Opinions of a neutral

[The Mighty Thor]

EH????? Davis put his hand on the ball to take a free kick? Barr was a definite yellow yes, black was definite yellow and foul yet when elliot was halved in the first half not even a free kick was given when he would have been clean through. Why dont we get "mistakes" like the weiss one, why arent we allowed to take goal kicks with players in our box (albeit not a huge decision but it still allowed them to start an attack when they shouldnt have been allowed to)? Why are our players like thomson booked for one foul yet rangers players arent? You say my examples can be countered i'm all ears. Another one simple things like a throw in in the second half thomson looked to his assistant to see which way it should go, assistant had no idea result yep rangers throw

 

We're going round in circles. You think it's all bias towards Rangers and anti-Hearts conspiracy and I don't.

 

We will get decisions against us, it happens to every single team in the league, we will also get decisions in our favour. That's what happens.

 

Bottom line is the wall could and should have been set up better for Rangers first goal and Jonsson lost his man for the second. Eliminate the mistakes which cost the goals and all the stuff you higlighted above means nothing as the three points are in the bag.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Bearing in mind this is so blindingly obvious to everyone, it should be easy for you to prove it. So, prove it. Why hasn't anyone managed to so far?

 

NB. When a country's biggest clubs seem to receive more than their fair share of 50-50 calls, that's no evidence of corruption at all; merely human error under pressure. Said human error goes on all over the world. Throughout their period of dominance, your English club benefited from it all the time. Funny how English football wasn't closed down for being "bent", then, wasn't it?

 

What absolute rot you write at times. So you genuinely believe it's a level playing field in Scotland (try and leave England out the thread Yawn) and always has been? If you really believe that then you are more deluded than the most deluded hobo out there.

[shaun.lawson]

What absolute rot you write at times. So you genuinely believe it's a level playing field in Scotland (try and leave England out the thread Yawn) and always has been? If you really believe that then you are more deluded than the most deluded hobo out there.

 

Prove it. You're the one making the claim; I'm just asking you to prove it. Because I'm such a helpful sort, I even made a suggestion in post 94 as to how it could be proved.

[Jambos1983]

We're going round in circles. You think it's all bias towards Rangers and anti-Hearts conspiracy and I don't.

 

We will get decisions against us, it happens to every single team in the league, we will also get decisions in our favour. That's what happens.

 

Bottom line is the wall could and should have been set up better for Rangers first goal and Jonsson lost his man for the second. Eliminate the mistakes which cost the goals and all the stuff you higlighted above means nothing as the three points are in the bag.

 

I dont think theres an anti hearts agenda. I do think there's a pro old firm bias and i've given examples to support this. What I would like is similar and as many examples against the old firm in our favour and i'll happily admit defeat. I'm struggling to think of any though. I could name lots more in their favour

[Jambof3tornado]

You assume that some Hearts fans are hapy with it but then recognise that there's nothing can change the result. I'm not happy about it at all. What i'm also unhappy about is that every facet of yesterday's game is forgotten because Craig Thomson gave a 50/50 decision against Hearts and from the resultant passage of play Eggert Jonsson lost his man who then scored to win Rangers the game.

 

Now what lost us the game? Thomson's decision or Jonsson's marking?

 

Only once we get past blaming everything other than the individual error will we ever be able to see the shortcomings that cost us points in the big games.

 

Incidentally i'm not trying to crucify Jonsson either, he lost concentration and it cost us 3 points. Simple.

It cost us 1 point not 3 as we were drawing at the time!

[Seymour M Hersh]

Prove it. You're the one making the claim; I'm just asking you to prove it. Because I'm such a helpful sort, I even made a suggestion in post 94 as to how it could be proved.

 

Then you prove it oh omnipotent one!

[Thunderstruck]

Focussing on the 94th minute free kick is missing the point. Yes, it was incorrect and, yes, it could have been better defended but it wasn't where the difference was made.

