comment by Zico - Celtic Treble Winners 22/23 (U21900)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
he's a poor ref, he has always been a poor ref, and rangers have benefitted from his schiteness in the past as much as they have suffered,
rangers weren't cheated, it's sour grapes.
we should have had a penatly with turnbull, that was onside at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, very little has been made of not awarding the Turnbull stonewaller, I guess as we won the game. Lino flagged early for offside which wasn’t, so doubly incompetent … they’re supposed to let play develop, then flag if they think offside (which it clearly wasn’t). Same lino made the same error earlier in the 2nd half, flagging early again when Kyogo was through on goal, when he looked on. That’s the level of officiating we’re dealing with up here though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine they gave us that pen..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still think we should be told why that wasn't reviewed by VAR.
Clear and obvious error from the ref and VAR was entitled to review it but chose not to.
"Crawford Allen surely must be on the phone demanding Ian Maxwell get in touch with the Israeli and Maltese ref associations so we have cover after the break".
Hope the SFA tell them the truth this time.
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
he's a poor ref, he has always been a poor ref, and rangers have benefitted from his schiteness in the past as much as they have suffered,
rangers weren't cheated, it's sour grapes.
we should have had a penatly with turnbull, that was onside at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, very little has been made of not awarding the Turnbull stonewaller, I guess as we won the game. Lino flagged early for offside which wasn’t, so doubly incompetent … they’re supposed to let play develop, then flag if they think offside (which it clearly wasn’t). Same lino made the same error earlier in the 2nd half, flagging early again when Kyogo was through on goal, when he looked on. That’s the level of officiating we’re dealing with up here though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it was given as offside. Can criticise the linesman putting his flag up too early and even at that I think Turnbull throws himself in to Tavernier but ultimately I think its faded in to the background because of some of the other more controversial decisions.
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
he's a poor ref, he has always been a poor ref, and rangers have benefitted from his schiteness in the past as much as they have suffered,
rangers weren't cheated, it's sour grapes.
we should have had a penatly with turnbull, that was onside at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, very little has been made of not awarding the Turnbull stonewaller, I guess as we won the game. Lino flagged early for offside which wasn’t, so doubly incompetent … they’re supposed to let play develop, then flag if they think offside (which it clearly wasn’t). Same lino made the same error earlier in the 2nd half, flagging early again when Kyogo was through on goal, when he looked on. That’s the level of officiating we’re dealing with up here though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it was given as offside. Can criticise the linesman putting his flag up too early and even at that I think Turnbull throws himself in to Tavernier but ultimately I think its faded in to the background because of some of the other more controversial decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Linesman didnt flag that one the ref gave the offside for some reason.
There is video footage showing the linesman never puts his flag up.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
The lie is that the penalty wasn't given because of an offside. The offside wasn't checked.
The cover up is making up an excuse for why the penalty wasn't given when you know its not true and refusing to release the audio to validate their version of events.
Those are public matters of fact, I don't need minutes of any meetings for that to be validated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the penalty could still not have been given as collum didnt think it was a pen but then they released the offside at half time to show that it would not have been given regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that would be VAR doing their job wrong hence why the changed the reason for denying the penalty.
the debate isnt over whether its a penalty or not, dunno why your failing to grasp that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No but also no one knows why it wasn't given.
We assume it was for offside but could easily have been for it not being a deliberate handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no we were told that VAR confirmed it was for offside.. do keep up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We were 'told ' by whi - Crocker - during the game
So, the guy who is concentrating on the game, commentating, crowd roaring, got producer(s) in one ear, Sutton in another and potentially a one way var feed on top (that might be England?) or is getting texts yet someone else in the production team must decide whether to show the offside and be party to the var 'output'....Crocker can't query it cos he's commentating...you can easily see how it becomes send three & fourpence.
Collum is as hopeless as the rest but even he knows damn well that ANY penalty in the derby is gonna be controversial. He will have known his interpretation was at the limits. He 'may' have had the AVAR tell him informally Willie it's almost certainly offside as they compiled the precise lines and got the precise frame and that 'may' not have been part of the official VAR channel between Collum and Walsh? I'd have hoped they told Rangers that if it was truly the case but none of us are party to the discussion, only that the outcome is disputed.
If Rangers really want to get to the bottom of it maybe they should be chasing Sky for their transcripts, witness statements etc. because they are a key part of the chain from VAR to viewer and are not in any way 'official' no matter how often some on here want to repeat that. Until a lie can be 100% established then it is not a lie.
Which is totally different to the Dougie case where an official acted as whistleblower and ended up losing his job whilst the liar Dougie chose to try and see out the storm.
100% agreed if Collum has lied he has to go but I truly think we are miles off proving that.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
The lie is that the penalty wasn't given because of an offside. The offside wasn't checked.
