ayrshire_blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2008
- Messages
- 6,287
Agree with the Clement incident. Utterly bizarre. The ball looked as if it was well out from where I was and bent back in. Clement, wanting to play at pace controlled it and gave it to a Rangers player to take thrown in. Now no matter what you’re told at no time did linesman have his flag up but the referee gave Rangers the throw!
Was McInnes given straight Red or second booking. I can just remember him laughing at the decision as the referee had lost the plot.
On Robertson and lines man. A clear foul in front of the Hibs support on Rangers player with Robertson unsighted and nothing. A few minutes later there is a coming together of two players we win ball and it’s played across goal and going to be a tap in and that same linesman flags for imaginary foul. I thought they were supposed to let the attack play out or is that just offsides?
Nearing the end of first half and Rangers are countering down the wing. Rangers player skips by Hibs midfielder who just blatantly grabs his shirt for an absolute routine , taking one for the team, booking but nope. Robertson gives the foul but doesn’t book the player.!!!
Every week it’s the same. All we want is consistency and for them to get the most obvious correct
As for the graffiti. It’s shameful but I don’t expect anything will happen to Hibs. They’ll be billed for the seats and that will be the end of it. I know Rangers have issued a statement. Rangers do have excellent CCTV so we might see the odd individual fined with possible footy ban but I doubt it.
Straight red for McInnes, which was later rescinded when they saw the evidence that the ball had clearly gone out and back in when he stopped it, so never served any suspension.
I think in regards of allowing attacks to play out it only applies to the offside or decisions which will eventually be binary. For example, if the ref let it play out for something which he felt was a foul - the VAR team may not see it as a foul but it becomes subjective and could cause even more chaos than what we already see. If the ref in that moment feels he's saw a foul then he should blow the whistle unless there's an obvious attacking advantage. I think that's the case anyway.