Dr_Optimist

16 Mar 2010, 06:54 PM

Neil Jung

16 Mar 2010, 05:39 PM

Graeme Spiers article
March 16, 2010

Scottish referee in danger of looking biased towards Rangers


http://timesonline.typepad.com/thegame/2010/03/scottish-referee-in-danger-of-looking-biased-towards-rangers-.html

Regardless of how Spiers has dressed it up, and at first it looks promising, that's no more than a referee apologist article, citing "honest mistakes" as the source of it.

At worst, he should have cited gross incompetence from a referee who was once derided by the now Scotland manager for a dreadful performance at, yes you guessed it, Ibrox, after sending off 2 hearts players.

Where was Speirs with all of the criticism of McDonald's performance in the huns game 2 weeks ago when it mattered? And why the reference to innocent Scottish "Presbyterians". It's almost insinuating there is a perceived religious bias, when in actual fact it's a rangers bias.

Mickeybhoy84

16 Mar 2010, 07:00 PM

My view has always been that calling refs biased or saying they have an agenda against Celtic is going to get us nowhere. The SFA and media have already decided that we're paranoid and thats why claims of bias will never be taken seriously imo. Highlighting how many 'honest mistakes' refs make is what the club should be doing.

druid

16 Mar 2010, 07:06 PM

Spiers may have less sympathy for the more hunish element of their support but he's still a Rangers supporter.

markovan

16 Mar 2010, 06:03 PM

I posted on their match thread that -according to a mate who was listening to the game on the radio- Chick Young said after their second penalty "its no wonder Rangers fans are wearing referees names on the back of their jerseys" Richard Gordon's reply "is it as bad as that?"

Cannot confirm, did anyone else hear this? Pretty damning given it's coming from Chick Young and even he is getting uncomfortable at the bias.

Mickeybhoy84

16 Mar 2010, 07:00 PM

My view has always been that calling refs biased or saying they have an agenda against Celtic is going to get us nowhere. The SFA and media have already decided that we're paranoid and thats why claims of bias will never be taken seriously imo. Highlighting how many 'honest mistakes' refs make is what the club should be doing.

Proving someone is biased is a very difficult thing to do. You would need to delve into their past, look at the social circles they mix in and probably follow them from day to day to establish if they have a leaning to one team or another. Even if you do prove a ref is/was a hun supporter you then have to prove that he is lacking the profesional integrity to referee in a fair manner. Proving that an official is incompetent is much easier however as there is plenty of video evidence to support this. Thats why I think Celtic need to publicly accept the mistakes are 'honest' and then ask the following questions:

1) Why are Scottish referees and linesmen making so many 'honest mistakes?'

2) Do the SFA have a system in place to try and cut down the number of 'honest mistakes' and if not why not?

If the answer to 1) is that the refs don't fully understand the rules or they're not fit enough to keep up with the play then the answer to 2) should be that the officials will be subject to more rigorous training programs. If they say its basic human error and no amount of training will prevent it then the argument for using technology will grow strength. Either way the SFA have no excuse for not making major changes to the way referees in this country operate.

JiminyCricket

16 Mar 2010, 07:07 PM

Mickeybhoy84

16 Mar 2010, 07:00 PM

My view has always been that calling refs biased or saying they have an agenda against Celtic is going to get us nowhere. The SFA and media have already decided that we're paranoid and thats why claims of bias will never be taken seriously imo. Highlighting how many 'honest mistakes' refs make is what the club should be doing.

At no point has the club ever said the refs are biased against us. They said they had concerns about the standard of refereeing. These are the same concerns every other club, apart from Rangers, has.

Still the media twisted it and jumped on the Celtic Paranoia bandwagon straight away.

JiminyCricket

16 Mar 2010, 07:07 PM

Mickeybhoy84

16 Mar 2010, 07:00 PM

My view has always been that calling refs biased or saying they have an agenda against Celtic is going to get us nowhere. The SFA and media have already decided that we're paranoid and thats why claims of bias will never be taken seriously imo. Highlighting how many 'honest mistakes' refs make is what the club should be doing.

At no point has the club ever said the refs are biased against us. They said they had concerns about the standard of refereeing. These are the same concerns every other club, apart from Rangers, has.

Still the media twisted it and jumped on the Celtic Paranoia bandwagon straight away.

Dr_Optimist

16 Mar 2010, 06:54 PM

Neil Jung

16 Mar 2010, 05:39 PM

Graeme Spiers article
March 16, 2010

Scottish referee in danger of looking biased towards Rangers


http://timesonline.typepad.com/thegame/2010/03/scottish-referee-in-danger-of-looking-biased-towards-rangers-.html

Regardless of how Spiers has dressed it up, and at first it looks promising, that's no more than a referee apologist article, citing "honest mistakes" as the source of it.

