Opinions of a neutral

[portobellojambo1]

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.

 

And in the opinion of virtually every Sunday paper in Scotland, his handling of the game yesterday has been almost universally condemned by every journalist writing a report on the game.

 

However, if you think we should just accept it was a mistake or mistakes, and these things happen all the time and other teams get as many dodgy decisions against the OF as they get given for them, or perhaps we go on the basis we lost yesterday because of Eggert Jonsson's defending (defending he wouldn't have had to do if the free kick, which you admit wasn't, hadn't been given), and let it lie there. In fact in future OF matches we should just phone them in advance and ask them what they would like the final score to be given as, and not bother playing.

[shaun.lawson]

And in the opinion of virtually every Sunday paper in Scotland, his handling of the game yesterday has been almost universally condemned by every journalist writing a report on the game.

 

However, if you think we should just accept it was a mistake or mistakes, and these things happen all the time and other teams get as many dodgy decisions against the OF as they get given for them, or perhaps we go on the basis we lost yesterday because of Eggert Jonsson's defending (defending he wouldn't have had to do if the free kick, which you admit wasn't, hadn't been given), and let it lie there. In fact in future OF matches we should just phone them in advance and ask them what they would like the final score to be given as, and not bother playing.

 

The final score was Heart of Midlothian 1-2 Rangers, and was our responsibility. It could've been 1-1, or 2-1 to us, or even 3-1 to us. Or it could've been 1-3 or 1-4 on the chances they had.

 

Is this article below an example of Craig Thomson's handling of the game being "condemned"?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/02/hearts-rangers-spl

 

Bear in mind that the writer is a Hearts fan, and one of the best Scottish football writers around.

[The Mighty Thor]

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

 

You actually gave the following examples all of which are based around your opinion and your natural Hearts bias;

 

Elliot going clean through and brought down no free kick no red card - in your opinion an offence a view not shared by the referee. A bad decision or proof positive of bias?

Barr yellow - a rugby tackle - definite yellow

Black yellow - definite yellow. Cynical. could have been a red on another day.

Naismith dives bought everytime - again in your opinion, not shared by the referee. Suso falls on his arse every two minutes.

Davis deliberate handball during a rangers advantage no foul no yellow, play on. - i'm struggling to place this one at all. I'll need to see the highlights and can't fairly comment.

Weiss taking a free kick to himself play on - agreed. should have been pulled back. Definite evidence of bias IMO.

McGregor we'll change the rules and allow a goal kick to be taken whilst theres at least six players in the box - how many times have you seen this happen in a game? Bias? Really?

Jason thomson one foul one yellow - i agreed earlier. Harsh. but not an example of bias IMO

Naismiths dissent after every foul no yellow. Bias? Black yaps after every decision as did Stewart last season. Is that concrete proof of bias?

 

It's hardly a litany of bias & corruption is it?

 

Anyways back to the debate

 

 

As i've pointed out to you several times already and which you don't seem to be able or willing to accept, I don't see them beacuse i don't think they exist. You see them everywhere because you're looking for them.

 

Allow me to reiterate for you in case you missed it, I do not think there are decisions which are deliberately biased against Hearts as part of an anti-Hearts or pro-OF agenda. Not one of the examples above are.

 

Referees make decisions. Some go for you, 12 in our case yesterday, and some go against you, 20 in our case yesterday. I do not for one minute believe match official Craig Thomson thought 'If i give a free-kick here in the 94th minute Naismith will run up the park and grab the winner'

 

So to summarise and to save the bandwidth of you asking me again, I do not think there are decisions which are deliberately biased against Hearts as part of an anti-Hearts or pro-OF agenda.

[Guest John Meurig Thomas]

Ian Black's tackle not getting a red card, and Kenny Miller having a penalty turned down (when clearly fouled in the box) really sinks this conspiracy malarky.

 

Let's not let that get in the way, though..

[Seymour M Hersh]

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

 

There, fixed.

