The other mob

[ForeverAndEver 72,246]

Just now, Malkytfp1 said:

No seen it. So there is no offside? Struggling to understand wtf happened between the petty shite.

Nobody knows for sure. People seen one screenshot and ran with it, but there’s at least one header before Johnstone gets hit

[BlueAvenger 10,516]

As I posted earlier lucky scum bastards but I was expecting the filth to pump them. Just fuckin beat Ross County by 3 or more and we go top.

[J-Maestro 11,953]

2 minutes ago, Laudrupsleftfoot said:

This is about your 10th post trying to get your hole off him.

You're trying too hard. 

[Laudrupsleftfoot 11,388]

5 minutes ago, The Specky Forum Organiser said:

Do the referee's get sat down individually and told that they're to be pro them or is it all done in one meeting?

Who tells them that;s what's got to happen?

There’s obviously no conspiracy but equally I think it’s fair to be frustrated with another game where they seemed to have got the calls in their favour that could have gone the other way.

[OrangeRab 3,070]

9 minutes ago, The Specky Forum Organiser said:

Do the referee's get sat down individually and told that they're to be pro them or is it all done in one meeting?

Who tells them that;s what's got to happen?

Misses the point. It’s not about being pro or anti. It’s about being swayed by pressure.

If you create an environment where you’ll get crucified for awarding a decision against a club. You’re less likely to do it on the margin. It’s human nature.

It’s the same reason both OF teams tend to get more marginal decisions than other clubs in the league.

Same thing with home advantage + big crowd

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6629397.stm

Narrative matters. Morelos once he got his reputation would get bookings and red cards frequently for stuff other players would get away with. It wasn’t anti Rangers bias

[MVRanger 2,765]

2 minutes ago, The Specky Forum Organiser said:

Do the referee's get sat down individually and told that they're to be pro them or is it all done in one meeting?

Who tells them that;s what's got to happen?

I have it on good authority that Peter Lawell holds collective weekly Zoom calls  with the refereeing fraternity - normally on a Tuesday at 7 pm when all good Presbyterians should be at their masonic meeting. 

[The Specky Forum Organiser 66,658]

2 minutes ago, Laudrupsleftfoot said:

There’s obviously no conspiracy but equally I think it’s fair to be frustrated with another game where they seemed to have got the calls in their favour that could have gone the other way.

The Boyle one is the one that could have went either way and I've not seen it back so cant comment really. Their 2 penalties were the correct decision.

[superallysbears 7,874]

End of the day wether you think it's cheating or no cheating, the scum know deep down they ain't matching us to the end of the season. The results speaks for themselves, we keep our form up and it'll all be over bar the shouting.

[Malkytfp1 18,795]

It seems strange the Boyle one wasn't even looked at. There is a decision to be made.

[KeyserSoze 14,713]

22 minutes ago, Prso's headband said:

 

It’s quite clear, this season more than ever that officials are absolutely terrified of giving the correct decision, if it impedes celtic in any way. Look at Palma’s disallowed goal at the weekend. 3 yards offside and the linesman originally gave it. 
 

They don’t want the correct decisions, they want them all in their favour regardless if it’s right or not, and it’s working. 

Do you think the refs, assistants and VAR guys who officiate the SPFL of which on game day must equal 40 odd people, sit together regularly deciding how to fuck us over? Or how to give that lot an advantage? 

it doesn’t happen, there’s no fear, there’s no secret meetings, no nods and winks  

just plain old incompetence. 

[Laudrupsleftfoot 11,388]

1 minute ago, The Specky Forum Organiser said:

The Boyle one is the one that could have went either way and I've not seen it back so cant comment really. Their 2 penalties were the correct decision.

Looks like he was fouled by the defender’s knee.

Certainly worthy of the game being stopped and the replays being viewed in detail anyway.

[rossco87 711]

I just can’t see the controversy in the decisions tonight. Both penalties they got are probably fortuitous to a large degree that the tackles weren’t deliberate and were only slightly late but they were both late and fouls.

 

For me there wasn’t enough contact for Boyle to go down the way he did - if that had been given against us I would be absolutely livid.

 

I get it is frustrating as fuck that they get an early penalty and then a last minute penalty to get them through a tricky fixture but we are getting close to their levels of paranoia if we are using tonight as some sort of evidence to an overarching conspiracy to win them the league.

[Malkytfp1 18,795]

1 minute ago, rossco87 said:

I just can’t see the controversy in the decisions tonight. Both penalties they got are probably fortuitous to a large degree that the tackles weren’t deliberate and were only slightly late but they were both late and fouls.

 

For me there wasn’t enough contact for Boyle to go down the way he did - if that had been given against us I would be absolutely livid.

 

I get it is frustrating as fuck that they get an early penalty and then a last minute penalty to get them through a tricky fixture but we are getting close to their levels of paranoia if we are using tonight as some sort of evidence to an overarching conspiracy to win them the league.

That's the bit that's maybe controversial. Why isn't there a check?

[J-Maestro 11,953]

Just now, Malkytfp1 said:

That's the bit that's maybe controversial. Why isn't there a check?

There's always a check.

[Siam69 27,377]

Just now, rossco87 said:

I just can’t see the controversy in the decisions tonight. Both penalties they got are probably fortuitous to a large degree that the tackles weren’t deliberate and were only slightly late but they were both late and fouls.

 

For me there wasn’t enough contact for Boyle to go down the way he did - if that had been given against us I would be absolutely livid.