At worst, he should have cited gross incompetence from a referee who was once derided by the now Scotland manager for a dreadful performance at, yes you guessed it, Ibrox, after sending off 2 hearts players.

Where was Speirs with all of the criticism of McDonald's performance in the huns game 2 weeks ago when it mattered? And why the reference to innocent Scottish "Presbyterians". It's almost insinuating there is a perceived religious bias, when in actual fact it's a rangers bias.

Kirrie Tim

16 Mar 2010, 08:27 PM

Dr_Optimist

16 Mar 2010, 06:54 PM

Neil Jung

16 Mar 2010, 05:39 PM

Graeme Spiers article
March 16, 2010

Scottish referee in danger of looking biased towards Rangers


http://timesonline.typepad.com/thegame/2010/03/scottish-referee-in-danger-of-looking-biased-towards-rangers-.html

Regardless of how Spiers has dressed it up, and at first it looks promising, that's no more than a referee apologist article, citing "honest mistakes" as the source of it.

At worst, he should have cited gross incompetence from a referee who was once derided by the now Scotland manager for a dreadful performance at, yes you guessed it, Ibrox, after sending off 2 hearts players.

Where was Speirs with all of the criticism of McDonald's performance in the huns game 2 weeks ago when it mattered? And why the reference to innocent Scottish "Presbyterians". It's almost insinuating there is a perceived religious bias, when in actual fact it's a rangers bias.

Pretty much agree with that. The article smacks of limited hangout, as the evidence cant be knocked down with appeals to ridicule - paranoia, conspiracy etc.

Auldyin

16 Mar 2010, 08:30 PM

Kirrie Tim

16 Mar 2010, 08:27 PM

Dr_Optimist

16 Mar 2010, 06:54 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttp://timesonline.typepad.com/thegame/2010/03/scottish-referee-in-danger-of-looking-biased-towards-rangers-.html

Pretty much agree with that. The article smacks of limited hangout, as the evidence cant be knocked down with appeals to ridicule - paranoia, conspiracy etc.

It was a strange one given his previous stance. Damage limitation to the referee in question rather than the whole rampant hunnery system be called into question?

Sephiroth

15 Mar 2010, 11:45 PM

remy mcswain

15 Mar 2010, 11:41 PM

cartuja

15 Mar 2010, 11:39 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep

FFS

McKenna a hun

Jesus H

I take it by that you think he is not a hun? Why, then, all the criticism of Mowbray's "undignified approach to the media" and the immediate mention of "tims in the media"?


ifitwalkslikeanorangemanetc

JiminyCricket

16 Mar 2010, 07:07 PM

Mickeybhoy84

16 Mar 2010, 07:00 PM

My view has always been that calling refs biased or saying they have an agenda against Celtic is going to get us nowhere. The SFA and media have already decided that we're paranoid and thats why claims of bias will never be taken seriously imo. Highlighting how many 'honest mistakes' refs make is what the club should be doing.

At no point has the club ever said the refs are biased against us. They said they had concerns about the standard of refereeing. These are the same concerns every other club, apart from Rangers, has.

Still the media twisted it and jumped on the Celtic Paranoia bandwagon straight away.

kmrceltic

16 Mar 2010, 05:47 PM

Spears misses the point - its not that he's giving 50/50's to Rangers. its that he has been wrong on a number of occasions and given decision to Rangers.

Its not about 50/50's - it is about making the correct decision. It is not the benefit of doubt we need, it is the eradication of cheating.



.

WolfieBhoy

16 Mar 2010, 11:43 PM

kmrceltic

16 Mar 2010, 05:47 PM

Spears misses the point - its not that he's giving 50/50's to Rangers. its that he has been wrong on a number of occasions and given decision to Rangers.

Its not about 50/50's - it is about making the correct decision. It is not the benefit of doubt we need, it is the eradication of cheating.



.

I don't think that cheating is the correct term. Maybe you could make a case for someone like Bobby Tait or even the Revered Mike McCurry being consciously biased but I think even that is a tough one to prove. I actually think Speirs is closer to the truth though I mislike his 50/50 formulation.