 

I would offer the opinion that the referee's treatment of Naismith was the clearest sign of bias; he got himself booked and thereafter disappeared behind some Klingon cloaking device as far as the ref was concerned. Naismith committed one foul that was bookable and then proceeded to stamp on Jonsson - possibly a red in it's own right. Naismith was their most effective player and the loss of him would have blunted their efforts. If anyone can convince themselves that Jonsson, Black or any Hearts player would have got away with what he got up to, they are watching something completely different to the vast majority of Hearts fans.

[Jambos1983]

Focussing on the 94th minute free kick is missing the point. Yes, it was incorrect and, yes, it could have been better defended but it wasn't where the difference was made.

 

I would offer the opinion that the referee's treatment of Naismith was the clearest sign of bias; he got himself booked and thereafter disappeared behind some Klingon cloaking device as far as the ref was concerned. Naismith committed one foul that was bookable and then proceeded to stamp on Jonsson - possibly a red in it's own right. Naismith was their most effective player and the loss of him would have blunted their efforts. If anyone can convince themselves that Jonsson, Black or any Hearts player would have got away with what he got up to, they are watching something completely different to the vast majority of Hearts fans.

 

Exactly my point. Theres so many examples of decisions in the old firms favour yet if you ask someone to name as many against them there is little if any. Why?

[The Mighty Thor]

I dont think theres an anti hearts agenda. I do think there's a pro old firm bias and i've given examples to support this. What I would like is similar and as many examples against the old firm in our favour and i'll happily admit defeat. I'm struggling to think of any though. I could name lots more in their favour

 

As a Hearts supporter do you think you view every decision objectively? Either against the OF or any other team? I don't. If there was a game where there was 100 refereeing decisions and 50 went for us and 50 against i'd walk out Tynie saying we were hard done by. That's because I support Hearts and am therefore not totally objective.

 

You know why we normally get beat from the OF? They have better teams and better players. No other reason.

 

You want to know where all this paranoia gets us? Search back to the day of the Celtic game and look at the threads there. 2 offside goals, OF bias & corruption etc etc. TV highlights go up and lo and behold both goals are good.

[Guest John Meurig Thomas]

Then you prove it oh omnipotent one!

 

That's not how it works. If you make the claim, it's your job to prove it.

 

 

A rubbish example would be that it's not an atheist's job to prove the existence of God.

[The Mighty Thor]

It cost us 1 point not 3 as we were drawing at the time!

 

Nah mate you're wrong. The first goal wouldn't have counted because the ref was setting the wall or something (maybe if he had set the wall there wouldn't have been a 3 yard gap at the side)

 

Keep up with the thread man!

[portobellojambo1]

 

I've admitted that it wasn't a foul. But Hearts fans blaming that decision for the defeat are talking pish.

 

 

The above seems a touch confusing Shaun. You are admitting it wasn't a free kick, therefore should never had been given as free kick. From that free kick Rangers scored the winning goal, but you say people blaiming the decision to award that free kick as the reason we ended up losing are talking pish.

 

The winning goal came from a free kick that shouldn't have been, all that went before that is irrelevant, because regardless of how much pressure they had, how much defending we had done the score prior to the free kick being awarded was still 1-1. Do you think if the free kick hadn't been awarded and Rangers hadn't therefore scored an additional goal the score would still have been recorded as 2-1 Rangers.

 

If the answer is "no, it would have been recorded as 1-1", then the award of a free kick that wasn't did result in us losing, so it ain't pish, it's fact.

[shaun.lawson]

Then you prove it oh omnipotent one!

 

I'm asking those making the statement to prove it. If it's so obvious, it can't be difficult to do so. It's a strange kind of world in which the court asks not the prosecution, but either the defence or the presiding judge, to prove the prosecution's case!

 

You'll accuse me of going off at a tangent again now, but there is a point to what I'm about to say. During Liverpool's heyday, or Man Utd's subsequent domination, fans of opposing clubs would think it was quite incredible how many decisions both clubs would enjoy. But again: it was no evidence of anything corrupt, merely something that goes in in every single league throughout the world. And fans of other clubs would zero in on decision after decision after decision, ignore any dubious calls their team received, and try to claim it as proof of corruption when all they were doing was not proving fact, but attempting to justify their opinion.

