Smith - We got away with it

[Jim White 0]

Rangers boss Walter Smith admits his side were lucky to come away from Parkhead with a point.

 

More...

[wabashcannonball 0]

I didd see WS's interview, in which he looked suitably embarrassed. It appears that WS's view of events is not shared by some of his more fervent acolytes, the temerity of it.

[fraser54 0]

It makes it so much sweeter though Walter

 

Just make sure we are back for the cup next week, well we are on for the treble !!

[Super_Ally 0]

Unusually bias report.

 

Fortune decision was definitely wrong and Lafferty should've seen red. Are broadcasters not normally more circumspect with their language rather than out-rate claiming a mistake by the referee. Contentious decisions maybe, just suprised by the certainty of the language.

[calscot 0]

Neither of the decisions were 100% either way. It's interpretation as neither were totally clear cut.

 

If it was the other way around, I'd want the goal but wouldn't be going on about a sending off.

 

The goal COULD conceivably be seen as a foul as Fortune's leading arm connected with McGregor's arm, moving it backwards which affected his ability to catch the ball. However, although there is a valid case, I think it's a soft one.

 

To me, it's a 20% foul, 80% goal so the better decision would have been a goal but I would predict a referee would give a foul, about a fifth of the time.

 

For the sending off, the tackle wasn't as bad as the replay looks and although reckless, it did look like he was 100% going for the ball. Since it was one footed and leg bent I would err on the yellow which was deserved due to the potential to injure with overdoing the tackle and the studs being up.

 

Out of 10 for a bad foul, where 5 or above means a yellow and 9 means a straight red card, I'd put it at about 8 - just below a red, but not quite enough to warrant one. I think a player would get sent of for it about 1 in 4 times without TV replays to help.

 

So the decisions could have gone either way but a goal and a yellow would have been my decisions given quite a few watches of the replays.

 

I think it evens out a small part of the poor refereeing we've had against the Tims and in the end they have to blame themselves for at least 80% of the draw with the referee due 20%.

 

That's my own quantitative assessment anyway.

[Super_Ally 0]

Re: the "goal".

 

If it had happened against us, as it did with Broadfoot against them, I wouddl be fuming. It is soft and keepers are over protected.

 

That said, I would expect the referee to give the foul against us, because keepers are over protected. It's almost an unwritten rule that ref's will give fouls on keepers for next to nothing. So why should we not "benefit" from the same standard of refereeing that every other club gets.

 

Whilst I don't agree with the decision making process, in the context of consistency of decision making it was the right decision.

[porno_piper 0]

Neither of the decisions were 100% either way. It's interpretation as neither were totally clear cut.

 

If it was the other way around, I'd want the goal but wouldn't be going on about a sending off.

 

The goal COULD conceivably be seen as a foul as Fortune's leading arm connected with McGregor's arm, moving it backwards which affected his ability to catch the ball. However, although there is a valid case, I think it's a soft one.

 

To me, it's a 20% foul, 80% goal so the better decision would have been a goal but I would predict a referee would give a foul, about a fifth of the time.

 

For the sending off, the tackle wasn't as bad as the replay looks and although reckless, it did look like he was 100% going for the ball. Since it was one footed and leg bent I would err on the yellow which was deserved due to the potential to injure with overdoing the tackle and the studs being up.

 

Out of 10 for a bad foul, where 5 or above means a yellow and 9 means a straight red card, I'd put it at about 8 - just below a red, but not quite enough to warrant one. I think a player would get sent of for it about 1 in 4 times without TV replays to help.

 

So the decisions could have gone either way but a goal and a yellow would have been my decisions given quite a few watches of the replays.

 

I think it evens out a small part of the poor refereeing we've had against the Tims and in the end they have to blame themselves for at least 80% of the draw with the referee due 20%.

 

That's my own quantitative assessment anyway.

 

IMO the ref did not have a good game today, Some of his decisions were questionable to say the least, however, your assesment sums up everything nicely!

[pete 2,499]

Neither of the decisions were 100% either way. It's interpretation as neither were totally clear cut.

 

If it was the other way around, I'd want the goal but wouldn't be going on about a sending off.

 

The goal COULD conceivably be seen as a foul as Fortune's leading arm connected with McGregor's arm, moving it backwards which affected his ability to catch the ball. However, although there is a valid case, I think it's a soft one.

 

To me, it's a 20% foul, 80% goal so the better decision would have been a goal but I would predict a referee would give a foul, about a fifth of the time.

 

For the sending off, the tackle wasn't as bad as the replay looks and although reckless, it did look like he was 100% going for the ball. Since it was one footed and leg bent I would err on the yellow which was deserved due to the potential to injure with overdoing the tackle and the studs being up.

 

Out of 10 for a bad foul, where 5 or above means a yellow and 9 means a straight red card, I'd put it at about 8 - just below a red, but not quite enough to warrant one. I think a player would get sent of for it about 1 in 4 times without TV replays to help.

 

So the decisions could have gone either way but a goal and a yellow would have been my decisions given quite a few watches of the replays.

 

I think it evens out a small part of the poor refereeing we've had against the Tims and in the end they have to blame themselves for at least 80% of the draw with the referee due 20%.

 

That's my own quantitative assessment anyway.

 

Cal watch the Lafferrty foul with your glasses on the next time. Oh and not the blue tinted ones.

 

Over the ball in the middle of the shin. Red for me.

[calscot 0]

Cal watch the Lafferrty foul with your glasses on the next time. Oh and not the blue tinted ones.

 

Over the ball in the middle of the shin. Red for me.

 

Like I said, it's a matter of opinion there is a case for and against - I'm open minded enough to see it both ways.

 

Had the tackle been two footed, straight-legged, nowhere near the ball, a goal scoring opportunity, a professional foul or obviously malicious then I'd say a red. In this case, I think it was just short of a red and at least one person agrees with me.

 

The likes of Nicolas was seething as you'd expect, and claiming it was an obvious sending off as it was a potential leg-breaker. I think that's just a load of bitter hype backed up by the actual yellow card and the lack of even a few minutes off the pitch due to the "pain" of a near leg break. You don't have to swallow his crap.

 

It was a slightly late, reckless challenge that on the day could easily be a yellow or red depending how the ref seen it. Today it was a yellow and I agree - and I think I've rationalised it enough and shown just enough objectivity to deserve to be spared accusations of poor eyesight or heavy bias.

[pete 2,499]

Like I said, it's a matter of opinion there is a case for and against - I'm open minded enough to see it both ways.

 

Had the tackle been two footed, straight-legged, nowhere near the ball, a goal scoring opportunity, a professional foul or obviously malicious then I'd say a red. In this case, I think it was just short of a red and at least one person agrees with me.

 

The likes of Nicolas was seething as you'd expect, and claiming it was an obvious sending off as it was a potential leg-breaker. I think that's just a load of bitter hype backed up by the actual yellow card and the lack of even a few minutes off the pitch due to the "pain" of a near leg break. You don't have to swallow his crap.

 

It was a slightly late, reckless challenge that on the day could easily be a yellow or red depending how the ref seen it. Today it was a yellow and I agree - and I think I've rationalised it enough and shown just enough objectivity to deserve to be spared accusations of poor eyesight or heavy bias.

\

 

Oh so because i think it was red i am following Nicholas's crap. For your information i didn't hear Nicholas's crap i was watching on Dutch tv and i never followed their crap either. I made my decision on what i seen with my own eyes. It was a definite red card in my eyes. You have already made it obvious you won't predict or say bad things about rangers which is a shame for such an intelligent guy.It detracts from the good things you have to say.