The cover up is making up an excuse for why the penalty wasn't given when you know its not true and refusing to release the audio to validate their version of events.
Those are public matters of fact, I don't need minutes of any meetings for that to be validated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the penalty could still not have been given as collum didnt think it was a pen but then they released the offside at half time to show that it would not have been given regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that would be VAR doing their job wrong hence why the changed the reason for denying the penalty.
the debate isnt over whether its a penalty or not, dunno why your failing to grasp that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No but also no one knows why it wasn't given.
We assume it was for offside but could easily have been for it not being a deliberate handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no we were told that VAR confirmed it was for offside.. do keep up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We were 'told ' by whi - Crocker - during the game
So, the guy who is concentrating on the game, commentating, crowd roaring, got producer(s) in one ear, Sutton in another and potentially a one way var feed on top (that might be England?) or is getting texts yet someone else in the production team must decide whether to show the offside and be party to the var 'output'....Crocker can't query it cos he's commentating...you can easily see how it becomes send three & fourpence.
Collum is as hopeless as the rest but even he knows damn well that ANY penalty in the derby is gonna be controversial. He will have known his interpretation was at the limits. He 'may' have had the AVAR tell him informally Willie it's almost certainly offside as they compiled the precise lines and got the precise frame and that 'may' not have been part of the official VAR channel between Collum and Walsh? I'd have hoped they told Rangers that if it was truly the case but none of us are party to the discussion, only that the outcome is disputed.
If Rangers really want to get to the bottom of it maybe they should be chasing Sky for their transcripts, witness statements etc. because they are a key part of the chain from VAR to viewer and are not in any way 'official' no matter how often some on here want to repeat that. Until a lie can be 100% established then it is not a lie.
Which is totally different to the Dougie case where an official acted as whistleblower and ended up losing his job whilst the liar Dougie chose to try and see out the storm.
100% agreed if Collum has lied he has to go but I truly think we are miles off proving that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would they go to Sky and not just ask the SFA to release the audio?
Sky are a broadcaster, the SFA run our game and employ our officials. Surely in the interests of respecting relationships and boundaries you would deal with the governing body instead of a broadcaster.
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
he's a poor ref, he has always been a poor ref, and rangers have benefitted from his schiteness in the past as much as they have suffered,
rangers weren't cheated, it's sour grapes.
we should have had a penatly with turnbull, that was onside at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, very little has been made of not awarding the Turnbull stonewaller, I guess as we won the game. Lino flagged early for offside which wasn’t, so doubly incompetent … they’re supposed to let play develop, then flag if they think offside (which it clearly wasn’t). Same lino made the same error earlier in the 2nd half, flagging early again when Kyogo was through on goal, when he looked on. That’s the level of officiating we’re dealing with up here though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it was given as offside. Can criticise the linesman putting his flag up too early and even at that I think Turnbull throws himself in to Tavernier but ultimately I think its faded in to the background because of some of the other more controversial decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More controversial decisions? Maybe just more and louder whinging?
‘ Why would they go to Sky and not just ask the SFA to release the audio?
Sky are a broadcaster, the SFA run our game and employ our officials. Surely in the interests of respecting relationships and boundaries you would deal with the governing body instead of a broadcaster.’
Because we know what was said-Collum didn’t think it was handball. This isn’t in dispute, surely? It’s what was on the screens at the time and what was relayed to those watching on the telly.
What you and other rangers fans want to know is when the offside came into play, how that was communicated, and if or when they were told that was the official reason for the penalty not being awarded.
I’m sure Andrew Dickson who was at rangers and now at Sky could help.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
‘ Why would they go to Sky and not just ask the SFA to release the audio?
Sky are a broadcaster, the SFA run our game and employ our officials. Surely in the interests of respecting relationships and boundaries you would deal with the governing body instead of a broadcaster.’
Because we know what was said-Collum didn’t think it was handball. This isn’t in dispute, surely? It’s what was on the screens at the time and what was relayed to those watching on the telly.
What you and other rangers fans want to know is when the offside came into play, how that was communicated, and if or when they were told that was the official reason for the penalty not being awarded.
I’m sure Andrew Dickson who was at rangers and now at Sky could help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is in dispute! The VAR explanation for no penalty was offside, not that they didn't deem it a handball. Hence the VAR lines drawn to validate it.
It's already been established that its not possible for the officials to have discussed offside during the VAR penalty check, therefore the explanation given at the time isn't possible or plausible and clarification is required.
And incidentally I would be amazed if Rangers haven't already spoken to Sky. Its highly likely they did this prior to releasing the initial statement asking the SFA for audio. I think in fact Sky were even mentioned within that statement at being angry at the situation.
Sky have no reason to get publicly involved but it would be naive to think they haven't already been asked to validate the situation as they presented it to a live audience prior to any further action being requested of the SFA.