 

Fans of Liverpool or Man Utd would say it was just jealousy; they couldn't see what others were getting at at all. In Scotland, fans of Rangers would be exactly the same now; so too, on the many occasions their team benefit, would fans of Celtic. All fans turn a blind eye to calls their team get (often because they literally can't even see it); all fans think the ref is against their team; many fans believe in conspiracies. It's a theme amongst fans throughout the world. That ******-up is almost always the more sensible explanation - in life, in football - perennially goes right over their heads.

[shaun.lawson]

The above seems a touch confusing Shaun. You are admitting it wasn't a free kick, therefore should never had been given as free kick. From that free kick Rangers scored the winning goal, but you say people blaiming the decision to award that free kick as the reason we ended up losing are talking pish.

 

The winning goal came from a free kick that shouldn't have been, all that went before that is irrelevant, because regardless of how much pressure they had, how much defending we had done the score prior to the free kick being awarded was still 1-1. Do you think if the free kick hadn't been awarded and Rangers hadn't therefore scored an additional goal the score would still have been recorded as 2-1 Rangers.

 

If the answer is "no, it would have been recorded as 1-1", then the award of a free kick that wasn't did result in us losing, so it ain't pish, it's fact.

 

I'm admitting it wasn't a free kick. I'm saying it should still have been defended anyway.

 

Throughout football, if you rewind an incident to the ref's last whistle, how many goals are scored at some point after a refereeing mistake? There must be tons and tons of them. Yesterday, you described such an incident as "cheating" - but if clubs routinely blamed defeats on such incidents, they'd be laughed out of court. You don't even know that Rangers wouldn't still have got back up our end and scored had the ref just waved play on!

[Boof]

Shaun, I'll try explaining this to you, as some others don't seem to understand this, you may or may not. It doesn't matter a fecking scooby doo how much you are outplayed in a match, that isn't taken into account, you don't get bonus points for having most possession or playing "pretty" football (that is thinking typical of the Hibs persuasion).

 

At the point the free kick was given the scoreline was 1-1, despite all the additional possession they'd had, despite the attempts that struck woodwork or were saved the score was still 1-1, because those playing in defensive positions and in goal for Hearts had done their jobs very, very well. Defensive football isn't my cup of tea, but if you perform it well it deserves a result.

 

The Craig Thomson incident wasn't a free kick, wasn't even close to a free kick. From that free kick Craig Thomson (Hearts) was out of position, there was a huge gap behind him because no one expected the ball to come back that way so quick because we were on the offensive. As a result of the referee giving the free kick they scored. That, no matter how some want to dress it up, was the deciding moment of the match, otherwise the game would have finished 1-1.

 

Saved me from typing it PJ - that's precisely the way I see it and can't fathom how others don't.

[Tiberius Stinkfinger]

I mentioned your stance on Hartley (for whom you apparently have so little respect, you clearly don't think he can make his own mind up about something) because of your comical attack on me. You know - that I "seem to prefer Motherwell and Dundee United", when I had the nerve, the sheer shame, to, er, point out examples which show Hearts aren't victims of a conspiracy against us. Disgraceful behaviour; I really should know my place. When people discuss conspiracies, it should just be accepted without discussion. Everyone knows that.

 

I've admitted that it wasn't a foul. But Hearts fans blaming that decision for the defeat are talking pish. Funnily enough, your stance after the World Cup semi-final was that Uruguay fans blaming the foul not given three seconds before Van Bronckhorst's goal for their team's defeat were also talking pish. Uruguay were outplayed that day, and you were right; it's just that you're incapable of being consistent.

 

Its getting near that time of year when you really should think about actually going to see a football match instead of spouting pish Snoreson.

 

For your information, the officials were honking yesterday and contributed to the result.

 

What is sad about the whole debate and something that is constantly missed on threads like these is what must the players think ?