In my opinion, what it boils down to is that - for whatever reason - when there are decisions to be made for Rangers, referees are looking for reasons to give it. When it's decisions against Rangers, they are looking for reasons not to give it. I think it's nothing more sinister or machiavellian than that. From this starting point, all the stuff about honest mistakes, split second decisions, incomplete views, etc. comes into play. I don't even think it's done at a conscious level, it's ingrained, subliminal, whatever you want to call it. I'd bet that any ref would strenuously deny letting considerations of the impact of their decisions affect them and they'd believe it to.

In nearly all cases, in Scotland the safe decision is to give Rangers the benefit of the doubt. Give a yellow when it could be a red. Give a penalty when there is a clash in the opposition box, don't give it when it is a clash in the Rangers box. Getting it wrong to the benefit of Rangers will soon be forgotten in the media, institutional apparatus and refereeing fraternity. Getting it wrong to the detriment of Rangers will be splashed across the papers, dissected in detail, it will come to define you - oh, he's that ref that failed to give that penalty when Raners lost - it will be foremost in the minds of assessors when grades are decided and games handed out. Again, this doesn't have to be conscious, it will just be what they remember.

People's capacity to make decisions that benefit themselves while firmly believing that this had no impact on their decision is a well established phenomenon. Referees are no different in this regard. How things will change is by changing this dynamic... stop allowing the pro-Rangers decision to be the safe and easy decision. Constant highlighting of errors as is happening now, focus on the question of competency and use of technology, keeping up the pressure and hopefully being able to force a sacrifice on the altar of competence - McDonald would make a good offering - will keep the issue alive. Keeping the issue alive is all you really need to do to end it.

sandymoor tim

15 Mar 2010, 11:13 PM

Fudgie

15 Mar 2010, 10:47 PM

Brendan67

15 Mar 2010, 10:40 PM

Lots of us say we hate them but guarantee there's plenty on here who buy it.

I think a large number of Celtic fans get their news on the club through the likes of the sun and the record. Probably a lot more than come on here or other message boards.

Living in England, the only Scottish paper you will find is the Record, it's either that or nothing. I find it hard not to buy it to have an occasional read about Scottish football, if I'm honest.

Celtic7rangers1

16 Mar 2010, 11:56 PM

WolfieBhoy

16 Mar 2010, 11:43 PM

kmrceltic

16 Mar 2010, 05:47 PM

Spears misses the point - its not that he's giving 50/50's to Rangers. its that he has been wrong on a number of occasions and given decision to Rangers.

Its not about 50/50's - it is about making the correct decision. It is not the benefit of doubt we need, it is the eradication of cheating.



.

I don't think that cheating is the correct term. Maybe you could make a case for someone like Bobby Tait or even the Revered Mike McCurry being consciously biased but I think even that is a tough one to prove. I actually think Speirs is closer to the truth though I mislike his 50/50 formulation.

In my opinion, what it boils down to is that - for whatever reason - when there are decisions to be made for Rangers, referees are looking for reasons to give it. When it's decisions against Rangers, they are looking for reasons not to give it. I think it's nothing more sinister or machiavellian than that. From this starting point, all the stuff about honest mistakes, split second decisions, incomplete views, etc. comes into play. I don't even think it's done at a conscious level, it's ingrained, subliminal, whatever you want to call it. I'd bet that any ref would strenuously deny letting considerations of the impact of their decisions affect them and they'd believe it to.

In nearly all cases, in Scotland the safe decision is to give Rangers the benefit of the doubt. Give a yellow when it could be a red. Give a penalty when there is a clash in the opposition box, don't give it when it is a clash in the Rangers box. Getting it wrong to the benefit of Rangers will soon be forgotten in the media, institutional apparatus and refereeing fraternity. Getting it wrong to the detriment of Rangers will be splashed across the papers, dissected in detail, it will come to define you - oh, he's that ref that failed to give that penalty when Raners lost - it will be foremost in the minds of assessors when grades are decided and games handed out. Again, this doesn't have to be conscious, it will just be what they remember.

People's capacity to make decisions that benefit themselves while firmly believing that this had no impact on their decision is a well established phenomenon. Referees are no different in this regard. How things will change is by changing this dynamic... stop allowing the pro-Rangers decision to be the safe and easy decision. Constant highlighting of errors as is happening now, focus on the question of competency and use of technology, keeping up the pressure and hopefully being able to force a sacrifice on the altar of competence - McDonald would make a good offering - will keep the issue alive. Keeping the issue alive is all you really need to do to end it.

Nah. It's cheating!

WolfieBhoy

16 Mar 2010, 11:43 PM

I don't think that cheating is the correct term. Maybe you could make a case for someone like Bobby Tait or even the Revered Mike McCurry being consciously biased but I think even that is a tough one to prove.