Rangers v Motherwell 27/12/2025

[MJC]

11 minutes ago, Orinoco said:

Wow what an utterly pathetic response from our resident the rangers apologist. Ah but what about Celtic, blah blah blah. 

How dare we question a bias that has been going on for decades. 

No, not “what about Celtic”. That’s an utterly pathetic response to highlighting some facts which question a claim that one team gets all the decisions and is part of the reason why Celtic have the media and everyone else dancing to their tune over this.

Celtic went over 80 domestic matches without a red card. That is a statement of fact and one which is perfectly reasonable to point to when it is being claimed that another club benefits more than most or that it’s being going on for decades as you say. 
 

And just to highlight another small example. In our recent game against Celtic Liam Scales who was on a yellow card was able to commit several fouls without seeing a second yellow and then a red. But I don’t remember too many people bubbling about that or much in the way of any mention of it in the media. Indeed the last time a Celtic player was red carded at Fir Park was Tom Boyd in the early 1990s. 
 

I’m not saying it’s deliberate cheating, but there is definitely one club in this country who holds a massive sway over the match officials. And that club isn’t Rangers. It’s more down to fear of repercussion more than anything else. Celtic are the club after all who caused a refereeing strike.

If highlighting that makes me a Rangers apologist or whatever to you and others then do you know what, so be it. I prefer to see it as looking at this objectively and giving an opinion based on that.

[star sail]

19 minutes ago, MJC said:

Ahh drum pounding. A very mature and measured response.

I’m simply stating some facts and some home truths. That Killie’s red card last night was the first time a domestic opponent of Rangers has been sent off since May 2024. Almost two years. And at the same time Celtic went over 80 domestic matches without receiving a red card. And lo and behold when both of those runs are finally ended all hell breaks loose and the conspiracy theorists come crawling out the woodwork.

Couple of questions for you MJC:

Should Tarvenier have been given a second yellow last night?

Was Trusty's at Hearts a yellow or red card?

[thewelllfan]

27 minutes ago, MJC said:

Ahh drum pounding. A very mature and measured response.

I’m simply stating some facts and some home truths. That Killie’s red card last night was the first time a domestic opponent of Rangers has been sent off since May 2024. Almost two years. And at the same time Celtic went over 80 domestic matches without receiving a red card. And lo and behold when both of those runs are finally ended all hell breaks loose and the conspiracy theorists come crawling out the woodwork.

Killie's last night is a red by letter of the law I don't think it should be but that's the way it is. Tavernier's last night is also at the minimum a second yellow but should be a straight red as he stopped John Jules from getting onto the pass over the top and was last man. Hearts benefited from a goal at Ibrox that should of been chopped off for handball as well. it's just convenient that Rangers have had multiple decisions go in their favor that I can remember. Celtic's Arajou should of been sent off v Dundee Utd and the penalty they got at Livi also wasn't a penalty the penalty (I doubt either decision would have had much impact on the result) at Killie to win there at the start of the season also wasn't a penalty. Nobody is saying it's only Rangers that benefit, Celtic and Hearts have all benefitted from shit decisions this season. The Rangers ones are just spoke about more as they are key decisions that would have impacted the result. Reading this through has actually just annoyed me more to be honest. Hearts should be 2 points worse off Rangers at least 2 and Celtic at least 2 that would put us 9 off the top with a game in hand over hearts. 

[Spiderpig]

44 minutes ago, MJC said:

The usual baloney and chest thumping outrage when Rangers get a decision running rife in this thread I see. And as usual only the facts and stats that suit the tired old nonsensical claim that “Rangers get everything” are put forward while the ones that don’t are just ignored. 
 

For example, the red card that Killie received last night was actually the first time an opponent of Rangers has seen red in a domestic game since May 2024. But you won’t read that in the media because they dance to Celtic’s tune and so for the same reason very little was made of Celtic going over 80 domestic matches without receiving a red card. Indeed only Derek McInnes alluded to this the other week after the Hearts v Celtic game. The usual suspects in the media who would have been all over that stat like a rash if Rangers had benefited from even half of that number of games in the same way as they were a few years back with the ‘Penalty to Rangers’ carry on were surprisingly nowhere to be seen over that one. Same with all the muppets who buy into and spout that same nonsense.

For a team that supposedly get all the decisions and have the officials in their pockets it’s surprising then that the two above stats could be true, but there they are anyway.

