Rangers look dead in extra time
—-
Hmm.

thats really fine margins.

was a weird game, the wet weather made the pitch heavy and suited rangers hoofball style better than ours.

But the bad weather was brutal on the rangers fans who obviously don't like water and get offended by the idea of using it, unless its to drink from a urinal.

as for their woman, well, they are never getting wet are they? no unless they are driving up to a mcdonalds then its tsunami city.

comment by Call Sign: Remember the 453 (U3627)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Faither (U3393)
posted 11 minutes ago
I think it was for the actual foul that Scales committed where his leg hit Cerny's then the pulling of jerseys happened. I think Beaton saw that as the foul, VAR looks and notices that the foul (leg) happened first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's what I have been reading. Once he gave the foul for the kick then the pull was irrelevant. First foul and whistle blew.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly what happened. 2 separate fouls. Ball was dead before the pull. It was clear as day.
Clement is a clown.
A series of bizarre decisions by both linesman almost all favouring rangers.
The meltdown now is truly ridiculous.
And stay out of the Gallowgate ya bunch of losers.

as for their woman, well, they are never getting wet are they? no unless they are driving up to a mcdonalds then its tsunami city.
---
Or following one of those silly marches around while pushing three buggies and screaming spittly abuse at people of different faiths or ethnicities. Leaving trails all up the main street like an army of rancid slugs.

Rangers really are a route 1 team. Lost count of how many times they just launched it and hoped to pick up a loose ball.

They were only going to score by our loose passes or a hoof into the box and that proved to be the case.

They are hiding behind penalties that never were and whatever nonsense they believe like the same club etc but if they think Rangers were good then I am delighted. We were passive and safe in the first half and the only threat from Rangers came from a Taylor pass straight to them.

Second half same again resulting in a 4 v 1. Then they got 2 goals from launches into the box. They are not a good footballing side at all. All hustle and bustle but very little quality

comment by Call Sign: Remember the 453 (U3627)
posted 15 seconds ago
Rangers really are a route 1 team. Lost count of how many times they just launched it and hoped to pick up a loose ball.

They were only going to score by our loose passes or a hoof into the box and that proved to be the case.

They are hiding behind penalties that never were and whatever nonsense they believe like the same club etc but if they think Rangers were good then I am delighted. We were passive and safe in the first half and the only threat from Rangers came from a Taylor pass straight to them.

Second half same again resulting in a 4 v 1. Then they got 2 goals from launches into the box. They are not a good footballing side at all. All hustle and bustle but very little quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand the point you are making, but your best two chances of the first half came from long balls forward catching Proper out for pace....and for most of the game, because we were cutting the passing lanes from your defence into youridfield/attackers, you often resorting to just punting it up the pale in hope

So yes, while I agree we played the long ball a lot.....it worked so why the fck not....and I do find it a bit rich that you are slating Rangers for such tactics quite so much when your own team pretty resorted to the same thing because they were getting very little joy otherwise

comment by Magnum (3 in a row easy) (U22391)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Call Sign: Remember the 453 (U3627)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Faither (U3393)
posted 11 minutes ago
I think it was for the actual foul that Scales committed where his leg hit Cerny's then the pulling of jerseys happened. I think Beaton saw that as the foul, VAR looks and notices that the foul (leg) happened first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's what I have been reading. Once he gave the foul for the kick then the pull was irrelevant. First foul and whistle blew.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly what happened. 2 separate fouls. Ball was dead before the pull. It was clear as day.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Narrative.

When I find out the Additional Needs teacher who taught them all that word, I'm going to buy them a pint.

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by Call Sign: Remember the 453 (U3627)
posted 15 seconds ago
Rangers really are a route 1 team. Lost count of how many times they just launched it and hoped to pick up a loose ball.

They were only going to score by our loose passes or a hoof into the box and that proved to be the case.

They are hiding behind penalties that never were and whatever nonsense they believe like the same club etc but if they think Rangers were good then I am delighted. We were passive and safe in the first half and the only threat from Rangers came from a Taylor pass straight to them.

Second half same again resulting in a 4 v 1. Then they got 2 goals from launches into the box. They are not a good footballing side at all. All hustle and bustle but very little quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand the point you are making, but your best two chances of the first half came from long balls forward catching Proper out for pace....and for most of the game, because we were cutting the passing lanes from your defence into youridfield/attackers, you often resorting to just punting it up the pale in hope

So yes, while I agree we played the long ball a lot.....it worked so why the fck not....and I do find it a bit rich that you are slating Rangers for such tactics quite so much when your own team pretty resorted to the same thing because they were getting very little joy otherwise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We did it occasionally because it suited the match and the conditions. You do it every week.
That's not the same thing.

I keep hearing this two fouls argument.....to me they are all the same incident....Scales basically tried to stop Cerny by any means whatsoever, so when the first attempt fails he starts pulling at him

For me it's a complete cop out that argument....and if that's what Willie Collum comes out with I'll be disappointed, because of the first foul didn't stop Cerny, advantage should be played until there is none, and it was the shirt pull that finally stopped Cerny in his tracks

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Call Sign: Remember the 453 (U3627)
posted 15 seconds ago
Rangers really are a route 1 team. Lost count of how many times they just launched it and hoped to pick up a loose ball.