There’s your reply.
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/sport/football-news/scottish-fa-disappointed-rangers-statement-var-meeting/
This does not appear to be reflected in the club’s statement.
"During the meeting, it was pointed out that the incident in question was a subjective handball and that the VAR did not deem it a sufficiently clear and obvious error to refer to On Field Review.
"Furthermore, the offside would not have been mentioned at the time as it was not part of the VAR’s decision-making on the handball. It was highlighted within Clydesdale House that had the VAR considered the incident to be a handball offence and asked the referee to carry out an On Field Review, the Attacking Phase of Play would have been checked and an offside would have been identified. This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future.
"There was an overall consensus that the incident could not have led to a penalty kick being awarded in any event, and that there was no impact on the final outcome of the match.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 2 minutes ago
There’s your reply.
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/sport/football-news/scottish-fa-disappointed-rangers-statement-var-meeting/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent. So par for the course express disappointment in the statement but don't actually disagree with it, yadda yadda.
Then confirm the penalty wasn't given because it wasn't deemed a handball. Perfect so we are clear now on why it wasn't given which is in line with what has been leaked in recent days.
Still two questions they haven't answered however:
1. Why was it not deemed a handball when the rest of the watching World seems in agreement it was? The referee wasn't even asked to review it. That's incompetence and doesn't really validate why VAR is in place. However, in the grand scheme of it that's a training issue for them to address with the referees.
2. Confirmation that the offside was not mentioned at the time of review. Why then was that given as the reason for the decision to Sky? This is ultimately what Rangers entire issue has centred round and there doesn't appear to be any clarity on this.
Collum has to go.
Won't solve the problem if rubbish refs though.
Full time professional refs is what we should be looking at.
Rangers have already gone to the SFA and heard the VAR audio during the incident. I have no idea if other audio was reviewed but the SFA will not have audio between sky producers and Crocker.
This 'dispute' is based on what Sky told the viewers VAR allegedly said so I'd have thought they were an integral part of resolving whether there was a lie or not.
Sky would be angry that the beeb cut their grass and had the exclusive while they were doing fck knows what for the entertainment of TV viewers. I also imagine they would be embarrassed and angry if one of their employees got their wires crossed in the production but that one is easily solved though maybe it suits them for the SFA to take the flak?
1. Because it’s subjective, and down to an individual. Not everyone does agree, we even have wee whitabootit on here-a rangers fan-who doesn’t think it was a penalty.
2. They do actually address that point. ‘ This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future’
I mean, it’s in the statement.
Looks like it’s pretty much as has been said. No lying, no conspiracy. Just someone who doesn’t share the view of rangers.
Oh-and a nice wee slap on the head for Heart and Hand at the end as well.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 19 seconds ago
1. Because it’s subjective, and down to an individual. Not everyone does agree, we even have wee whitabootit on here-a rangers fan-who doesn’t think it was a penalty.
2. They do actually address that point. ‘ This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future’
I mean, it’s in the statement.
Looks like it’s pretty much as has been said. No lying, no conspiracy. Just someone who doesn’t share the view of rangers.
Oh-and a nice wee slap on the head for Heart and Hand at the end as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An inaccurate slap on the head - they're not an official partner. Typical SFA incompetence.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 6 minutes ago
This does not appear to be reflected in the club’s statement.
"During the meeting, it was pointed out that the incident in question was a subjective handball and that the VAR did not deem it a sufficiently clear and obvious error to refer to On Field Review.
"Furthermore, the offside would not have been mentioned at the time as it was not part of the VAR’s decision-making on the handball. It was highlighted within Clydesdale House that had the VAR considered the incident to be a handball offence and asked the referee to carry out an On Field Review, the Attacking Phase of Play would have been checked and an offside would have been identified. This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future.
"There was an overall consensus that the incident could not have led to a penalty kick being awarded in any event, and that there was no impact on the final outcome of the match.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Rangers' statement?
So they are admitting Sky lied to their viewers?
comment by Staunch neutral (U23065)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 19 seconds ago
1. Because it’s subjective, and down to an individual. Not everyone does agree, we even have wee whitabootit on here-a rangers fan-who doesn’t think it was a penalty.
2. They do actually address that point. ‘ This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future’
I mean, it’s in the statement.
Looks like it’s pretty much as has been said. No lying, no conspiracy. Just someone who doesn’t share the view of rangers.
Oh-and a nice wee slap on the head for Heart and Hand at the end as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An inaccurate slap on the head - they're not an official partner. Typical SFA incompetence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’ll hurt them.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 6 minutes ago
This does not appear to be reflected in the club’s statement.
"During the meeting, it was pointed out that the incident in question was a subjective handball and that the VAR did not deem it a sufficiently clear and obvious error to refer to On Field Review.
