Rangers accept Morelos ban.

[left winger 14,279]

6 minutes ago, Malkytfp1 said:

Here we go. Sack the board.

What are people wanting the club to do?

Forget about everything else for a second. He stamped on a player. 

I understand people wanting the club to speak out on other incidents but they canny fucking claim Morelos was innocent.

People are wanting to fight the clear bias that exists against Morelos. He is refereed, before and after matches, do a different standard from everyone else in the Scottish game. And until the club fights this, it will continue. 

'forget about everything else'????? No. 

[sassaaaa 11,406]

Dunno why anybody is surprised , take it up the arse and move along , its the Rangers way.........

[STEPPS BOY 74,085]

11 minutes ago, Malkytfp1 said:

Here we go. Sack the board.

What are people wanting the club to do?

Forget about everything else for a second. He stamped on a player. 

I understand people wanting the club to speak out on other incidents but they canny fucking claim Morelos was innocent.

So what are the club doing then?

 

[Malkytfp1 18,605]

Just now, left winger said:

People are wanting to fight the clear bias that exists against Morelos. He is refereed, before and after matches, do a different standard from everyone else in the Scottish game. And until the club fights this, it will continue. 

'forget about everything else'????? No. 

But you're looking for something in there that's no in this incident. Morelos stamped on an opponent. Morelos was charged and the club had two choices. 

1)accept the 3 match ban.

2)Appeal the ban stating he done nothing wrong and face a larger ban.

It's that straight forward. 

I think more should be done/highlighted about certain treatment he has and about inconsistencies with other decisions but this isn't the platform for that 

[GOAT 30,449]

3 minutes ago, Bossorange said:

Whether he saw it or not, it’s a red card. 

That’s no the point, he said he saw it and deemed it accidental.  The charge sheet says he didn’t see it.  So someone’s clearly lying.  You can’t be charged for something if the referee seen it and didn’t deem it a red card during the game.  He seen it, he told opposition players and manager he seen it.   

[Bossorange 696]

Just now, GOAT said:

That’s no the point, he said he saw it and deemed it accidental.  The charge sheet says he didn’t see it.  So someone’s clearly lying.  You can’t be charged for something if the referee seen it and didn’t deem it a red card during the game.  He seen it, he told opposition players and manager he seen it.   

We all know this isn’t the case this season 

[Leftpegcoopz11 4,767]

8 minutes ago, STEPPS BOY said:

Spineless.

The bigger picture here is that we have never had a better opportunity to affect change at the end of the season.

Does anyone trust Robertson and co to have the balls to do so?

Exactly, it's all one letting it slide because we're so far in front, but what happens if the league is tighter next season (hopefully not). These kind of decisions can have a major bearing on how things go. 

[Malkytfp1 18,605]

Just now, STEPPS BOY said:

So what are the club doing then?

 

Whatever they are or aren't doing they couldn't not accept this charge. It's not about what the board are doing. It's black and white and simple, they have had a choice of accepting or declining a charge.

[JCDBigBear 10,831]

10 minutes ago, GOAT said:

I’ll tell you why I’m moaning, because the charge sheet said the referee didn’t see the incident, according to Jack Ross and Darren Mcgregor, that’s a blatant lie.  

There is a photo (somewhere) which show the ref having a clear view and he is looking right at the incident.   If he then says he didn't see it then he is a liar.

At normal speed on the TV it doesn't look anywhere as violent or deliberate as is made out when it is slowed down. Once again we are being judged differently to others.  

[GOAT 30,449]

5 minutes ago, Malkytfp1 said:

That's a whole different conversation. For me this board have done a helova lot for the fans. 

I understand there is room for the board speaking out on certain things but cmon to fuck bud, they canny come out and say they don't accept Morelos done anything wrong?

They should be questioning the fact the match official said he never saw it despite telling the opposition otherwise.  Clearly there’s been a lie told somewhere and you have to ask why would the opposition player and manager lie, the incident was against them, so clearly the match official has told a lie in his report. 

[STEPPS BOY 74,085]

1 minute ago, Leftpegcoopz11 said:

Exactly, it's all one letting it slide because we're so far in front, but what happens if the league is tighter next season (hopefully not). These kind of decisions can have a major bearing on how things go. 

Things are going fantastic on the pitch but make no mistake, we need to get Robertson to fuck asap.

We have an open goal now to take on the SFA and the SPFL. That specky bastard will probably send Lawwell a nice bottle of wine as a leaving present and offer his help to their new CEO.

[Malkytfp1 18,605]

Just now, GOAT said:

They should be questioning the fact the match official said he never saw it despite telling the opposition otherwise.  Clearly there’s been a lie told somewhere and you have to ask why would the opposition player and manager lie, the incident was against them, so clearly the match official has told a lie in his report. 

Yes we should, even if we do we still have to admit that Morelos did something wrong however when we are presented with that charge. 

Would you have declined and then ranked up a larger suspension?

[hawkfalcons 2,306]

29 minutes ago, VERITAS VOS LIBREBETS said:

That is fucking bollocks Rangers - when are you going to fight our corner?

