Rangers FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2012/2013

Dempsey

TheBuilder wrote: »

The SPL have to be consistent with their punishments or it makes a mockery (even more so) of the organisation. In terms of past punishments then it should've been reduced, that doesn't make it right, but it should've been.

So the SFA should ignore their own rules now because they ignored them already? Maybe they should just ignore them altogether for the sake of consistency? Why punish simulation at all, if leads to a degree of inconsistency.

TheBuilder

Dempsey wrote: »

So the SFA should ignore their own rules because they ignored them already? Maybe they should just ignore them altogether for the sake of consistency?

The rules have to be changed, this panel is people selected at random, it should be a set panel so that they have their past decisions to work off.

A one game ban would've been much fairer.

dartbhoy

The SFA are a complete joke of an outfit! What's pis**ng me off here is the posters who're saying "oh this fella should have been banned for this and that"! I've no problems with rangers fans been angry over the SFA inconsistencies but going into this tit for tat bull*hit isn't going to solve the problem!

Dempsey

TheBuilder wrote: »

The rules have to be changed, this panel is people selected at random, it should be a set panel so that they have their past decisions to work off.

A one game ban would've been much fairer.

Dont the club/player have a choice now, either the fast track tribunal or appeal to the SFA and they review it (i.e. the 'old system').

AFAIK, the fast track tribunal either upholds the referee's decision or the SFA notice of complaint when appealed. They cant decide a reduced ban unless the players admits to the offence.

Jim McIntyre has his hearing set for the 22nd of December. Aluko's would have probably been around then too. I think Rangers didnt want to delay punishment to possibly cover the Old Firm game.

RoryMac

Reading about the Judicial panel now and it appears there are 3 drawn at random from a pool of 100, these are former referees, players, managers, club officials and legal representatives.

That could quite easily lead to different outcomes, for an incident like O'Connor's as an example, 2 former strikers on the panel could have a completely different view on it than 2 former defenders.

TheBuilder

Dempsey wrote: »

Dont the club/player have a choice now, either the fast track tribunal or appeal to the SFA and they review it (i.e. the 'old system').

AFAIK, the fast track tribunal either upholds the referee's decision or the SFA notice of complaint when appealed. They cant decide a reduced ban unless the players admits to the offence.

Jim McIntyre has his hearing set for the 22nd of December. Aluko's would have probably been around then too. I think Rangers didnt want to delay punishment to possibly cover the Old Firm game.

I dont think they do, its decisions like simulation or off the ball things that are fasttracked now so that players aren't playing for 6 more games before being banned or whatever.

TheBuilder

RoryMac wrote: »

Reading about the Judicial panel now and it appears there are 3 drawn at random from a pool of 100, these are former referees, players, managers, club officials and legal representatives.

That could quite easily lead to different outcomes, for an incident like O'Connor's as an example, 2 former strikers on the panel could have a completely different view on it than 2 former defenders.

My point exacty, it should be a set panel for all cases.

Dempsey

TheBuilder wrote: »

My point exacty, it should be a set panel for all cases.

A set panel has its flaws too.

KeithAFC

Refs get no help to be fair. The linesmen bottle it a lot and they have no technology backing them up like video replay or goal line technology. UEFA and FIFA don't seem to care either.

They are left out to dry a lot.

RoryMac

Dempsey wrote: »

A set panel has its flaws too.

Yeah i was just about to say that, if this had been a set panel all confidence in it would be lost from Rangers fans now.

I'm not sure what the best way of doing it is but i'd suggest it might be best to have a set chairman so he is aware of the previous cases/rulings with 2 additional people taken from a smaller pool.

TheBuilder

Dempsey wrote: »

A set panel has its flaws too.

No denying that, but at least they could be challenged if they made two decisions like this with two different outcomes.

RoryMac wrote: »

Yeah i was just about to say that, if this had been a set panel all confidence in it would be lost from Rangers fans now.

I'm not sure what the best way of doing it is but i'd suggest it might be best to have a set chairman so he is aware of the previous cases/rulings with 2 additional people taken from a smaller pool.

I fail to see how.

Dempsey

TheBuilder wrote: »

No denying that, but at least they could be challenged if they made two decisions like this with two different outcomes.

The SFA's disciplinary committee of old was a fixed panel, was it not? They, at the very least, had regulars on the panel like George Peat and they were pretty inconsistent.

I think it would be better to judge the effectiveness of the fast track tribunal process by examining all the cases that they have dealt and what they have gotten right. O'Connor's appeal seems to be the only thing they've misjudged so far. If the degree of inconsistency between the old disciplinary system and the new one is reduced then its a good thing. I'd give it a full season before deciding if its effective or not.

TheBuilder

Dempsey wrote: »

The SFA's disciplinary committee of old was a fixed panel, was it not? They at the very least had regulars on the panel and they were pretty inconsistent.