[shaun.lawson]

Ian Black's tackle not getting a red card, and Kenny Miller having a penalty turned down (when clearly fouled in the box) really sinks this conspiracy malarky.

 

Let's not let that get in the way, though..

 

As does what resulted from a fantastic save by Kello. Referee's decision? Goal kick. Disgraceful cheating by the ref eh?

[JamboRossi79]

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?

I must have misread the score yesterday as 2-1 to Rankgers

[Jambos1983]

TheBig_A, on 03 October 2010 - 05:56 PM, said:

 

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

 

 

 

You actually gave the following examples all of which are based around your opinion and your natural Hearts bias;

 

Elliot going clean through and brought down no free kick no red card - in your opinion an offence a view not shared by the referee. A bad decision or proof positive of bias?

Barr yellow - a rugby tackle - definite yellow

Black yellow - definite yellow. Cynical. could have been a red on another day.

Naismith dives bought everytime - again in your opinion, not shared by the referee. Suso falls on his arse every two minutes.

Davis deliberate handball during a rangers advantage no foul no yellow, play on. - i'm struggling to place this one at all. I'll need to see the highlights and can't fairly comment.

Weiss taking a free kick to himself play on - agreed. should have been pulled back. Definite evidence of bias IMO.

McGregor we'll change the rules and allow a goal kick to be taken whilst theres at least six players in the box - how many times have you seen this happen in a game? Bias? Really?

Jason thomson one foul one yellow - i agreed earlier. Harsh. but not an example of bias IMO

Naismiths dissent after every foul no yellow. Bias? Black yaps after every decision as did Stewart last season. Is that concrete proof of bias?

 

 

It's hardly a litany of bias & corruption is it?

 

 

Anyways back to the debate

 

 

 

As i've pointed out to you several times already and which you don't seem to be able or willing to accept, I don't see them beacuse i don't think they exist. You see them everywhere because you're looking for them.

 

 

Allow me to reiterate for you in case you missed it, I do not think there are decisions which are deliberately biased against Hearts as part of an anti-Hearts or pro-OF agenda. Not one of the examples above are.

 

 

Referees make decisions. Some go for you, 12 in our case yesterday, and some go against you, 20 in our case yesterday. I do not for one minute believe match official Craig Thomson thought 'If i give a free-kick here in the 94th minute Naismith will run up the park and grab the winner'

 

 

So to summarise and to save the bandwidth of you asking me again, I do not think there are decisions which are deliberately biased against Hearts as part of an anti-Hearts or pro-OF agenda.

 

 

 

 

You can't answer my question can you. Give me examples of even something like the Andy Davis incident against the old firm. Ignore everything else and just answer that,

[Acey]

Sorry, where's this "Weiss taking a free kick to himself" pish come from?

[Tommy Wiseau]

Sorry, where's this "Weiss taking a free kick to himself" pish come from?

 

 

I actually saw that incident as a free kick taken while the ball was in motion. They got a free kick, ball was still moving and Der Hun passed it to Weiss, who trotted off with on a run. Play continued because Thomson had seen the first touch by AN Other Hun as a legitimate free kick.

 

In general, I thought the ref was pish as they always are. My mate, who'd been sitting in a different part of the ground, thought he wasn't that bad, but that free kick decision at the end was a shocker. I think folk talking about Black's foul as a red are over-egging it - as clear a yellow as you'll ever see though. Getting players booked for their first foul, when said foul is pretty much innocuous and worse has gone unpunished by Rangers players, is a farce and I think that Rangers (as they tend to do) got a lot of that kind of benefit of the doubt where we don't.

 

It's too often in the SPL that the referee is a talking point after the game. They should go unnoticed much more than they do.

[The Mighty Thor]

You can't answer my question can you. Give me examples of even something like the Andy Davis incident against the old firm. Ignore everything else and just answer that,

 

 

Nah mate i can't. You've done me all ends up. You win. My inability to catalogue examples is a case closer.

 

It's all a big anti-Hearts pro-old firm conspiracy. (just like i said 3 hours ago in post 16)

[Back to 2005]

Ian Black's tackle not getting a red card, and Kenny Miller having a penalty turned down (when clearly fouled in the box) really sinks this conspiracy malarky.