Don't hold your breath with that one 

[Creampuff 22,628]

The officials “not seeing it” is subject to a clause saying that some offences are such that they couldn’t have seen it properly else wise they’d have taken further action.

This has been raised before.

[GOAT 30,449]

2 minutes ago, Malkytfp1 said:

Yes we should, even if we do we still have to admit that Morelos did something wrong however when we are presented with that charge. 

Would you have declined and then ranked up a larger suspension?

The point being you can’t be charged with something the match official has dealt with during the game.  He dealt with it, he told the opposition he felt it was accidental and a coming together.  He seen it and that was his take on it as a referee.  He has since put a match report in stating he didn’t see it, or even worse the compliance officer has just ignored the report and disciplined anyway.    I honestly don’t have a clue why you or anyone else is arguing for this ban.  

[hawkeye 1,039]

Maxwell of the SFA is  in the pocket of Lawwell . 

Not by chance that he got the job.

[Leftpegcoopz11 4,767]

10 minutes ago, Malkytfp1 said:

Yes we should, even if we do we still have to admit that Morelos did something wrong however when we are presented with that charge. 

Would you have declined and then ranked up a larger suspension?

It's not a case of questioning the Morelos incident as such, more a case of asking for parity. No one can tell me that the Edouard stamp or the Klimala elbow to the Livi players face is any less severe than the Morelos challenge. 

Where the fuck was the "mystery" CO then? 

[folkestoneger 8,172]

5 minutes ago, Malkytfp1 said:

Yes we should, even if we do we still have to admit that Morelos did something wrong however when we are presented with that charge. 

Would you have declined and then ranked up a larger suspension?

We have accepted the charge but as you say there is no reason not to take this further regarding the blatant lies from the officials and the month long holiday seemingly taken by the compliance officer before that match.

We should be demanding a statement confirming why other deliberate, violent, acts clearly seen recently by all on TV have not resulted in the same punishment.

[folkestoneger 8,172]

4 minutes ago, Creampuff said:

The officials “not seeing it” is subject to a clause saying that some offences are such that they couldn’t have seen it properly else wise they’d have taken further action.

This has been raised before.

We should be questioning whether Clancy did see it clearly though as he was looking right at it.

Blatant lies from him and we should not just accept it. 

[folkestoneger 8,172]

4 minutes ago, Leftpegcoopz11 said:

It's not a case of questioning the Morelos incident as such, more a case of asking for parity. No one can tell me that the Eduoard stamp or the Klimala elbow to the Livi players face is any less severe than the Morelos challenge. 

Where the fuck was the "mystery" CO then? 

Following Morelos around town in case he took his mask off

[Malkytfp1 18,605]

2 minutes ago, GOAT said:

The point being you can’t be charged with something the match official has dealt with during the game.  He dealt with it, he told the opposition he felt it was accidental and a coming together.  He seen it and that was his take on it as a referee.  He has since put a match report in stating he didn’t see it, or even worse the compliance officer has just ignored the report and disciplined anyway.    I honestly don’t have a clue why you or anyone else is arguing for this ban.  

Because it's the best situation for our club. It's a situation that means his ban isn't as big. Declining the ban is like us saying he done nothing wrong.

You're taking two different circumstances here and using them in context with one point. Nobody disagrees that there are unfair discrepancies with the way we are judged. All I'm saying is that should be a seperate fight and not reflect on this ban decision.

 

[Malkytfp1 18,605]

3 minutes ago, folkestoneger said:

We have accepted the charge but as you say there is no reason not to take this further regarding the blatant lies from the officials and the month long holiday seemingly taken by the compliance officer before that match.

We should be demanding a statement confirming why other deliberate, violent, acts clearly seen recently by all on TV have not resulted in the same punishment.

Absolutely agree. And that's exactly my point. We should be taking this further but it should have no input as to whether we should accept this charge or not.

[Malkytfp1 18,605]

7 minutes ago, Leftpegcoopz11 said:

It's not a case of questioning the Morelos incident as such, more a case of asking for parity. No one can tell me that the Edouard stamp or the Klimala elbow to the Livi players face is any less severe than the Morelos challenge. 

Where the fuck was the "mystery" CO then? 

Yup. Like I said mate, we should be challenging those. However that doesn't mean we use this charge and decline it. Should be treated separately.

[STEPPS BOY 74,085]

1 minute ago, Malkytfp1 said:

Absolutely agree. And that's exactly my point. We should be taking this further but it should have no input as to whether we should accept this charge or not.

Taking it further would be lawyering up and showing them a raft of inconsistencies and not possibly getting a teacher to release a PR statement full of wind and pish just like we did during the debacle at end of last season.

[left winger 14,279]

25 minutes ago, Malkytfp1 said:

But you're looking for something in there that's no in this incident. Morelos stamped on an opponent. Morelos was charged and the club had two choices. 

1)accept the 3 match ban.

2)Appeal the ban stating he done nothing wrong and face a larger ban.

It's that straight forward. 

I think more should be done/highlighted about certain treatment he has and about inconsistencies with other decisions but this isn't the platform for that 

You're looking at this incident in isolation, and if we do that, the red card was fair enough, imo. However, to look at it in isolation let's down the player, the club and the support.