"Furthermore, the offside would not have been mentioned at the time as it was not part of the VAR’s decision-making on the handball. It was highlighted within Clydesdale House that had the VAR considered the incident to be a handball offence and asked the referee to carry out an On Field Review, the Attacking Phase of Play would have been checked and an offside would have been identified. This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future.
"There was an overall consensus that the incident could not have led to a penalty kick being awarded in any event, and that there was no impact on the final outcome of the match.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Rangers' statement?
So they are admitting Sky lied to their viewers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SFA statement. Link above.
If we were to draw a line under this here and now the bottom line is the SFA believe Collum is competent and will stand by that no matter what.
That will come back to bite not just Rangers, but every team in the SPFL.
As you were then!
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
Rangers have already gone to the SFA and heard the VAR audio during the incident. I have no idea if other audio was reviewed but the SFA will not have audio between sky producers and Crocker.
This 'dispute' is based on what Sky told the viewers VAR allegedly said so I'd have thought they were an integral part of resolving whether there was a lie or not.
Sky would be angry that the beeb cut their grass and had the exclusive while they were doing fck knows what for the entertainment of TV viewers. I also imagine they would be embarrassed and angry if one of their employees got their wires crossed in the production but that one is easily solved though maybe it suits them for the SFA to take the flak?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would think if Sky have presented a different version of events from what they were told there would be serious conversations on that given the version they presented to viewers on behalf of VAR is what led to the drama.
However I'd also have expected it wouldn't take nearly a week for them to exonerate their officials and pass it back to Sky. They refer to officials safety in their statement when their silence and lack of transparency has been a factor in any pressure the officials have come under.
My own view from hearing Crocker's version of events at the time is that he and Sky seemed pretty clear on the explanation they were given. His additional comment of "it would have been nice to have been told that at the time" suggests there was no alternative explanation presented. But with the SFA statement, Sky can either choose to validate an error on their part or stick to their original version if they wish to do so.
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
1. Because it’s subjective, and down to an individual. Not everyone does agree, we even have wee whitabootit on here-a rangers fan-who doesn’t think it was a penalty.
2. They do actually address that point. ‘ This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future’
I mean, it’s in the statement.
Looks like it’s pretty much as has been said. No lying, no conspiracy. Just someone who doesn’t share the view of rangers.
Oh-and a nice wee slap on the head for Heart and Hand at the end as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really. They have effectively put it down to a misunderstanding between them and Sky. There's no explanation as to what was actually relayed and how that came to pass.
I also don't think its a great response to pass over the actual decision and say it was subjective. Fans on here can have an opinion but in terms of the rules of the game its either a handball or it isn't. With the official body saying handballs are subjective they open up a can or worms for all and any handball decisions in future which can now quite easily be attributed to referee bias and not on the basis of following any laws.
But anyway it will rumble on and no doubt more statements to follow. Its home time for me.
Just seen the Alan Forrest non penalty. Dearie me.
Incompetent bastirts.
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
1. Because it’s subjective, and down to an individual. Not everyone does agree, we even have wee whitabootit on here-a rangers fan-who doesn’t think it was a penalty.
2. They do actually address that point. ‘ This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future’
I mean, it’s in the statement.
Looks like it’s pretty much as has been said. No lying, no conspiracy. Just someone who doesn’t share the view of rangers.
Oh-and a nice wee slap on the head for Heart and Hand at the end as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really. They have effectively put it down to a misunderstanding between them and Sky. There's no explanation as to what was actually relayed and how that came to pass.
I also don't think its a great response to pass over the actual decision and say it was subjective. Fans on here can have an opinion but in terms of the rules of the game its either a handball or it isn't. With the official body saying handballs are subjective they open up a can or worms for all and any handball decisions in future which can now quite easily be attributed to referee bias and not on the basis of following any laws.
But anyway it will rumble on and no doubt more statements to follow. Its home time for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I imagine that discussion about how the information was imparted and then ultimately related will be done in private, as it probably should. Not through public statements and unofficial fan media channels.
And of course handballs are subjective. It’s fairly disingenuous for you to say otherwise smid. You’re clearly an intelligent guy, and handball has became more and more subjective over the years. You know that-it’s why it’s such a massive discussion point in most games that it happens. There’s guidelines for refs to follow, and how they interpret them is the issue. There’s no black and white for it. Actually, it’s fairly incredible that you’re saying it’s not subjective.
Anyway, all that hullabaloo and yet a few sensible Celtic fans called it for what it was fairly early on.
Sign in if you want to comment
Another Ref strike?