 

Let's not let that get in the way, though..

Black's tackle is a yellow card in any league. Miller penalty claim was soft in the extreme although not many of us would have been surprised if it was given.

[Gambo]

Ian Black's tackle not getting a red card, and Kenny Miller having a penalty turned down (when clearly fouled in the box) really sinks this conspiracy malarky.

 

Let's not let that get in the way, though..

 

Miller was nowhere near being fouled in the box, he stood waiting on the ball whilst 2 Hearts men went to play the ball.

 

You talk about Black, but you fail to mention the shocking off the ball assault on Elliott by Bougherra that went unpunished.

 

What was Black to be red carded for? It was not last man, it was not a dangerous tackle, in fact he hardly touched the man...........a booking yes, but never anywhere near a red.

[heart of lothian]

Nah mate i can't. You've done me all ends up. You win. My inability to catalogue examples is a case closer.

 

It's all a big anti-Hearts pro-old firm conspiracy. (just like i said 3 hours ago in post 16)

 

The only decisions I have ever seen go for Hearts against the Old Firm were during the 98 cup final.

 

The inability of anyone to come up with any examples of things going against them both IS a case closer imo.

[jamboinglasgow]

Let me first say that we lost the game through two poor pieces of defending (one the wall not holding together and the second not stopping Naismith.) But the ref did have a shocker.

 

One thing that annoys me about referees in Scotland (not just Craig Thomson) is there inability to realise that small players can foul big players. Just watch Kevin Kyle in a match. The ref seems to make a concious decision before the match that any foul where he is there means that he is the one who is guilty. It almost smacks of laziness, the ref did not quite see it so just presumes it is the bigger player that caused the infringement.

[Pete Seeger]

Let me first say that we lost the game through two poor pieces of defending (one the wall not holding together and the second not stopping Naismith.) But the ref did have a shocker.

 

One thing that annoys me about referees in Scotland (not just Craig Thomson) is there inability to realise that small players can foul big players. Just watch Kevin Kyle in a match. The ref seems to make a concious decision before the match that any foul where he is there means that he is the one who is guilty. It almost smacks of laziness, the ref did not quite see it so just presumes it is the bigger player that caused the infringement.

 

I agree with this. I think this is a major reason why Nade failed with us. Obviously there were other issues but he wasn't ever given a fair chance by the officials.

[Getintaethem]

The ref at the Aberdeen v Inverness had a shocker too judging by the highlights. Europes worst refs.

[Pistol1874]

The only decisions I have ever seen go for Hearts against the Old Firm were during the 98 cup final.

 

The inability of anyone to come up with any examples of things going against them both IS a case closer imo.

Without reading the entire thread, we did get a throw-in during the 91-92 season at Ibrox that was clearly theirs. No bias IMO.

[Robbo 75]

Ive read the most of this and clearly the one major point to be missed until it had been poseted above which is Bougherra cyniclly taking out elliot off the ball, that IS a straight red and happened while we were at 0-0, now if they had gone down to ten men would ANY of the later desicions happened or would we have had so much upper hand 95 mins wouldve still seen us being 2 or 3 up having played 10 men for about 80 mins?

[bajthejambo]

There seems to be an acceptance for some on here that five minutes were justified as time added on. As there were only four substitutions and very few stoppages, I find this remarkable.

[shaun.lawson]

There seems to be an acceptance for some on here that five minutes were justified as time added on. As there were only four substitutions and very few stoppages, I find this remarkable.

 

Four subs = 2 mins. Physio on a couple of times = 2 mins. And in any game, if there were no subs and no need for the physio, would you expect the fourth official to put up his board saying "0" at the end?

 

As others have said, if a mistake was made, it was actually in Thomson not playing on for longer, largely because Rangers' celebrations took at least a minute.

[bajthejambo]

Four subs = 2 mins. Physio on a couple of times = 2 mins. And in any game, if there were no subs and no need for the physio, would you expect the fourth official to put up his board saying "0" at the end?

