Houston's post-match interview

[Horatio Caine]

Peter Houston's just been on Radio Scotland lambasting Dougie McDonald. Couldn't point to the spot quick enough ... a series of bad decisions..no point in speaking to him cos he won't listen etc etc

 

Claims DMcD's got a `thing` about Dundee Utd etc. Houston was Levein's assistant that famous day at Kilmarnock when CL got himself in big bother with the GFA after claiming he lost count of McDonald's wrong decisons after number 97. Houston I think is still remembering that.

 

Ayone else hear it?

[Deans Jambo]

Lennon also spluttered something about "decisions" going against them in the last 18 months!! He would probably have made more of it had they not won the game.

[Boof]

Sellik fans see any decision that favours Rangers - e.g. the bizarrely awarded free kick for Craig Thomson's 'high-feet' challenge that broke up a promising Hearts attack and led to Rangers' winning goal against us - as being against them. Bizarre, but true. They genuinely can't see how they get preferential treatment from the GFA refereeing society.

[Carl Spackler]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/9100198.stm

[DETTY29]

Sellik fans see any decision that favours Rangers - e.g. the bizarrely awarded free kick for Craig Thomson's 'high-feet' challenge that broke up a promising Hearts attack and led to Rangers' winning goal against us - as being against them. Bizarre, but true. They genuinely can't see how they get preferential treatment from the GFA refereeing society.

Boof,

 

I believe the Scottish heirachy and not treating everyone the same to be firmly Rangers first - the conduct of about a dozen of their players over the last 2 or 3 years has been disgraceful, with only laughing boy really getting what he deserves - Celtic a bit behind, then along way back to the rest.

 

But we, the rest and Celtic are very poor at articulating properly and using examples of where their is bias.

 

Any neutral being asked to interpret the Craig Thomson incident as anything other than a foul to Rangers would p!ss themselves laughing.

[Boof]

Any neutral being asked to interpret the Craig Thomson incident as anything other than a foul to Rangers would p!ss themselves laughing.

 

Did you think it was a foul for Rangers?

[harvey05]

Did you think it was a foul for Rangers?

 

Having spoken to an official re the incident he says that it was to do with the angle of the boot. Studs showing studs not showing. I haven't watched the incident again because quite frankly, whats the point?

[scottish_chicP]

Did you think it was a foul for Rangers?

 

 

That's what I read by that.

[Boof]

Me too - hence the incredulous smiley.

[johnjl]

Having spoken to an official re the incident he says that it was to do with the angle of the boot. Studs showing studs not showing. I haven't watched the incident again because quite frankly, whats the point?

Are you wille colum? The point would be to see if you are right or not.

[DETTY29]

Having spoken to an official re the incident he says that it was to do with the angle of the boot. Studs showing studs not showing. I haven't watched the incident again because quite frankly, whats the point?

Both feet were high, Papac led with his instep, CT wth his studs showing and back slightly turned.

 

A clear foul for Rangers.

[Boof]

Back slightly turned...where?

 

If his back was slightly turned to Papac, then how could his boot - studs showing or not - have constituted any danger to Papac?

 

That's how I remember the challenge - the studs may have been presented towards the ball, but there wasn't any player under any danger from them.

 

If my memory is faulty, so be it. I'll admit my error on this occasion.

[DETTY29]

Back slightly turned...where?

 

If his back was slightly turned to Papac, then how could his boot - studs showing or not - have constituted any danger to Papac?

 

That's how I remember the challenge - the studs may have been presented towards the ball, but there wasn't any player under any danger from them.

 

If my memory is faulty, so be it. I'll admit my error on this occasion.

Boof

 

I can assure you that while CT got to the ball marginally ahead of Papac, he tackled with his foot high and studs showing.

 

That is a foul.

 

 

Just as Goncalves doing something similar against St. Johnstone, but at eye level and both feet off the ground is a clear red.