I think it would be better to judge the effectiveness of the fast track tribunal process by examining all the cases that they have dealt and what they have gotten right. O'Connor's appeal seems to be the only thing they've misjudged so far. If the degree of inconsistency between the old disciplinary system and the new one is reduced then its a good thing. I'd give it a full season before deciding if its effective or not.

There hasn't been many cases I can think of? O'Connor, Naismith and Aluko. O'Connor and Aluko's should've been the same result. To have two different results just shows its flawed.

RoryMac

TheBuilder wrote: »

I fail to see how.

If Rangers were to have other players go before the same panel I'm sure there would be plenty of Rangers fans sceptical of having a fair hearing.

Dempsey

Stupid stuff by Hart

Seems that the Rangers kit man cannot spell though

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Stupid stuff by Hart

Seems that the Rangers kit man cannot spell though

Yeah noticed that but yesssssss he has just made it two

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

Stupid stuff by Hart

Seems that the Rangers kit man cannot spell though

That 2.50 a week saved on "A"'s over the course of a season adds up...

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

That 2.50 a week saved on "A"'s over the course of a season adds up...

Should just invest in a permanent marker and draw yer numbers on. Save yourselves a fortune!

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Well its three points I really worry about Ally and his failure to see McCulloch is crap thought Bendikson (sp) made a big difference for us when he came on

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Should just invest in a permanent marker and draw yer numbers on. Save yourselves a fortune!

Nah Ireland have the franchise for that

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Nah Ireland have the franchise for that

You can buy a licence off the FAI, John Delaney will throw in a tie!

Jelle1880

RoryMac wrote: »

Yeah i was just about to say that, if this had been a set panel all confidence in it would be lost from Rangers fans now.

I'm not sure what the best way of doing it is but i'd suggest it might be best to have a set chairman so he is aware of the previous cases/rulings with 2 additional people taken from a smaller pool.

A start would be to have actual football people on the panel.
One of them this time was a lawyer without any history in football.

Good 3 points today, didn't see the game but apparently Bendiksen turned it all around.

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

A start would be to have actual football people on the panel.
One of them this time was a lawyer without any history in football.

Good 3 points today, didn't see the game but apparently Bendiksen turned it all around.

So the likes of you or me would have no business judging what is a foul or simulation in a game of football?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

So the likes of you or me would have no business judging what is a foul or simulation in a game of football?

To be fair when titles and money are at stake I would rather football people rather than laypeople were making decisions

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

To be fair when titles and money are at stake I would rather football people rather than laypeople were making decisions

Thats one way of looking at it but it doesnt guarantee the correct decision will be made. You saw what Ally said about the ex referee that reviewed the Aluko case, clearly he never thought much of him. It could be argued that people previously involved in professional football could have grudges with current referees, certain clubs or players.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Thats one way of looking at it but it doesnt guarantee the correct decision will be made. You saw what Ally said about the ex referee that reviewed the Aluko case, clearly he never thought much of him. It could be argued that people were previously involved in professional football could have grudges with current referees, certain clubs or players.

True very true but the same can be said for people who are just ordinary fans like us I like to think if I was on a panel I could be totally impartial but when it came down to it who knows how anyone would act

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

True very true but the same can be said for people who are just ordinary fans like us I like to think if I was on a panel I could be totally impartial but when it came down to it who knows how anyone would act

And maybe thats why they have a pool of people with various backgrounds within the sport and pick them at random. At least with this system, it would be very hard for one person to corrupt the decision making process, very hard for anyone to corrupt a randomly chosen panel. Its not perfect but it has the potential to be a far better system for disciplining players that what has gone before.

KeithAFC

Good win.

Its just a question of when celtic will fk up because they will. 0-0 next weekend please.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

And maybe thats why they have a pool of people with various backgrounds within the sport and pick them at random. At least with this system, it would be very hard for one person to corrupt the decision making process, very hard for anyone to corrupt a randomly chosen panel. Its not perfect but it has the potential to be a far better system for disciplining players that what has gone before.

Think I will give it a full season before giving it a yes or no to be honest as I really have my doubts

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Dempsey wrote: »

And maybe thats why they have a pool of people with various backgrounds within the sport and pick them at random. At least with this system, it would be very hard for one person to corrupt the decision making process, very hard for anyone to corrupt a randomly chosen panel. Its not perfect but it has the potential to be a far better system for disciplining players that what has gone before.

Think I will give it a full season before giving it a yes or no to be honest as I really have my doubts

So an essential win to keep us four in front another tricky one next week at home to ICT Butcher always makes it tough but we just have to keep on doing as we are

Dempsey

It was only a matter of time that you started having full blown conversations with yourself! :pac:

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

It was only a matter of time that you started having full blown conversations with yourself! :pac:

It's these damn drugs i tell you either that or two days in the madness that is Dublin was to much for me

Jelle1880

Dempsey wrote: »

So the likes of you or me would have no business judging what is a foul or simulation in a game of football?