 

As others have said, if a mistake was made, it was actually in Thomson not playing on for longer, largely because Rangers' celebrations took at least a minute.

 

I'll take your word for that part in bold. I never had the stop watch out, but going on your posts you strike me as the kind of person who probably does that sort of thing. As for the question, I have watched numerous matches where, in the first half certainly, there has been no additional time.

 

EDIT - Ps If there had been no substitutions and the board went up for three minutes of additional time would everyone have thought that acceptable? I somehow doubt it.

[shaun.lawson]

I'll take your word for that part in bold. I never had the stop watch out, but going on your posts you strike me as the kind of person who probably does that sort of thing. As for the question, I have watched numerous matches where, in the first half certainly, there has been no additional time.

 

EDIT - Ps If there had been no substitutions and the board went up for three minutes of additional time would everyone have thought that acceptable? I somehow doubt it.

 

Yes - because additional time is added on for stoppages in play. Even a few seconds counts towards the total. Invariably nowadays, one minute is added on at the end of the first half; and generally four, sometimes five, sometimes three minutes (across football, it seems to have gone up one minute over the last few seasons) is added on at the end of the second half.

 

And the daft thing about this debate? It's not even as though Rangers scored right at the end of the five minutes. They scored in the 94th minute - and four is totally normal now at most games, not least one with four subs and a couple of delays for the physio.

[bajthejambo]

Yes - because additional time is added on for stoppages in play. Even a few seconds counts towards the total. Invariably nowadays, one minute is added on at the end of the first half; and generally four, sometimes five, sometimes three minutes (across football, it seems to have gone up one minute over the last few seasons) is added on at the end of the second half.

 

And the daft thing about this debate? It's not even as though Rangers scored right at the end of the five minutes. They scored in the 94th minute - and four is totally normal now at most games, not least one with four subs and a couple of delays for the physio.

 

I know why time is added on. I just don't think that there was three minutes worth on top of the substitutions. In most instances when five minutes are added, both teams have used all their subs.

 

I take you point about the relevance of this debate in relation to the timing of their goal. It was at 93:30 I believe?

[shaun.lawson]

I know why time is added on. I just don't think that there was three minutes worth on top of the substitutions. In most instances when five minutes are added, both teams have used all their subs.

 

I take you point about the relevance of this debate in relation to the timing of their goal. It was at 93:30 I believe?

 

Yes, that's correct.

[bajthejambo]

Yes, that's correct.

 

In any case I believe that with Rangers equalising and really pushing for the winner, the fourth official awarded them ample time to do so. If we had scored around the time Rangers had to go to 2-0 up, I doubt there would have been as much time added on. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the way it is.

[albishop]

It's the subtle decisions that the OF get that irritate me most, more so than the major talking points on here.

 

If any players outside the OF consistently talked to the ref the way that Davie Weir and company do then they would be carded without batting an eyelid. Rangers and Celtic players get away with murder on this front. It's almost accepted by the refs.

 

The little fouls or 50/50's that seem to go in their favour in most circumstances, the throw in's and most certainly, the early yellow cards for opposing players that put them on a tightrope for the remainder of the game that subtly sway the game. It takes a lot more for an OF player to get carded than a non OF player. Now if you add this up across the season, it starts to weaken the non OF teams, where as the OF can continue playing longer with an already stronger squad. Referee's have previously stated that they handle an OF derby differently than any other - is this fair and reasonable to the other teams?

 

I think we are on a shorter leash than most, but I believe that it's not just us that are getting the shitty end of the stick.

[Neon]

Rangers are cheating arseholes who constantly have players griping at the referee - if its not Naismith its Weir if not Weir then its Kenny Miller.

 

Then they have Lafferty, McCulloch and McGregor some of the dirtiest players I have seen - who get away with murder.

 

Is there a conspiracy against Hearts - sure there is, along with every other club outwith the gruesome twosome..... Is the conspiracy deliberate (unsure) - I believe it mostly due to be peer pressure on the referees to just accept that any 50/50s will go to the OF.

