectations of losing it but it frees up a player for the Old Firm so they go for it. The system is fucked and people just rip the piss out of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryTibbs 224 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 2 hours ago, plumbGER said: I don't really care. Why did you reply to me in the first place then ya fanny? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dickie 12,905 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 17 minutes ago, The Dude said: Just because some people think the process is biased, it doesn't mean I need to play along and agree the process is biased. Personally, I'm not even convinced it is worth a red but can see how it can be viewed as one. It doesn't mean I think there's some agenda at work here. Just watched the joe aribo challenge from last season where joe got 20 stitches and the other cunt got a yellow,compare the 2 incidents and then tell me there is no bias or agenda. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris182 6,279 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 Still pissed off at Alfie for his stupidity tbh. Never learns. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 11 minutes ago, Bad Robot said: So the CO identified 2 different things in the incident which are worth an increased punishment? No, one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_4 34,365 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 24 minutes ago, The Dude said: Just because some people think the process is biased, it doesn't mean I need to play along and agree the process is biased. Personally, I'm not even convinced it is worth a red but can see how it can be viewed as one. It doesn't mean I think there's some agenda at work here. That’s not what I said... I said there’s a real lack of consistency in whatever ‘rules’ they are supposedly implementing. Which in some people’s eyes is viewed as bias. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 9 minutes ago, TMB said: The club agreed because our next two fixtures are St.Mirren and Motherwell. Any appeal and a 2 game ban could become a 3 game ban. If there was an appeal Morelos could feature tonight but miss the Hibs or celtic game later. The club have done the sensible thing by taking the ban, it doesn't mean they agree with it. In the past, clubs have appealed reds with full expectations of losing it but it frees up a player for the Old Firm so they go for it. The system is fucked and people just rip the piss out of it. So we bent over to accept 'corruption' and 'bias' because it suits us? Cant moan when you get fucked if you're happy to let them fuck you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 Just now, graeme_4 said: That’s not what I said... I said there’s a real lack of consistency in whatever ‘rules’ they are supposedly implementing. Which in some peoples eyes is viewed as bias. There's been a lack of consistency in god knows how many rules in football for decades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_4 34,365 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 Just now, The Dude said: There's been a lack of consistency in god knows how many rules in football for decades. Oh well. That’s alright then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Traive 22,717 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 22 minutes ago, The Dude said: The club agreed he merited a two-game ban ffs. And that was AFTER Gerrard spoke post-match and said there was nothing in it. They are picking their battles, a pragmatic approach which should not be confused with genuine acceptance of guilt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 13 minutes ago, Corky True Legend said: So what you are saying is that every missed (or ignored) similar offence committed by players of other teams, especially the mhanky mhob, has been looked at by the CO. If so, you must be high on drugs - again. If not, then you cannot deny that there is an agenda against Rangers players. No. Not saying anything remotely close to that. I wish people would just read whats there instead of trying to find an alternative meaning to what is said. Because a Rangers player was cited when others aren't means there's an anti-Rangers agenda? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted December 16, 2020 Share Posted December 16, 2020 Just now, Colin Traive said: They are picking their battles, a pragmatic approach which should not be confused with genuine acceptance of guilt. It seems that all we ever do is pick our battles.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.