Darthter 542 Posted August 18, 2017 Author Share Posted August 18, 2017 Obviously didn't see Stokes' hand round Jacks neck & moving in with his head....before Jack did anything. The video footage from behind clearly shows Jack moving his head....was isn't clear is what's going on in front ie. Is Jacks head movement as a result of Stokes' actions??? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,263 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 I suspect the SFA rescinded Jack's red card hoping that will be the end of all matters in what was a game where the referee was hopelessly out of his depth. However matters should not rest there. Beaton must not referee another Rangers game for the foreseeable future. And shouldn't the referee's head honcho John Fleming not be offering Pedro an apology for Beaton's performance? Or is it only Rodgers who gets them ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooponthewing 1,139 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 (edited) Completely agree Rab! I actually agree with something Bill said too. They will rescind the card (damage done anyway) go easy on us for a few weeks then hit us when it hurts most. Funny how these refereeing mistakes are becoming selective..... I don't want to see Beaton near a Rangers game again. Edited August 18, 2017 by cooponthewing 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,263 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 Completely agree Rab! I actually agree with something Bill said too. They will rescind the card (damage done anyway) go easy on us for a few weeks then hit us when I hurts most. Funny how these refereeing mistakes are becoming selective..... No apology for Pedro from Mr Fleming though? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooponthewing 1,139 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 No apology for Pedro from Mr Fleming though? As you say...reserved for Brenda.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 It didn't take them long to rewrite history ----- " The upheld appeals of Esmael Goncalves and Ryan Jack from this past weekend further underlined the generosity of the Scottish FA panel when it comes to judging red cards. In both of those cases, especially Ryan Jack’s, TV evidence seemed to suggest the referee wasn’t wrong with his punishment. Jack thrusted his head toward Anthony Stokes, and regardless of whether the Hibs striker also deserved a red card for instigating the clash, whistler John Beaton was within his right to issue a red card. Some will argue there wasn’t enough in the incident to merit a red card, as under the rules violent conduct doesn’t necessarily have to be punished with an ordering off if the contact is “negligible”. But that’s part of the problem. So much of the football rule book is down to interpretation. Some referees will look at such decisions and believe a yellow card was a fitting punishment. Others, like Beaton, would disagree. Neither of them are “wrong” but that’s what this leniency is painting them out to be. " http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/10-times-the-scottish-fa-appeals-panel-was-surprisingly-lenient-1-4536059 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuGers 477 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 It didn't take them long to rewrite history ----- " The upheld appeals of Esmael Goncalves and Ryan Jack from this past weekend further underlined the generosity of the Scottish FA panel when it comes to judging red cards. In both of those cases, especially Ryan Jack’s, TV evidence seemed to suggest the referee wasn’t wrong with his punishment. Jack thrusted his head toward Anthony Stokes, and regardless of whether the Hibs striker also deserved a red card for instigating the clash, whistler John Beaton was within his right to issue a red card. Some will argue there wasn’t enough in the incident to merit a red card, as under the rules violent conduct doesn’t necessarily have to be punished with an ordering off if the contact is “negligible”. But that’s part of the problem. So much of the football rule book is down to interpretation. Some referees will look at such decisions and believe a yellow card was a fitting punishment. Others, like Beaton, would disagree. Neither of them are “wrong” but that’s what this leniency is painting them out to be. " http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/10-times-the-scottish-fa-appeals-panel-was-surprisingly-lenient-1-4536059 Excuse my language but fuck the Scotsman and fuck their biased fucking views. Another rag that should be on the official boycott list. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,263 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 The Scotsman is a UK unionist paper which hates Rangers for some reason. Not a particularly wise stance to take from a business perspective I'd have thought 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 Excuse my language but fuck the Scotsman and fuck their biased fucking views. Another rag that should be on the official boycott list. It is also incorrect as Kiernan didn't win his appeal against his red card against St Johnstone he served a 2 match ban. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,113 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 The Scotsman is a UK unionist paper which hates Rangers for some reason. Not a particularly wise stance to take from a business perspective I'd have thought It has had a change to an SNP supporting editor but has always favoured the Edinburgh clubs anyway. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.