You see decisions which are baffling and inconsistent compared with similar incidents in other games week in week out, but only when it’s Rangers that benefit then people start foaming at the mouth about cheating and conspiracies. It’s pathetic and just another example of how so many just can’t think for themselves.

A detailed response, that backs up the old adage " if you want to know anyting in detail about Celtic, then ask a Rangers fan first"

[MJC]

1 minute ago, star sail said:

Couple of questions for you MJC:

Should Tarvenier have been given a second yellow last night?

Was Trusty's at Hearts a yellow or red card?

Yes it was.

And Trusty’s was a red card.

[MJC]

2 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

A detailed response, that backs up the old adage " if you want to know anyting in detail about Celtic, then ask a Rangers fan first"

The standard response when you’ve got no argument against the facts provided.

[MJC]

3 minutes ago, thewelllfan said:

Killie's last night is a red by letter of the law I don't think it should be but that's the way it is. Tavernier's last night is also at the minimum a second yellow but should be a straight red as he stopped John Jules from getting onto the pass over the top and was last man. Hearts benefited from a goal at Ibrox that should have been chopped off for handball as well. it's just convenient that Rangers have had multiple decisions go in their favor that I can remember. Celtic's Arajou should have been sent off v Dundee Utd and the penalty they got at Livi also wasn't a penalty. Nobody is saying it's only Rangers that benefit, Celtic and Hearts have all benefitted from shit decisions this season. The Rangers ones are just spoke about more as they are key decisions that would have impacted the result.

Right, so Hearts getting a goal at Ibrox that shouldn’t have stood wasn’t a key decision that would have impacted the result? And then there was Celtic’s ridiculous penalty award against Killie at Rugby Park which even Willie Collum admitted was wrong. That didn’t impact the result?

[thewelllfan]

3 minutes ago, MJC said:

Right, so Hearts getting a goal at Ibrox that shouldn’t have stood wasn’t a key decision that would have impacted the result? And then there was Celtic’s ridiculous penalty award against Killie at Rugby Park which even Willie Collum admitted was wrong. That didn’t impact the result?

Did you miss the end of it where it says Hearts would be 2 points worse off? Did you miss the Celtic 2 points worse off? Did you miss Rangers being 5 points worse off (At a minimum)? I accept I have edited it from the OP but was still edited before you had replied.

[star sail]

10 minutes ago, MJC said:

Yes it was.

And Trusty’s was a red card.

Massive moment in the game when Killie are only 1-0 down. Funny how Trusty is a red card and in an almost identical incident last night the ref gives nothing.

What about the Fernandez hand ball against Livingston? Again critical moment in the game. Massive decisions that are really difficult to explain.

You talk about thinking for ourselves. I think it is very reasonable to ask the questions. They are strange decisions and deserve some further consideration.

[thewelllfan]

Rangers have benefited in 3 potential game changing decisions and been potentially cost points in 1 against Hearts but I suspect Hearts would have still won the game. Celtic have benefitted from 1 game changing decision that I can remember against Kilmarnock. I can't think of a dubious decision we've had in our favor. Said's goal against Falkirk should have stood which could have changed the game. We should of had a penalty against Rangers that could have impacted the result. When you look at that it's no wonder the monopoly in Scotland can't be broken when they're getting game defining decisions in their favor.

[MJC]

19 minutes ago, star sail said:

Massive moment in the game when Killie are only 1-0 down. Funny how Trusty is a red card and in an almost identical incident last night the ref gives nothing.

What about the Fernandez hand ball against Livingston? Again critical moment in the game. Massive decisions that are really difficult to explain.

You talk about thinking for ourselves. I think it is very reasonable to ask the questions. They are strange decisions and deserve some further consideration.

That’s what I mean when I mentioned the inconsistencies with decisions.
 

We see it week in week out with different referees giving a particular decision one week and a different referee gives the opposite decision the next week. The same applies to VAR. How many times on this forum alone on match threads has decisions been questioned where similar incidents with other games have resulted in a different decision? 
 

You could literally scroll through the forum and select any given match thread and find one.

[MJC]

3 minutes ago, thewelllfan said:

Rangers have benefited in 3 potential game changing decisions and been potentially cost points in 1 against Hearts but I suspect Hearts would have still won the game. Celtic have benefitted from 1 game changing decision that I can remember against Kilmarnock. I can't think of a dubious decision we've had in our favor. Said's goal against Falkirk should have stood which could have changed the game. We should have had a penalty against Rangers that could have impacted the result. When you look at that it's no wonder the monopoly in Scotland can't be broken when they're getting game defining decisions in their favor.