They were only going to score by our loose passes or a hoof into the box and that proved to be the case.

They are hiding behind penalties that never were and whatever nonsense they believe like the same club etc but if they think Rangers were good then I am delighted. We were passive and safe in the first half and the only threat from Rangers came from a Taylor pass straight to them.

Second half same again resulting in a 4 v 1. Then they got 2 goals from launches into the box. They are not a good footballing side at all. All hustle and bustle but very little quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand the point you are making, but your best two chances of the first half came from long balls forward catching Proper out for pace....and for most of the game, because we were cutting the passing lanes from your defence into youridfield/attackers, you often resorting to just punting it up the pale in hope

So yes, while I agree we played the long ball a lot.....it worked so why the fck not....and I do find it a bit rich that you are slating Rangers for such tactics quite so much when your own team pretty resorted to the same thing because they were getting very little joy otherwise
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Our chances came through playing it quickly to feet or targeted to Maeda to go at Tav. That isn't just hoofing it or punting it.

If you are trying to compare then please keep going. I genuinely like the fact that Rangers fans like yourself are happy at Rangers and feel aggrieved. It means that Clement gets a continued pass.

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted less than a minute ago
I keep hearing this two fouls argument.....to me they are all the same incident....Scales basically tried to stop Cerny by any means whatsoever, so when the first attempt fails he starts pulling at him

For me it's a complete cop out that argument....and if that's what Willie Collum comes out with I'll be disappointed, because of the first foul didn't stop Cerny, advantage should be played until there is none, and it was the shirt pull that finally stopped Cerny in his tracks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you also think that the ref should have let us attack at pace down the left when one of our players got wiped out at the halfway line? The first fould didn't stop our attack

As I said before keep going, you are only convincing yourself

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 59 seconds ago
I keep hearing this two fouls argument.....to me they are all the same incident....Scales basically tried to stop Cerny by any means whatsoever, so when the first attempt fails he starts pulling at him

For me it's a complete cop out that argument....and if that's what Willie Collum comes out with I'll be disappointed, because of the first foul didn't stop Cerny, advantage should be played until there is none, and it was the shirt pull that finally stopped Cerny in his tracks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. Beaton was too keen to give Rangers a free-kick. As usual.

A lot of chat here when it’s a simple fact we should have had a penalty. Wasn’t given, we’ll make some noicse, Connor to get the sack, then move on.

Actually thought Neil Lennon was good on the commentary yesterday, based on pre-match was thinking he’d be annoying. But he talked through the game and his thoughts on midfield battle, shape etc very well

seen a different still now, not a pen.

ref blew for foul when it was outside.

cant believe they got arfield, but he lost enough at rangers to give a good insight into what it feels like to be a silver medal sensation.

comment by JFK - Super Nintendo Chalmers (U8919)
posted 33 seconds ago
seen a different still now, not a pen.

ref blew for foul when it was outside.

cant believe they got arfield, but he lost enough at rangers to give a good insight into what it feels like to be a silver medal sensation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Some still that where you can hear the whistle

comment by Call Sign: Remember the 453 (U3627)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted less than a minute ago
I keep hearing this two fouls argument.....to me they are all the same incident....Scales basically tried to stop Cerny by any means whatsoever, so when the first attempt fails he starts pulling at him

For me it's a complete cop out that argument....and if that's what Willie Collum comes out with I'll be disappointed, because of the first foul didn't stop Cerny, advantage should be played until there is none, and it was the shirt pull that finally stopped Cerny in his tracks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you also think that the ref should have let us attack at pace down the left when one of our players got wiped out at the halfway line? The first fould didn't stop our attack

As I said before keep going, you are only convincing yourself
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I do think the ref should have allowed that

Point being made is...if Collum says the first foul is what was given, and that was the right thing to do from the refs point of view...then I'll be disappointed, because he would be wrong...same way he would be wrong if he said Beaton blowing for your foul was the right thing to do

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 4 minutes ago
A lot of chat here when it’s a simple fact we should have had a penalty. Wasn’t given, we’ll make some noicse, Connor to get the sack, then move on.