 

I get it is frustrating as fuck that they get an early penalty and then a last minute penalty to get them through a tricky fixture but we are getting close to their levels of paranoia if we are using tonight as some sort of evidence to an overarching conspiracy to win them the league.

Aye, the emotion has certainly got to a few tonight.

Let's be honest, every cunt expected them to win 3 or more, Hibs are shite. That they didn't, and were lucky Hibs couldn't finish their dinner, has emotions high, the league being what it is.

But every cunt that watched that, us or them, knows they are continuing to be shite at the moment, and there for the taking. I wish we were playing them this weekend. 

[OrangeRab 3,070]

There wasn’t an anti Rangers conspiracy theory to get Morelos sent off repeatedly. But there was a media image/narrative built and perpetuated that meant he got booked and sent off for instances others got away with.

It’s the same principle and not a difficult concept to understand. Having almost every major media outlet bleating about celtic not getting decisions. Can seep through into refs not wanting to be perceived to fuck celtic over in marginal calls.

We just had an OF ffs where this narrative was at its peak and a Var official did everything he could to avoid being seen to give us a controversial call (and he lucked on a correct offside decision in the end).

[graeme_4 35,377]

24 minutes ago, OrangeRab said:

Misses the point. It’s not about being pro or anti. It’s about being swayed by pressure.

If you create an environment where you’ll get crucified for awarding a decision against a club. You’re less likely to do it on the margin. It’s human nature.

It’s the same reason both OF teams tend to get more marginal decisions than other clubs in the league.

Same thing with home advantage + big crowd

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6629397.stm

Narrative matters. Morelos once he got his reputation would get bookings and red cards frequently for stuff other players would get away with. It wasn’t anti Rangers bias

Hate to say it, but this is the most sensible thing you’ve ever posted. 

[folkestoneger 8,457]

20 minutes ago, Malkytfp1 said:

It seems strange the Boyle one wasn't even looked at. There is a decision to be made.

Fell into that category where had the ref called a penalty it would have stood but because he didn’t there wasn’t solid enough contact to be a clear and obvious error. Card for diving was harsh though.

[Badger 8,876]

Both were penalties. The second was very fortunate though.

The second one would almost never be given in the era before VAR and it wouldn't even be seen as controversial to not award it. 

It is telling that there was very little claim for it at the time. Matt O'Riley with a half hearted appeal and that was about it. Crowd barely got excited about it either.

[rossco87 711]

18 minutes ago, Malkytfp1 said:

That's the bit that's maybe controversial. Why isn't there a check?

I was watching the FA cup game at that point so have only seen the replays and not live so not sure how long between the incident and play restarting but could be the case that it was a relatively quick review and VAR agreed not enough contact to warrant a penalty?

[rossco87 711]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

Both were penalties. The second was very fortunate though.

The second one would almost never be given in the era before VAR and it wouldn't even be seen as controversial to not award it. 

It is telling that there was very little claim for it at the time. Matt O'Riley with a half hearted appeal and that was about it. Crowd barely got excited about it either.

Yip - thing is though if either of them happen anywhere else on the pitch and it is a foul / advantage so by definition it has to be a penalty.

[Badger 8,876]

10 minutes ago, folkestoneger said:

Fell into that category where had the ref called a penalty it would have stood but because he didn’t there wasn’t solid enough contact to be a clear and obvious error. Card for diving was harsh though.

If Boyle fell normally and didn't leap like a salmon then VAR may have given it. There was a good chunk of contact, but Boyle made it look like a dive.

[Badger 8,876]

4 minutes ago, rossco87 said:

Yip - thing is though if either of them happen anywhere else on the pitch and it is a foul / advantage so by definition it has to be a penalty.

Before VAR it was almost an unwritten rule that if a striker got the shot away, a defender making a legit and reasonable attempt to block the shot could get away with a foul on the follow through from the shot. Pre-VAR you very rarely seen them given.

However, as you say, anywhere else on the park, it is a foul and that is what VAR considers. It is a penalty.

[Albion 150]

Any manager watching that tonight must now fancy their chances against celtic. Saturday even though they should have lost the game, will have been shrugged off as a blip, but tonight showed again how fragile they are at the back. Once the over the top celebrations settle from tonight, their supporters will realise that win tonight only papered over-the cracks, again. They might not be so lucky against St Mirren, who I hope must now be relishing having a right go at them. They are wobbling and are there for the taking. 

 

[rossco87 711]

18 minutes ago, OrangeRab said:

There wasn’t an anti Rangers conspiracy theory to get Morelos sent off repeatedly. But there was a media image/narrative built and perpetuated that meant he got booked and sent off for instances others got away with.

It’s the same principle and not a difficult concept to understand. Having almost every major media outlet bleating about celtic not getting decisions. Can seep through into refs not wanting to be perceived to fuck celtic over in marginal calls.

We just had an OF ffs where this narrative was at its peak and a Var official did everything he could to avoid being seen to give us a controversial call (and he lucked on a correct offside decision in the end).

Generally I agree with you. I do think it’s impact can get over stated at times, but there are clear instances of referees reffing the narrative and not the game (Morelos being a prime example at times).

 

However I don’t see that being the issue tonight. The only incident tonight that I think it could possibly be applied to would be Boyle penalty claim and for me it wasn’t a penalty. There wasn’t enough contact for it to be given and the way he went down made it easy for the ref to not give it.
 

If there had been more contact and he had gone down in a similar manner then VAR probably should have highlighted it or if his fall had been more “convincing” and it had been given VAR probably struggles to overturn it as there was (minimal) contact - but the way it played out I don’t think either the ref or VAR can give it really.