It must be awful knowing all week that you have a game coming up that is going to attract the TV cameras, a good vocal crowd and very little or no chance of winning and that your main target is to actually stay on the pitch for the full 90 minutes.

 

It must be pretty easy for oppostion managers to plan for games against us...."soak up a bit of pressure, weather the storm early on and come the second half they won't be allowed to tackle you, better still a few will get sent off"..

 

Its bad enough having to witness the Witch hunt against our players without having to come on here to read about Yawn Snoreson telling me its all in my mind and that I must be Sellic minded........

 

 

Cranial explosion imminent...........

[The Mighty Thor]

The above seems a touch confusing Shaun. You are admitting it wasn't a free kick, therefore should never had been given as free kick. From that free kick Rangers scored the winning goal, but you say people blaiming the decision to award that free kick as the reason we ended up losing are talking pish.

 

The winning goal came from a free kick that shouldn't have been, all that went before that is irrelevant, because regardless of how much pressure they had, how much defending we had done the score prior to the free kick being awarded was still 1-1. Do you think if the free kick hadn't been awarded and Rangers hadn't therefore scored an additional goal the score would still have been recorded as 2-1 Rangers.

 

If the answer is "no, it would have been recorded as 1-1", then the award of a free kick that wasn't did result in us losing, so it ain't pish, it's fact.

 

And who is to say that had the free kick not been given the ball may have gone back to McGregor who could then have launched it upfield with the same outcome of a Naismith goal or indeed Thomson had beat Papac to the ball the ref waves play on and it's crossed for Kyle to score? it's all very much 'if my Auntie had baws'

 

What did happen was the freekick was given, Hearts fell asleep and it was game over. Poor defending not refereeing decision. Craig Thomson (referee) didn't let Naismith get past him Eggert Jonsson did.

[shaun.lawson]

Its getting near that time of year when you really should think about actually going to see a football match instead of spouting pish Snoreson.

 

For your information, the officials were honking yesterday and contributed to the result.

 

What is sad about the whole debate and something that is constantly missed on threads like these is what must the players think ?

It must be awful knowing all week that you have a game coming up that is going to attract the TV cameras, a good vocal crowd and very little or no chance of winning and that your main target is to actually stay on the pitch for the full 90 minutes.

 

It must be pretty easy for oppostion managers to plan for games against us...."soak up a bit of pressure, weather the storm early on and come the second half they won't be allowed to tackle you, better still a few will get sent off"..

 

Its bad enough having to witness the Witch hunt against our players without having to come on here to read about Yawn Snoreson telling me its all in my mind and that I must be Sellic minded........

 

 

Cranial explosion imminent...........

 

Good question - someone should ask some of them. But then again, if players have been told there's a conspiracy against them, they're more likely to go around looking for one, then actively use it as an excuse for switching off and losing the game.

[Seymour M Hersh]

That's not how it works. If you make the claim, it's your job to prove it.

 

 

A rubbish example would be that it's not an atheist's job to prove the existence of God.

 

I was only suggesting he do it as he's the man with the plan. I would not know how to prove it tbh. But just because I can't does not mean it ain't happening. JMT do you think the SPL is a level playingfield and above reproach?

[Jambos1983]

As a Hearts supporter do you think you view every decision objectively? Either against the OF or any other team? I don't. If there was a game where there was 100 refereeing decisions and 50 went for us and 50 against i'd walk out Tynie saying we were hard done by. That's because I support Hearts and am therefore not totally objective.

 

You know why we normally get beat from the OF? They have better teams and better players. No other reason.

 

You want to know where all this paranoia gets us? Search back to the day of the Celtic game and look at the threads there. 2 offside goals, OF bias & corruption etc etc. TV highlights go up and lo and behold both goals are good.

 

I absolutely agree thats why they normally beat us. As i've already said they deserved to win. I dont think we lost because of the ref. I dont think anyone would claim we're the same quality as the old firm all everyone wants is a fair crack of the whip when it comes to refereeing. As I say give me plenty examples of decisions against the old firm and i'll admit i'm wrong.