You ? Hell no :pac:

PARKHEAD67

KeithAFC wrote: »

Good win.

Its just a question of when celtic will fk up because they will. 0-0 next weekend please.

Good win?rangers were atrocious up to the penalty award in fairness. Celtic will keep doing the business.Roll on the 28th.:)

Eirebear

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Good win?rangers were atrocious up to the penalty award in fairness. Celtic will keep doing the business.Roll on the 28th.:)

To be fair, you lot didnt exactly set the heather alight yourselves.

RoryMac

The next few weeks are going to be a huge test of the mental strenght of both teams, this is probably where Celtic fell down last season and they need to improve. For Rangers it will be interesting to see if they have the strenght under McCoist that they had under Smith.

It's going to be an interesting month and I think who ever comes out on top going into the New Year will be hard to stop.

KeithAFC

Eirebear wrote: »

To be fair, you lot didnt exactly set the heather alight yourselves.

They should have drawn to Hearts. At least we scored two goals. We will set up to get a draw at CP.

Eirebear

KeithAFC wrote: »

They should have drawn to Hearts. At least we scored two goals. We will set up to get a draw at CP.

I hope not.

Yesterday showed, yet again, that if we set up protectively we leave ourselves vulnerable. A better team would have went at us yesterday and got something out of that first half.

KeithAFC

Eirebear wrote: »

I hope not.

Yesterday showed, yet again, that if we set up protectively we leave ourselves vulnerable. A better team would have went at us yesterday and got something out of that first half.

We need to get back to defending like we did earlier in the season. Two banks of 4 at CP and hit them on the break. Will Lafferty be fit? Him and Jelavic could cause them problems.

Coillte_Bhoy

KeithAFC wrote: »

They should have drawn to Hearts. At least we scored two goals. We will set up to get a draw at CP.

Seriously? Ypu thought Hearst deserved a draw. Did you watch the whole game? I didnt see the hibs game but cant comment but for both of us any win now is a 'good win'

KeithAFC

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Seriously? Ypu thought Hearst deserved a draw. Did you watch the whole game? I didnt see the hibs game but cant comment but for both of us any win now is a 'good win'

No, I didn't watch the game but Hearts still should have scored the PK normally you would imagine.

henke

KeithAFC wrote: »

No, I didn't watch the game but Hearts still should have scored the PK normally you would imagine.

If you don't score your penalty you don't deserve your goal. Simple as.

Really looking forward to the next Old Firm now. We will be looking for the win regardless of how many points are between the sides then and I'd guess Rangers would take a point.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

henke wrote: »

If you don't score your penalty you don't deserve your goal. Simple as.

Really looking forward to the next Old Firm now. We will be looking for the win regardless of how many points are between the sides then and I'd guess Rangers would take a point.

I would have said that was the way things were going to be anyway.
We will set up to hit you on the break though Ally may prove me wrong again and decide to attack you but as far as it goes if it is the same points difference as now I have no doubt Rangers would be happy with a point

A Dub in Glasgo

KeithAFC wrote: »

No, I didn't watch the game but Hearts still should have scored the PK normally you would imagine.

Yes and Celtic missed a couple of good chances and hit the crossbar. A Celtic win was a deserved result

Dempsey

As Paulo Sergio said, they got it tactically perfect (they did all things considered) but who do you blame for Wanyama's goal? Celtic got abit of luck and Hearts can count themselves abit unlucky. Rangers got abit of luck in their match with Griffiths missing his sitter, that was a game changer. The only thing that the results at the weekend proves is that both Celtic and Rangers will ride their luck a few times more this season.

No doubt that McCoist is looking at how Hearts set up their team at the weekend though

Jelle1880

Aluko has had several racist posts aimed at him on Twitter, not a peep from the media or police.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

dartbhoy wrote: »

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Aluko has had several racist posts aimed at him on Twitter, not a peep from the media or police.

The only rangers story in STV sports news was about a construction company in court looking for £90,000 that's owed to them by Craig Whyte for a roofing job they done in his castle.

They say it's owed he says it isn't and is fighting it if your going to put stuff up put the full thing rather than the bits that suot

Also this is a personal thing nothing to do with the club

TheBuilder

dartbhoy wrote: »

The only rangers story in STV sports news was about a construction company in court looking for £90,000 that's owed to them by Craig Whyte for a roofing job they done in his castle.

Thats whats pissing me off about the media, thats not a Rangers story, thats a Craig Whyte personal story that has nothing to do with Rangers Football Club.

dartbhoy

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

They say it's owed he says it isn't and is fighting it if your going to put stuff up put the full thing rather than the bits that suot

Christ almighty your getting your knickers in a twist over nothing again! FFS man fair enough he's denying it are you happy now!

dartbhoy

I'll delete my post seeing that ye've got upset over it,FFS!