Actually thought Neil Lennon was good on the commentary yesterday, based on pre-match was thinking he’d be annoying. But he talked through the game and his thoughts on midfield battle, shape etc very well
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not a fact though

It's your opinion. An opinion based on ignoring rules around once a foul is given you can't just play on

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Call Sign: Remember the 453 (U3627)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted less than a minute ago
I keep hearing this two fouls argument.....to me they are all the same incident....Scales basically tried to stop Cerny by any means whatsoever, so when the first attempt fails he starts pulling at him

For me it's a complete cop out that argument....and if that's what Willie Collum comes out with I'll be disappointed, because of the first foul didn't stop Cerny, advantage should be played until there is none, and it was the shirt pull that finally stopped Cerny in his tracks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you also think that the ref should have let us attack at pace down the left when one of our players got wiped out at the halfway line? The first fould didn't stop our attack

As I said before keep going, you are only convincing yourself
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I do think the ref should have allowed that

Point being made is...if Collum says the first foul is what was given, and that was the right thing to do from the refs point of view...then I'll be disappointed, because he would be wrong...same way he would be wrong if he said Beaton blowing for your foul was the right thing to do
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent. We would have scored from that attack and therefore your penalty claim wouldn't have happened. Happy to clear that up for you

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by JFK - Super Nintendo Chalmers (U8919)
posted 33 seconds ago
seen a different still now, not a pen.

ref blew for foul when it was outside.

cant believe they got arfield, but he lost enough at rangers to give a good insight into what it feels like to be a silver medal sensation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Some still that where you can hear the whistle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

well my rational for that is that the penalty wasn't given, so it must have been blown for the foul before going in the box.

what's yours?

comment by Call Sign: Remember the 453 (U3627)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Call Sign: Remember the 453 (U3627)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted less than a minute ago
I keep hearing this two fouls argument.....to me they are all the same incident....Scales basically tried to stop Cerny by any means whatsoever, so when the first attempt fails he starts pulling at him

For me it's a complete cop out that argument....and if that's what Willie Collum comes out with I'll be disappointed, because of the first foul didn't stop Cerny, advantage should be played until there is none, and it was the shirt pull that finally stopped Cerny in his tracks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you also think that the ref should have let us attack at pace down the left when one of our players got wiped out at the halfway line? The first fould didn't stop our attack

As I said before keep going, you are only convincing yourself
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I do think the ref should have allowed that

Point being made is...if Collum says the first foul is what was given, and that was the right thing to do from the refs point of view...then I'll be disappointed, because he would be wrong...same way he would be wrong if he said Beaton blowing for your foul was the right thing to do
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent. We would have scored from that attack and therefore your penalty claim wouldn't have happened. Happy to clear that up for you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR doesn't look at fouls on the halfway line do they...they do look at potential penalties....hence the difference

It's really not me that's trying to convince myself of anything here mate

Beaton is scheite. Fact. Can’t manage the game by charisma so does the quick blows and frowny face scheite.

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 13 minutes ago
A lot of chat here when it’s a simple fact we should have had a penalty. Wasn’t given, we’ll make some noicse, Connor to get the sack, then move on.

Actually thought Neil Lennon was good on the commentary yesterday, based on pre-match was thinking he’d be annoying. But he talked through the game and his thoughts on midfield battle, shape etc very well
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Connor? He was only the assistant VAR. Muir was the VAR ref.

comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Call Sign: Remember the 453 (U3627)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Call Sign: Remember the 453 (U3627)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by St3vie (U11028)
posted less than a minute ago
I keep hearing this two fouls argument.....to me they are all the same incident....Scales basically tried to stop Cerny by any means whatsoever, so when the first attempt fails he starts pulling at him

For me it's a complete cop out that argument....and if that's what Willie Collum comes out with I'll be disappointed, because of the first foul didn't stop Cerny, advantage should be played until there is none, and it was the shirt pull that finally stopped Cerny in his tracks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you also think that the ref should have let us attack at pace down the left when one of our players got wiped out at the halfway line? The first fould didn't stop our attack

As I said before keep going, you are only convincing yourself
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I do think the ref should have allowed that

Point being made is...if Collum says the first foul is what was given, and that was the right thing to do from the refs point of view...then I'll be disappointed, because he would be wrong...same way he would be wrong if he said Beaton blowing for your foul was the right thing to do
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent. We would have scored from that attack and therefore your penalty claim wouldn't have happened. Happy to clear that up for you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR doesn't look at fouls on the halfway line do they...they do look at potential penalties....hence the difference

It's really not me that's trying to convince myself of anything here mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There wasn't a potential penalty. There was a foul given. Rangers opted to ignore it and play on

comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 13 minutes ago
A lot of chat here when it’s a simple fact we should have had a penalty. Wasn’t given, we’ll make some noicse, Connor to get the sack, then move on.

Actually thought Neil Lennon was good on the commentary yesterday, based on pre-match was thinking he’d be annoying. But he talked through the game and his thoughts on midfield battle, shape etc very well
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Connor? He was only the assistant VAR. Muir was the VAR ref.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sack him then too

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Changing my name from My POV - but not decided... (U10636)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 13 minutes ago
A lot of chat here when it’s a simple fact we should have had a penalty. Wasn’t given, we’ll make some noicse, Connor to get the sack, then move on.

Actually thought Neil Lennon was good on the commentary yesterday, based on pre-match was thinking he’d be annoying. But he talked through the game and his thoughts on midfield battle, shape etc very well
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Connor? He was only the assistant VAR. Muir was the VAR ref.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sack him then too
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Agree

Sack everyone. It is everyone elses fault.

Clement must stay