[Therapist]

What did happen was the freekick was given, Hearts fell asleep and it was game over. Poor defending not refereeing decision. Craig Thomson (referee) didn't let Naismith get past him Eggert Jonsson did.

 

Spot on. We were always riding our luck after going a goal ahead. The goals we let in were OUR FAULT. Let's leave the victim stuff to the tims.

[Gambo]

Iremember being at a meeting with Campbell OgIlvie when he said something along the lines of.............................when at Rangers he thought the west coast bias accusations was just other teams greeting cause they got beat, but after coming to the Hearts he had his eyes opened.

[shaun.lawson]

Nah mate you're wrong. The first goal wouldn't have counted because the ref was setting the wall or something (maybe if he had set the wall there wouldn't have been a 3 yard gap at the side)

 

Keep up with the thread man!

 

Wasn't there some talk some years back about Vlad putting together an alternative league table, minus all the decisions the OF had received? Sounds like a plan. The SPL flag will be flying at Tynecastle before we know it.

[The Mighty Thor]

I absolutely agree thats why they normally beat us. As i've already said they deserved to win. I dont think we lost because of the ref. I dont think anyone would claim we're the same quality as the old firm all everyone wants is a fair crack of the whip when it comes to refereeing. As I say give me plenty examples of decisions against the old firm and i'll admit i'm wrong.

 

And i'm saying you won't see them because you're convinced there aren't any. As a Hearts supporter you won't sit there and say hang on a minute that was a freekick to Rangers what's Thomson/Brines/whoever playing at giving it to Hearts. Maroon blindness. We all have it.

[jambovambo]

In reply to a poster a couple of pages back, just because Hearts deserved to lose, doesn't mean it has to be so.

 

I have to say I cannot imagine 5 mins time being added if it had been Hearts who had just equalised ...

[shaun.lawson]

Iremember being at a meeting with Campbell OgIlvie when he said something along the lines of.............................when at Rangers he thought the west coast bias accusations was just other teams greeting cause they got beat, but after coming to the Hearts he had his eyes opened.

 

Which is interesting. Players or managers who've been with the OF, then somewhere else (Terry Butcher, for example) are much the same. But in both cases, it's just human nature, and no proof of anything at all in either direction.

[shaun.lawson]

And i'm saying you won't see them because you're convinced there aren't any. As a Hearts supporter you won't sit there and say hang on a minute that was a freekick to Rangers what's Thomson/Brines/whoever playing at giving it to Hearts. Maroon blindness. We all have it.

 

 

Exactly.

[Stampy]

We got beat off the best team in Scotland by a last minute goal. We had chances to score and win but we didnt. Thats it really. We looked solid enough to deal with most teams in the league. Keep it up we will be fine.

 

Lets move on.

[Jambos1983]

And i'm saying you won't see them because you're convinced there aren't any. As a Hearts supporter you won't sit there and say hang on a minute that was a freekick to Rangers what's Thomson/Brines/whoever playing at giving it to Hearts. Maroon blindness. We all have it.

 

I'm asking for examples i dont get whats so difficult i've given examples to support my argument i'm asking you to give examples to support yours go for it. All i'm asking for is examples of dubious decisions agaisnt the old firm there must be loads if theres no old firm bias

[portobellojambo1]

I'm admitting it wasn't a free kick. I'm saying it should still have been defended anyway.

 

Throughout football, if you rewind an incident to the ref's last whistle, how many goals are scored at some point after a refereeing mistake? There must be tons and tons of them. Yesterday, you described such an incident as "cheating" - but if clubs routinely blamed defeats on such incidents, they'd be laughed out of court. You don't even know that Rangers wouldn't still have got back up our end and scored had the ref just waved play on!

 

But games aren't decided on what might have happened they are decided by what did happen.

 

You have admitted it wasn't a free kick, you indicate I referred to such a scenario yesterday as cheating, and within that context it is meant as cheating the team on the receiving end and their fans. I'd be interested in your interpretation, because I'm getting the impression what you are saying is that when a referee gives a free kick that isn't a free kick that isn't cheating it's something else. By failing to referee the game in line with the rules of the game the referee is therefore breaking those rules, he is, therefore, in my eyes cheating ( to meet what we'll call some other as yet unknown agenda).