Page 5 of 13
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Zico - Celtic Treble Winners 22/23 (U21900)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
he's a poor ref, he has always been a poor ref, and rangers have benefitted from his schiteness in the past as much as they have suffered,
rangers weren't cheated, it's sour grapes.
we should have had a penatly with turnbull, that was onside at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, very little has been made of not awarding the Turnbull stonewaller, I guess as we won the game. Lino flagged early for offside which wasn’t, so doubly incompetent … they’re supposed to let play develop, then flag if they think offside (which it clearly wasn’t). Same lino made the same error earlier in the 2nd half, flagging early again when Kyogo was through on goal, when he looked on. That’s the level of officiating we’re dealing with up here though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine they gave us that pen..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still think we should be told why that wasn't reviewed by VAR.
Clear and obvious error from the ref and VAR was entitled to review it but chose not to.
posted on 4/1/24
"Crawford Allen surely must be on the phone demanding Ian Maxwell get in touch with the Israeli and Maltese ref associations so we have cover after the break".
Hope the SFA tell them the truth this time.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
he's a poor ref, he has always been a poor ref, and rangers have benefitted from his schiteness in the past as much as they have suffered,
rangers weren't cheated, it's sour grapes.
we should have had a penatly with turnbull, that was onside at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, very little has been made of not awarding the Turnbull stonewaller, I guess as we won the game. Lino flagged early for offside which wasn’t, so doubly incompetent … they’re supposed to let play develop, then flag if they think offside (which it clearly wasn’t). Same lino made the same error earlier in the 2nd half, flagging early again when Kyogo was through on goal, when he looked on. That’s the level of officiating we’re dealing with up here though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it was given as offside. Can criticise the linesman putting his flag up too early and even at that I think Turnbull throws himself in to Tavernier but ultimately I think its faded in to the background because of some of the other more controversial decisions.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
he's a poor ref, he has always been a poor ref, and rangers have benefitted from his schiteness in the past as much as they have suffered,
rangers weren't cheated, it's sour grapes.
we should have had a penatly with turnbull, that was onside at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, very little has been made of not awarding the Turnbull stonewaller, I guess as we won the game. Lino flagged early for offside which wasn’t, so doubly incompetent … they’re supposed to let play develop, then flag if they think offside (which it clearly wasn’t). Same lino made the same error earlier in the 2nd half, flagging early again when Kyogo was through on goal, when he looked on. That’s the level of officiating we’re dealing with up here though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it was given as offside. Can criticise the linesman putting his flag up too early and even at that I think Turnbull throws himself in to Tavernier but ultimately I think its faded in to the background because of some of the other more controversial decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Linesman didnt flag that one the ref gave the offside for some reason.
There is video footage showing the linesman never puts his flag up.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
The lie is that the penalty wasn't given because of an offside. The offside wasn't checked.
The cover up is making up an excuse for why the penalty wasn't given when you know its not true and refusing to release the audio to validate their version of events.
Those are public matters of fact, I don't need minutes of any meetings for that to be validated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the penalty could still not have been given as collum didnt think it was a pen but then they released the offside at half time to show that it would not have been given regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that would be VAR doing their job wrong hence why the changed the reason for denying the penalty.
the debate isnt over whether its a penalty or not, dunno why your failing to grasp that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No but also no one knows why it wasn't given.
We assume it was for offside but could easily have been for it not being a deliberate handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no we were told that VAR confirmed it was for offside.. do keep up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We were 'told ' by whi - Crocker - during the game
So, the guy who is concentrating on the game, commentating, crowd roaring, got producer(s) in one ear, Sutton in another and potentially a one way var feed on top (that might be England?) or is getting texts yet someone else in the production team must decide whether to show the offside and be party to the var 'output'....Crocker can't query it cos he's commentating...you can easily see how it becomes send three & fourpence.
Collum is as hopeless as the rest but even he knows damn well that ANY penalty in the derby is gonna be controversial. He will have known his interpretation was at the limits. He 'may' have had the AVAR tell him informally Willie it's almost certainly offside as they compiled the precise lines and got the precise frame and that 'may' not have been part of the official VAR channel between Collum and Walsh? I'd have hoped they told Rangers that if it was truly the case but none of us are party to the discussion, only that the outcome is disputed.
If Rangers really want to get to the bottom of it maybe they should be chasing Sky for their transcripts, witness statements etc. because they are a key part of the chain from VAR to viewer and are not in any way 'official' no matter how often some on here want to repeat that. Until a lie can be 100% established then it is not a lie.
Which is totally different to the Dougie case where an official acted as whistleblower and ended up losing his job whilst the liar Dougie chose to try and see out the storm.
100% agreed if Collum has lied he has to go but I truly think we are miles off proving that.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Timmy (U14278)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
The lie is that the penalty wasn't given because of an offside. The offside wasn't checked.
The cover up is making up an excuse for why the penalty wasn't given when you know its not true and refusing to release the audio to validate their version of events.