Rangers were also unfortunate to have a goal at ruled out against Hearts at Ibrox when only 0-1 down. They also had a goal harshly ruled out against Aberdeen at Pittodrie. 
 

I actually thought we were very unfortunate to have Hendry’s goal against Hearts at Fir Park ruled out for offside.

And Celtic should already have been down to ten at Tynecastle when their new signing, the striker, literally wrestled the Hearts player to the ground right in front of the referee.

Again had either of the two above gone in Rangers favour then a lot more would have been made of it.

[star sail]

23 minutes ago, MJC said:

That’s what I mean when I mentioned the inconsistencies with decisions. We see it week in week out with different referees giving a particular decision one week and a different referee gives the opposite decision the next week. The same applies to VAR. How many times on this forum alone on match threads has decisions been questioned where similar incidents with other games have resulted in a different decision. You could literally scroll through the forum and select any given match thread and find one.

I think we are all frustrated by the inconsistencies but there have been some really crucial decisions that have favoured Rangers this season and a good few of them involved this same referee.

As an example, three penalty incidents involving Rangers, all with very similar degrees of contact in the box. 

One v Aberdeen: penalty given for Rangers.

Two v Dundee Utd: penalty given for Rangers.

Three v Motherwell: penalty not given to Motherwell.

The consistency comes from the fact that the incidents are all very similar, that Rangers get the benefit of the decision in all three cases and that the same referee is involved in each decision. 

The inconsistency is that the referee has used different criteria to arrive at a decision.

Is this proof of conspiracy? No. 

Is it worth considering the environment that brings about these inconsistencies? Yes.

That is free thinking. 

[0Neils40yarder]

Fuck Rangers 

[MJC]

5 minutes ago, star sail said:

I think we are all frustrated by the inconsistencies but there have been some really crucial decisions that have favoured Rangers this season and a good few of them involved this same referee.

As an example, three penalty incidents involving Rangers, all with very similar degrees of contact in the box. 

One v Aberdeen: penalty given for Rangers.

Two v Dundee Utd: penalty given for Rangers.

Three v Motherwell: penalty not given to Motherwell.

The consistency comes from the fact that the incidents are all very similar, that Rangers get the benefit of the decision in all three cases and that the same referee is involved in each decision. 

The inconsistency is that the referee has used different criteria to arrive at a decision.

Is this proof of conspiracy? No. 

Is it worth considering the environment that brings about these inconsistencies? Yes.

That is free thinking. 

I just had a quick look on YouTube at the penalty decision you mention involving Aberdeen and Dundee Utd v Rangers. Both, in my opinion, are correctly awarded.

And I have already said in this thread that Fadinger should have been given a penalty at Ibrox and I don’t know why it wasn’t given.

Now, the point you mention about the home crowd at Ibrox helping to bring about these inconsistencies is very valid. The same could be said of any ground with a large and partisan crowd all shouting for a call at one time. Referees are only human after all.

What I would say though is, to bring it back to the point I made about Rangers opponents not receiving a red card domestically for almost two years. The same referee you mention, did in fact red card a Rangers player at Ibrox in a game against St.Johnstone in October of 2024. And let me make this clear, I only know this after a check on soccerbase. I didn’t see this incident and I have no recollection of it. But on that occasion David Dickinson obviously didn’t allow the Ibrox crowd to influence his thinking.

[Stuwell2]

On the three decisions mentioned above did VAR get involved? I know they didn’t for the Motherwell game but don’t know about the others. 
If they didn’t then it brings into question their impartiality, not for the team involved but not wanting to disagree with the match referee - I do believe that there’s an unwritten agreement between them not to interfere with 50/50 decisions so not to make each other look bad - which in turn makes VAR ineffective. 
So my view is scrap it or let officials from another country with no bias to teams or officials do the checks. 

[weeyin]

Just bin VAR.

It's that simple. Subjective decisions in the booth are wrong just as often as subjective decisions on the pitch.

If we must keep it, go with the 20 or 30 second rule. Can't see any error within those 20 or 30 seconds, no clear and obvious error, decision on the pitch stands, and we move on.

[MJC]

45 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Just bin VAR.

It's that simple. Subjective decisions in the booth are wrong just as often as subjective decisions on the pitch.

If we must keep it, go with the 20 or 30 second rule. Can't see any error within those 20 or 30 seconds, no clear and obvious error, decision on the pitch stands, and we move on.

No arguments with that. VAR is an absolute scourge on football.