 

Not a nice example to use this but say someone you knew put their car into a garage and as part of the subsequent service the brakes had to be done but the qualified car mechanic chose not to change them for some reason known only to him. This person you know subsequently dies as a result of crashing his car the next time he used it due to his brakes failing, because they hadn't been serviced properly. Would your reaction be that the car mechanic had made a mistake, had cheated, had caused the accident or would you describe it as he made a legitimate 50/50 call ( to meet some other unknown agenda)

[Jambos1983]

 

Exactly.

 

Try me go on give some examples of dubious decisions against the old firm

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Still seething about Urupish, Shaun.

 

[Tiberius Stinkfinger]

Good question - someone should ask some of them. But then again, if players have been told there's a conspiracy against them, they're more likely to go around looking for one, then actively use it as an excuse for switching off and losing the game.

 

You dont have to tell the players Yawn !!!

 

It is rather apparent at games when they are being booked for feck all and the opposition commit the same crime and get nothing.

 

The crowd tend to start Booing the officials and start to get rather agitated with every decision as well you know.

 

I cant even remember the amount of bookings yesterday but I know for a FACT that only Blacks and Barr's were justified, the rest were a joke.

But as usual entirely predictable.

This is not about one game Snoreson but just about every game.

 

There are rules for Hearts and rules for every other club.

[The Mighty Thor]

I'm asking for examples i dont get whats so difficult i've given examples to support my argument i'm asking you to give examples to support yours go for it. All i'm asking for is examples of dubious decisions agaisnt the old firm there must be loads if theres no old firm bias

 

You are misunderstanding me. It's all about your perception. I'm not seeing a bias either way so i'm not looking for dubious decisions. I didn't see the freekick against Thomson after 93 minutes as dubious. You're never going to get a large number against the OF anyway because as i've already pointed out OF teams dominate the league and the teams in it and don't rely on contentious decisions to win games. for example IIRC shots on target yesterday Rangers 10 Hearts 4. the possesion stats were heavily skewed in their favour too. you get the picture?

[shaun.lawson]

But games aren't decided on what might have happened they are decided by what did happen.

 

You have admitted it wasn't a free kick, you indicate I referred to such a scenario yesterday as cheating, and within that context it is meant as cheating the team on the receiving end and their fans. I'd be interested in your interpretation, because I'm getting the impression what you are saying is that when a referee gives a free kick that isn't a free kick that isn't cheating it's something else. By failing to referee the game in line with the rules of the game the referee is therefore breaking those rules, he is, therefore, in my eyes cheating ( to meet what we'll call some other as yet unknown agenda).

 

Not a nice example to use this but say someone you knew put their car into a garage and as part of the subsequent service the brakes had to be done but the qualified car mechanic chose not to change them for some reason known only to him. This person you know subsequently dies as a result of crashing his car the next time he used it due to his brakes failing, because they hadn't been serviced properly. Would your reaction be that the car mechanic had made a mistake, had cheated, had caused the accident or would you describe it as he made a legitimate 50/50 call ( to meet some other unknown agenda)

 

So any refereeing mistake of any kind anywhere on the pitch is "cheating"? Christ on a bike. I guess we don't need refs any more; we need machines. But machines aren't 100% foolproof at all times either...

 

It's not cheating. It's human error. And human error happens. In the example you mentioned, human error can occasionally lead to someone being killed; in which case, it'd be up to the authorities to determine whether that individual should or should not be prosecuted for criminal negligence. In yesterday's example, Rangers might still have scored had the error not happened; and Hearts could still have stopped Rangers scoring even after the error. It's just that we didn't.

[shaun.lawson]

Still seething about Urupish, Shaun.

 

 

See what I mean? Not capable of being consistent - or of conducting a serious debate about officiating. You're only bothered about officiating when a decision goes against the team you and I support; you couldn't care less when it happens to others, even if it happening to others (eg. Motherwell or Dundee United) destroys your case.