Those are public matters of fact, I don't need minutes of any meetings for that to be validated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the penalty could still not have been given as collum didnt think it was a pen but then they released the offside at half time to show that it would not have been given regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that would be VAR doing their job wrong hence why the changed the reason for denying the penalty.
the debate isnt over whether its a penalty or not, dunno why your failing to grasp that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No but also no one knows why it wasn't given.
We assume it was for offside but could easily have been for it not being a deliberate handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no we were told that VAR confirmed it was for offside.. do keep up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We were 'told ' by whi - Crocker - during the game
So, the guy who is concentrating on the game, commentating, crowd roaring, got producer(s) in one ear, Sutton in another and potentially a one way var feed on top (that might be England?) or is getting texts yet someone else in the production team must decide whether to show the offside and be party to the var 'output'....Crocker can't query it cos he's commentating...you can easily see how it becomes send three & fourpence.
Collum is as hopeless as the rest but even he knows damn well that ANY penalty in the derby is gonna be controversial. He will have known his interpretation was at the limits. He 'may' have had the AVAR tell him informally Willie it's almost certainly offside as they compiled the precise lines and got the precise frame and that 'may' not have been part of the official VAR channel between Collum and Walsh? I'd have hoped they told Rangers that if it was truly the case but none of us are party to the discussion, only that the outcome is disputed.
If Rangers really want to get to the bottom of it maybe they should be chasing Sky for their transcripts, witness statements etc. because they are a key part of the chain from VAR to viewer and are not in any way 'official' no matter how often some on here want to repeat that. Until a lie can be 100% established then it is not a lie.
Which is totally different to the Dougie case where an official acted as whistleblower and ended up losing his job whilst the liar Dougie chose to try and see out the storm.
100% agreed if Collum has lied he has to go but I truly think we are miles off proving that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would they go to Sky and not just ask the SFA to release the audio?
Sky are a broadcaster, the SFA run our game and employ our officials. Surely in the interests of respecting relationships and boundaries you would deal with the governing body instead of a broadcaster.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by JFK (U8919)
posted 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
he's a poor ref, he has always been a poor ref, and rangers have benefitted from his schiteness in the past as much as they have suffered,
rangers weren't cheated, it's sour grapes.
we should have had a penatly with turnbull, that was onside at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, very little has been made of not awarding the Turnbull stonewaller, I guess as we won the game. Lino flagged early for offside which wasn’t, so doubly incompetent … they’re supposed to let play develop, then flag if they think offside (which it clearly wasn’t). Same lino made the same error earlier in the 2nd half, flagging early again when Kyogo was through on goal, when he looked on. That’s the level of officiating we’re dealing with up here though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it was given as offside. Can criticise the linesman putting his flag up too early and even at that I think Turnbull throws himself in to Tavernier but ultimately I think its faded in to the background because of some of the other more controversial decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More controversial decisions? Maybe just more and louder whinging?
posted on 4/1/24
‘ Why would they go to Sky and not just ask the SFA to release the audio?
Sky are a broadcaster, the SFA run our game and employ our officials. Surely in the interests of respecting relationships and boundaries you would deal with the governing body instead of a broadcaster.’
Because we know what was said-Collum didn’t think it was handball. This isn’t in dispute, surely? It’s what was on the screens at the time and what was relayed to those watching on the telly.
What you and other rangers fans want to know is when the offside came into play, how that was communicated, and if or when they were told that was the official reason for the penalty not being awarded.
I’m sure Andrew Dickson who was at rangers and now at Sky could help.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 1 minute ago
‘ Why would they go to Sky and not just ask the SFA to release the audio?
Sky are a broadcaster, the SFA run our game and employ our officials. Surely in the interests of respecting relationships and boundaries you would deal with the governing body instead of a broadcaster.’
Because we know what was said-Collum didn’t think it was handball. This isn’t in dispute, surely? It’s what was on the screens at the time and what was relayed to those watching on the telly.
What you and other rangers fans want to know is when the offside came into play, how that was communicated, and if or when they were told that was the official reason for the penalty not being awarded.
I’m sure Andrew Dickson who was at rangers and now at Sky could help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is in dispute! The VAR explanation for no penalty was offside, not that they didn't deem it a handball. Hence the VAR lines drawn to validate it.
It's already been established that its not possible for the officials to have discussed offside during the VAR penalty check, therefore the explanation given at the time isn't possible or plausible and clarification is required.
posted on 4/1/24
And incidentally I would be amazed if Rangers haven't already spoken to Sky. Its highly likely they did this prior to releasing the initial statement asking the SFA for audio. I think in fact Sky were even mentioned within that statement at being angry at the situation.
Sky have no reason to get publicly involved but it would be naive to think they haven't already been asked to validate the situation as they presented it to a live audience prior to any further action being requested of the SFA.
posted on 4/1/24
There’s your reply.