 

However even decisions that are clearly wrong like the whole Davis scandal are not investigated, further fuelling the flames of conspiracy theorists.

 

Hearts fans feel aggrieved and rightly so that decisions such as Zali vs Lee Miller incidents are not looked at when appealed, Goals Chalked off, penalty decisions turned around all add to our frustration and belief that we are being victimised.

The players themselves dont help us out much with silly bookings and added fines each season - again adding to a JKB thread every year about whether the fine was just.

 

So I believe that because of the above we scrutinise referees even more closely, so when an honest mistake does happen its automatically because we are Hearts.

Mistakes happen remember Les Mortram giving a goal kick after the ball went into the net and out a gap at the back (think D UTD vs Motherwell).

If that happened to us he would be strung up in the carpark.

 

SPL dont help by giving the ref the final say in any ludicrous decisions they make during the match.

 

Its not acceptable and some decisions disgust me, cant see that its going to change anytime soon.

 

 

EDIT* Les Mottram, Partick Thistle v Dundee United, 1993

 

Dundee Utd scored a perfectly legitimate goal from a corner after Paddy Connolly had blasted home from close range. What makes this particular goal all the more remarkable is that a defender picked up the ball, handed it to the goalkeeper Andy Murdoch, who punted it upfield in that annoyed way that only 'keepers do after having conceded a goal. Unbelievably, Mottram nor his assistant spot the goal, or the handball, and wave play on.

 

Heres a link to the telegraph report has a video on there from youtube of the incident.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/england/7857901/England-v-Germany-top-five-worst-goal-line-decisions.html

[Charlie-Brown]

Ok so Naismith should have been sent off in the 35TH minute after giving Rangers a 2-1 lead. Rangers would still have won the game 2-1.

 

I'm not saying the ref is immune from criticism. I've already said i don't think he's a particularly good referee.

 

What's going to be brushed under the carpet? We got beat.

 

I've corrected your post Thor, Naismith's bookoing on Obua might have been deemed reckless enough for a red card by some referee's however he also escaped an equally deserved booking ten minutes earlier when he blatantly bundled over C.Elliot stopping a Hearts attack then also managed to stamp in Clum which is reckless enough to get a yellow card on it's own ... given that Jonsson, J.Thomson, Black and Barr were given deserved yellow cards for deliberate fouling then it's is inconceivable that Naismith, Weir & Bougherra didn't also get given yellow cards for fouls on Elliot before 30 minutes had been played given their challenges were equally as bad or worse than some of the challenges Hearts players were booked for.

 

We didn't lose because of the referee however the referee also didn't referee the game fairly or equally for if he had the guy that scored the winner wouldn't even have been on the pitch until half time and both Rangers centre back would have been yellow carded inside 20 minutes .... I think that might hatve altered the complexion of the game slightly don't you?

 

The bias in scottish football is by individuals (match officials, administrators, media, agents) who act and make decisions in favour of their supported club - the majority of these people favour one or other Old Firm team, there is not a level playing field in this country and an accummulation of small and major decisions going the Old Firm's way simply helps to cement the already massive advantages they have however it also can have a big negative impact on other teams and their players over a season.

[Spellczech]

I also took a mate to the game yesterday (his third Hearts game so he is beginning to become a proper Jambo!). He is a Gooner and his view of the game was that the referee was shocking....

 

I could go through each of the decisions but i think by and large he agreed with my view that Crag Thompson was shocking (i'll leave it to others to decide whether its incompetence or corruption - all I'll say is why we do we see these decisions when we play the old firm and it seems to me Rangers in particular....)

 

One final note on the referee, no one seems to have mentioned Bougherra's foul on Elliot in the first half - the referee and linesman gave nowt and it was arguable Elliot might have been through on goal - all be it from 30 or so yards out....

 

Could be something to do with the refs referring to the Rangers managers at Academy sessions as "Walter" and every other manager is called by their surname... (that's straight from a junior ref)