 

 

Davie Weir's conduct on an SPL football pitch and only 1 red since he came back however, is disgraceful bias towards Rangers. He was a whiner with us as well, but fell foul of the officials regularly despite being nowhere near as bad as he is now.

[Boof]

I can assure you that while CT got to the ball marginally ahead of Papac, he tackled with his foot high and studs showing.

 

That is a foul.

 

Well, it's a good few years since I passed my refereeing exam, but a challenge like that where no player is endangered would not have had me reaching for the whistle.

 

I'll confess I haven't kept wholly up to date with all the FIFA directives that have emasculated the game I used to love, so that's maybe where we'll have to leave it.

 

 

 

[DETTY29]

Well, it's a good few years since I passed my refereeing exam, but a challenge like that where no player is endangered would not have had me reaching for the whistle.

 

I'll confess I haven't kept wholly up to date with all the FIFA directives that have emasculated the game I used to love, so that's maybe where we'll have to leave it.

Boof,

 

And I haven't passed any so naturally you are miles ahead of me, but I base my views generally on refereeing decisions I see mainly at SPL, EPL and international level, as well as working with a current Grade 1 official who was at the game and confirmed he would also have given Rangers a foul. And he ain't too keen on Rangers, Celtic or Hibs. But not a jambo.

[Boof]

You're obviously seeing a lot more fitba than I am so I'll defer to both your up-to-dateness of current refereeing philosophies and, by light years, to your Grade 1 workmate.

 

Cheers for the input.

[super_vlad]

Back on topic, Housten is just honest. Good on him to hav the balls to stand up to that hobo cent!

[Jambof3tornado]

Back on topic, Housten is just honest. Good on him to hav the balls to stand up to that hobo cent!

 

Yup,now how long will the touchline ban be for bringing the game into disrepute??

 

All we want is transparency from our officials. The number of yellow cards teams receive when playing against the old firm either home or away is surely disproportionate you would imagine.

 

If only all the chairmen werent happy to just bend over their oak desks and take it right up the council gritter whenever the old firm wanted them to!!

[Doctor FinnBarr]

Yup,now how long will the touchline ban be for bringing the game into disrepute??

 

All we want is transparency from our officials. The number of yellow cards teams receive when playing against the old firm either home or away is surely disproportionate you would imagine.

 

If only all the chairmen werent happy to just bend over their oak desks and take it right up the council gritter whenever the old firm wanted them to!!

 

 

This

 

[Bert Le Clos]

There is a simple way to solve the problem of bias towards any team, and also to keep managers out of trouble.

 

All referees need to do is come out after the game once they've had a look at any dubious decisions, and explain them. If there was any bias towards any particular team, then it would be highlighted as this team(s) would have far more incidents being reviewed than others.

 

And I think managers would have a bit more respect for referees if they were man enough to hold their hands up, and say "I made a mistake". Managers get pissed off, and rightly so, because they know referees can get away with making terrible decisions and a) not have to explain them and the worst thing that will happen to them is they get to referee Berwick Rangers next week before getting back to the SPL.

[shaun.lawson]

Boof

 

I can assure you that while CT got to the ball marginally ahead of Papac, he tackled with his foot high and studs showing.

 

That is a foul.

 

 

Just as Goncalves doing something similar against St. Johnstone, but at eye level and both feet off the ground is a clear red.

 

 

Davie Weir's conduct on an SPL football pitch and only 1 red since he came back however, is disgraceful bias towards Rangers. He was a whiner with us as well, but fell foul of the officials regularly despite being nowhere near as bad as he is now.

 

100% agree with all of this. I have a grudging respect for Weir's performances, and will always remember what he did for us with huge fondness - but he's indulged by officials again and again and again. And you're right about both the incidents above. Some years ago, the Thomson incident wouldn't have been a foul, the Goncalves incident wouldn't have been a red; but it's completely different now. To take the CT one for example, at the World Cup, players were penalised for precisely that over and over again. Football's laws are the same whether it's the SPL or international game.