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/sport/football-news/scottish-fa-disappointed-rangers-statement-var-meeting/
posted on 4/1/24
This does not appear to be reflected in the club’s statement.
"During the meeting, it was pointed out that the incident in question was a subjective handball and that the VAR did not deem it a sufficiently clear and obvious error to refer to On Field Review.
"Furthermore, the offside would not have been mentioned at the time as it was not part of the VAR’s decision-making on the handball. It was highlighted within Clydesdale House that had the VAR considered the incident to be a handball offence and asked the referee to carry out an On Field Review, the Attacking Phase of Play would have been checked and an offside would have been identified. This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future.
"There was an overall consensus that the incident could not have led to a penalty kick being awarded in any event, and that there was no impact on the final outcome of the match.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 2 minutes ago
There’s your reply.
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/sport/football-news/scottish-fa-disappointed-rangers-statement-var-meeting/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent. So par for the course express disappointment in the statement but don't actually disagree with it, yadda yadda.
Then confirm the penalty wasn't given because it wasn't deemed a handball. Perfect so we are clear now on why it wasn't given which is in line with what has been leaked in recent days.
Still two questions they haven't answered however:
1. Why was it not deemed a handball when the rest of the watching World seems in agreement it was? The referee wasn't even asked to review it. That's incompetence and doesn't really validate why VAR is in place. However, in the grand scheme of it that's a training issue for them to address with the referees.
2. Confirmation that the offside was not mentioned at the time of review. Why then was that given as the reason for the decision to Sky? This is ultimately what Rangers entire issue has centred round and there doesn't appear to be any clarity on this.
posted on 4/1/24
Collum has to go.
Won't solve the problem if rubbish refs though.
Full time professional refs is what we should be looking at.
posted on 4/1/24
Rangers have already gone to the SFA and heard the VAR audio during the incident. I have no idea if other audio was reviewed but the SFA will not have audio between sky producers and Crocker.
This 'dispute' is based on what Sky told the viewers VAR allegedly said so I'd have thought they were an integral part of resolving whether there was a lie or not.
Sky would be angry that the beeb cut their grass and had the exclusive while they were doing fck knows what for the entertainment of TV viewers. I also imagine they would be embarrassed and angry if one of their employees got their wires crossed in the production but that one is easily solved though maybe it suits them for the SFA to take the flak?
posted on 4/1/24
1. Because it’s subjective, and down to an individual. Not everyone does agree, we even have wee whitabootit on here-a rangers fan-who doesn’t think it was a penalty.
2. They do actually address that point. ‘ This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future’
I mean, it’s in the statement.
Looks like it’s pretty much as has been said. No lying, no conspiracy. Just someone who doesn’t share the view of rangers.
Oh-and a nice wee slap on the head for Heart and Hand at the end as well.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 19 seconds ago
1. Because it’s subjective, and down to an individual. Not everyone does agree, we even have wee whitabootit on here-a rangers fan-who doesn’t think it was a penalty.
2. They do actually address that point. ‘ This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future’
I mean, it’s in the statement.
Looks like it’s pretty much as has been said. No lying, no conspiracy. Just someone who doesn’t share the view of rangers.
Oh-and a nice wee slap on the head for Heart and Hand at the end as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An inaccurate slap on the head - they're not an official partner. Typical SFA incompetence.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 6 minutes ago
This does not appear to be reflected in the club’s statement.
"During the meeting, it was pointed out that the incident in question was a subjective handball and that the VAR did not deem it a sufficiently clear and obvious error to refer to On Field Review.
"Furthermore, the offside would not have been mentioned at the time as it was not part of the VAR’s decision-making on the handball. It was highlighted within Clydesdale House that had the VAR considered the incident to be a handball offence and asked the referee to carry out an On Field Review, the Attacking Phase of Play would have been checked and an offside would have been identified. This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future.
"There was an overall consensus that the incident could not have led to a penalty kick being awarded in any event, and that there was no impact on the final outcome of the match.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Rangers' statement?
So they are admitting Sky lied to their viewers?
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Staunch neutral (U23065)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 19 seconds ago
1. Because it’s subjective, and down to an individual. Not everyone does agree, we even have wee whitabootit on here-a rangers fan-who doesn’t think it was a penalty.
2. They do actually address that point. ‘ This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future’
I mean, it’s in the statement.
Looks like it’s pretty much as has been said. No lying, no conspiracy. Just someone who doesn’t share the view of rangers.
Oh-and a nice wee slap on the head for Heart and Hand at the end as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An inaccurate slap on the head - they're not an official partner. Typical SFA incompetence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’ll hurt them.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 6 minutes ago
This does not appear to be reflected in the club’s statement.
"During the meeting, it was pointed out that the incident in question was a subjective handball and that the VAR did not deem it a sufficiently clear and obvious error to refer to On Field Review.