 

You dont have to tell the players Yawn !!!

 

There are rules for Hearts and rules for every other club.

 

Nonsense.

[davemclaren]

In the 80s Alex Ferguson used such paranoia in a positive way to motivate his team to create success against the OF. Pity we can't do the same.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

See what I mean? Not capable of being consistent - or of conducting a serious debate about officiating. You're only bothered about officiating when a decision goes against the team you and I support; you couldn't care less when it happens to others, even if it happening to others destroys your case.

 

Shaun, I remember at the time being pissed off because Uruguay blatantly cheated to get through to the semis but most of all, I was just trying to wind you up.

 

I couldn't give a shit what happens to other teams, you are spot on there. I pay good money to watch Hearts and I expect us to get a fair shot at it.

[Seymour M Hersh]

So any refereeing mistake of any kind anywhere on the pitch is "cheating"? Christ on a bike. I guess we don't need refs any more; we need machines. But machines aren't 100% foolproof of all times either...

It's not cheating. It's human error. And human error happens. In the example you mentioned, human error can occasionally lead to someone being killed; in which case, it'd be up to the authorities to determine whether that individual should or should not be prosecuted for criminal negligence. In yesterday's example, Rangers might still have scored had the error not happened; and Hearts could still have stopped Rangers scoring even after the error. It's just that we didn't.

 

Taken in isolation the free kick just before their winner might, just might be construed as "just a mistake". But, taken as a whole of how he managed the game it was favouritism/bias/cheating/fear. Take your pick.

[Jambos1983]

You are misunderstanding me. It's all about your perception. I'm not seeing a bias either way so i'm not looking for dubious decisions. I didn't see the freekick against Thomson after 93 minutes as dubious. You're never going to get a large number against the OF anyway because as i've already pointed out OF teams dominate the league and the teams in it and don't rely on contentious decisions to win games. for example IIRC shots on target yesterday Rangers 10 Hearts 4. the possesion stats were heavily skewed in their favour too. you get the picture?

 

So what you're saying is that decisions go both for and against the old firm. All i'm asking for is examples of these decision that have gone against them. Now surely if refereeing is fair there must be loads of examples even from yesterday that went against rangers. Why are you struggling to come up with any? Possesion and chances have heehaw to do with refereeing decisions

[shaun.lawson]

Shaun, I remember at the time being pissed off because Uruguay blatantly cheated to get through to the semis but most of all, I was just trying to wind you up.

 

I couldn't give a shit what happens to other teams, you are spot on there. I pay good money to watch Hearts and I expect us to get a fair shot at it.

 

And in that, you succeeded.

[Tiberius Stinkfinger]

See what I mean? Not capable of being consistent - or of conducting a serious debate about officiating. You're only bothered about officiating when a decision goes against the team you and I support; you couldn't care less when it happens to others, even if it happening to others (eg. Motherwell or Dundee United) destroys your case.

 

 

 

Nonsense.

 

 

"See what I mean? Not capable of being consistent - or of conducting a serious debate about officiating."

 

Like I said, its time you went to a few games !

[Guest John Meurig Thomas]

I was only suggesting he do it as he's the man with the plan. I would not know how to prove it tbh. But just because I can't does not mean it ain't happening. JMT do you think the SPL is a level playingfield and above reproach?

 

I think the referees are equally as shit to all clubs, yes.

[shaun.lawson]

Taken in isolation the free kick just before their winner might, just might be construed as "just a mistake". But, taken as a whole of how he managed the game it was favouritism/bias/cheating/fear. Take your pick.

 

In your opinion. My opinion of how he handled the game was that Naismith could've been sent off (but I wasn't sitting here seething that he wasn't), but beyond that, he was basically OK. Not brilliant, not good, but OK - and still probably the pick of a very bad bunch as far as Scottish refs are concerned.

[shaun.lawson]

"See what I mean? Not capable of being consistent - or of conducting a serious debate about officiating."