"Furthermore, the offside would not have been mentioned at the time as it was not part of the VAR’s decision-making on the handball. It was highlighted within Clydesdale House that had the VAR considered the incident to be a handball offence and asked the referee to carry out an On Field Review, the Attacking Phase of Play would have been checked and an offside would have been identified. This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future.
"There was an overall consensus that the incident could not have led to a penalty kick being awarded in any event, and that there was no impact on the final outcome of the match.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Rangers' statement?
So they are admitting Sky lied to their viewers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SFA statement. Link above.
posted on 4/1/24
If we were to draw a line under this here and now the bottom line is the SFA believe Collum is competent and will stand by that no matter what.
That will come back to bite not just Rangers, but every team in the SPFL.
As you were then!
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
Rangers have already gone to the SFA and heard the VAR audio during the incident. I have no idea if other audio was reviewed but the SFA will not have audio between sky producers and Crocker.
This 'dispute' is based on what Sky told the viewers VAR allegedly said so I'd have thought they were an integral part of resolving whether there was a lie or not.
Sky would be angry that the beeb cut their grass and had the exclusive while they were doing fck knows what for the entertainment of TV viewers. I also imagine they would be embarrassed and angry if one of their employees got their wires crossed in the production but that one is easily solved though maybe it suits them for the SFA to take the flak?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would think if Sky have presented a different version of events from what they were told there would be serious conversations on that given the version they presented to viewers on behalf of VAR is what led to the drama.
However I'd also have expected it wouldn't take nearly a week for them to exonerate their officials and pass it back to Sky. They refer to officials safety in their statement when their silence and lack of transparency has been a factor in any pressure the officials have come under.
My own view from hearing Crocker's version of events at the time is that he and Sky seemed pretty clear on the explanation they were given. His additional comment of "it would have been nice to have been told that at the time" suggests there was no alternative explanation presented. But with the SFA statement, Sky can either choose to validate an error on their part or stick to their original version if they wish to do so.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
1. Because it’s subjective, and down to an individual. Not everyone does agree, we even have wee whitabootit on here-a rangers fan-who doesn’t think it was a penalty.
2. They do actually address that point. ‘ This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future’
I mean, it’s in the statement.
Looks like it’s pretty much as has been said. No lying, no conspiracy. Just someone who doesn’t share the view of rangers.
Oh-and a nice wee slap on the head for Heart and Hand at the end as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really. They have effectively put it down to a misunderstanding between them and Sky. There's no explanation as to what was actually relayed and how that came to pass.
I also don't think its a great response to pass over the actual decision and say it was subjective. Fans on here can have an opinion but in terms of the rules of the game its either a handball or it isn't. With the official body saying handballs are subjective they open up a can or worms for all and any handball decisions in future which can now quite easily be attributed to referee bias and not on the basis of following any laws.
But anyway it will rumble on and no doubt more statements to follow. Its home time for me.
posted on 4/1/24
Just seen the Alan Forrest non penalty. Dearie me.
Incompetent bastirts.
posted on 4/1/24
comment by Gersmid (U22273)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided what to change it to yet (U10636)
posted 4 minutes ago
1. Because it’s subjective, and down to an individual. Not everyone does agree, we even have wee whitabootit on here-a rangers fan-who doesn’t think it was a penalty.
2. They do actually address that point. ‘ This supplementary information was relayed to broadcasters in-game, and we are reviewing the process of information dissemination to avoid any perceived ambiguity in future’
I mean, it’s in the statement.
Looks like it’s pretty much as has been said. No lying, no conspiracy. Just someone who doesn’t share the view of rangers.
Oh-and a nice wee slap on the head for Heart and Hand at the end as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really. They have effectively put it down to a misunderstanding between them and Sky. There's no explanation as to what was actually relayed and how that came to pass.
I also don't think its a great response to pass over the actual decision and say it was subjective. Fans on here can have an opinion but in terms of the rules of the game its either a handball or it isn't. With the official body saying handballs are subjective they open up a can or worms for all and any handball decisions in future which can now quite easily be attributed to referee bias and not on the basis of following any laws.
But anyway it will rumble on and no doubt more statements to follow. Its home time for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I imagine that discussion about how the information was imparted and then ultimately related will be done in private, as it probably should. Not through public statements and unofficial fan media channels.
And of course handballs are subjective. It’s fairly disingenuous for you to say otherwise smid. You’re clearly an intelligent guy, and handball has became more and more subjective over the years. You know that-it’s why it’s such a massive discussion point in most games that it happens. There’s guidelines for refs to follow, and how they interpret them is the issue. There’s no black and white for it. Actually, it’s fairly incredible that you’re saying it’s not subjective.
Anyway, all that hullabaloo and yet a few sensible Celtic fans called it for what it was fairly early on.
Page 5 of 13
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10