 

Like I said, its time you went to a few games !

 

I watched the whole of yesterday's game. I was gobsmacked when afterwards, it was used as yet more evidence of the conspiracy.

 

Two people will watch a football match and see completely different things. Such is life. I was sitting here expecting Rangers to get the winner; not because of the ref, but because we were being pushed back deeper and deeper and conceding good chance after good chance. Indeed, after only 35 minutes, Billy Brown said we would concede if we kept sitting deep. He was right.

[The Mighty Thor]

So what you're saying is that decisions go both for and against the old firm. All i'm asking for is examples of these decision that have gone against them. Now surely if refereeing is fair there must be loads of examples even from yesterday that went against rangers. Why are you struggling to come up with any? Possesion and chances have heehaw to do with refereeing decisions

 

What are you after mate? a full breakdown of every single refereeing decision from yesterday? So let me get this right. No decisions against Rangers at all equates to Old Firm bias? Well in that case your arguments fecked as Hearts got a lot of freekicks in the course of the game yesterday, therefore Craig Thomson by awarding Hearts one solitary freekick (we got 12 against the 20 they received) has proved that there is no pro-OF bias? Naismith got booked = no bias?

 

Again you're supposition is skewed by your Maroon tinted spectacles.

[Sergio Garcia]

Who cares what a York City fan thinks. Like his team, he is totally irrelevant.

 

I think the same about Norwich city fans as well.

[portobellojambo1]

Which is interesting. Players or managers who've been with the OF, then somewhere else (Terry Butcher, for example) are much the same. But in both cases, it's just human nature, and no proof of anything at all in either direction.

 

So now you are saying that despite the fact that former employees of the OF who don't notice bias while they are employed by the OF but actually understand it when they become employed by clubs who are victims of it cannot have their comments taken as evidence of proof. Rangers and Celtic fans say the exact same about fans of other clubs, because they only moan 4 times a season, when they are playing each other and if everything doesn't go their way (they know it will in almost every other game of the season).

 

Sometimes I think you take the stances you do because you view football in a manner where anyone suggesting that the game might not now be operated as was intended and might be governed/refereed by people with agendas/bias is just not on, it's just not the English way.

[shaun.lawson]

So now you are saying that despite the fact that former employees of the OF who don't notice bias while they are employed by the OF but actually understand it when they become employed by clubs who are victims of it cannot have their comments taken as evidence of proof. Rangers and Celtic fans say the exact same about fans of other clubs, because they only moan 4 times a season, when they are playing each other and if everything doesn't go their way (they know it will in almost every other game of the season).

 

Sometimes I think you take the stances you do because you view football in a manner where anyone suggesting that the game might not now be operated as was intended and might be governed/refereed by people with agendas/bias is just not on, it's just not the English way.

 

Incorrect. I'm utterly convinced that FIFA, for example, are as corrupt as the day is long; I'd even go further and describe FIFA as an international criminal organisation. But the SFA? I think the SFA are far too incompetent to be corrupt!

 

In terms of Campbell Ogilvie or Terry Butcher "actually understanding it" - on the contrary. It's merely that their perspective, and hence their opinion, was altered. Instead of viewing things through a Rangers perspective, they viewed them through a Hearts, Motherwell or ICT perspective instead. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

[Jambos1983]

What are you after mate? a full breakdown of every single refereeing decision from yesterday? So let me get this right. No decisions against Rangers at all equates to Old Firm bias? Well in that case your arguments fecked as Hearts got a lot of freekicks in the course of the game yesterday, therefore Craig Thomson by awarding Hearts one solitary freekick (we got 12 against the 20 they received) has proved that there is no pro-OF bias? Naismith got booked = no bias?

 

Again you're supposition is skewed by your Maroon tinted spectacles.

 

Easy i'll ask again. I've given examples of decisions that went in rangers favour that shouldnt have. I'm asking for examples that went in hearts favour that shouldnt have or alternatively from a wider point of view examples of decisions against the old firm that shouldnt have. Take it away. I'm willing to bet you are struggling to come up with them