@Bolloxpants: I sound somewhat niave? Your the one talking about conspiracies and collusion by refs against Celtic. You claim this has been admitted, please provide evidence to substantiate your claims. Simple fact is, we were NOT the better team, the ref had every reason to red card Cha and Wanyama. No conspiracy, no collusion. The only bit of underhanded tactics used against Celtic in my lifetime (1977 onwards) is the Jim Farry/Jorge Cadete saga. It's sad that all celtic fans are labelled with the paranoid thinking of the few. Do you honestly believe that Celtic have been treated unfairly since the clubs inception? please explain all the good times Celtic have enjoyed through the years. 1967, 9-in a row, 1970, 1988, 1998, MON era, Strachan years etc etc (just to name a few) I suppose the refs during those years forgot to read the 'Conspire against Celtic handbook'. In your mind, Celtic should be the ONLY team to win anything in Scottish football, thats just ****ing arrogant and delusional thinking. If you are good enough, you will win. Celtic simply were not good enough. (i await your response with proof backing your claims of collusion and conspiracies)
Stirring up a hornet's nest there C3LT1C BTW I agree with you by and large (although no doubt many won't)
Don't get me wrong, im not saying that i have never screamed at the ref calling him a blue nosed **** or some other derogatory expletive. But its heat of the moment stuff, i don't carry it with me for months (in harrys case years/decades) and feel the need to spew my bile all over the internet to anyone who will listen. Life as a Celtic fan right now is a good feeling. Top of the League, 33pt swing since Novemeber (23 on our own merits). Our greatest and closest rivals almost out of business and wondering how to pay the leccy bill at the end of the month. Yet some want to talk about how the ref and his assistants may be doing the Monty Burns hand roll over how to stop Celtic winning a single match. If this is what being a Celtic fan is doing to you, i seriously suggest you stop watching football and seek medical attention. It is, after all, just a ****ing game.
I believe there is a bias against Celtic. Bias has manifested itself within the corridors of power and that has been proven, so I can speak about that freely enough. We know match officials have lied to Celtic. We know their bigoted bosses have conspired to propagate those lies. I don't think it is an organised, systematic thing. I don't think Sunday was an example of it. There were a number of very poor calls. The key ones went in Rangers favour. The key borderline ones went in Rangers favour. Another day they might not.
Celtic, Should you be referring to we when posting about Celtic ? Pud, Have you suffered memory loss or have you been never been in any contact with Scottish Football. Time and time again on these boards several "decent Celtic fans" have cited clear examples of undeniable bias by referees and officials in Scotland. I am not going to waste my time trying to convince again some poor lost soul, who for whatever reason seems to be hiding from the truth. Are you trying to get "brownie" points from your h.n friends. Sometime I become amazed by what claims to be a Celtic supporter nowadays. Pud tell me you are only joking
If being a Celtic supporter requires you to be paranoid, whine, bitch and moan about every little thing. Then i guess i am not. What i am tho, is an open minded individual who doesn't follow the hoard like a sheep. I can take off my green goggles and see the world for what it actually is. There is NO bias against Celtic. One or two refs may have made calls that suggest bias, but that is down to the individual ref, not some big mason conspiracy to ensure that Celtic don't win anything. ITS ONLY A ****ING GAME FFS!!! Get outside and live a little, there is more to life than bitching about Football.
wanyama's wasnt a straight red in a million years, he wasnt off the ground, it was a superb challenge in my book, clean as cleany thing if a superb challenge like that is considered a straight red then the americans are 100% right about soccer being a gay sport for ****s
No complaints about Vic's red, it looked a dangerous tackle and if a Gers player had done that i'd want to see a Red too. I thought Cha's was soft but I understand why he saw Red even though I don't think it was the right decision. I personally believe there was a bias against Celtic, notably by McCurry and in the past there were plenty of Refs who detested Celtic and/or loved Rangers and happlily gave decisions against us. Do I believe a bias still exists? Not really but Celtic fans are not alone in thinking everyone is out to get them. Recently some Rangers fans have tried to say that the SFA were scared of giving decisions against Celtic, I think we can discard that notion now (again). As for the SFA, still don't trust them and I won't until the day the truth comes out about Jim Farry and why exactly he was paid to keep quiet when he was sacked.
dev, how is it a dangerous tackle? he had a clear chance to win the ball and the rangers player was never in danger of gettin hit if its a 50/50 and he goes in like that then you could consider it dangerous, there was no intent to harm the player and he was just making sure he got the ball cleanly never a red in a million ****in years
Eddie, I said "it looked" like a dangerous tackle, we had plenty of time to analyse it, Calum Murray had to make an immediate decision without the benefit of a replay and the fact that Celtic never appealed it says everything. There was Zero chance of having it rescinded.
I largely agree with you Dev both on the issue of bias and on the Wanayama tackle. I wouldn't say it was the wrong decision, but I would say that Murray didn't give himself much time to make sure it was the right one. Same with the Cha. 6 seconds to get the red card out for Cha. 3 seconds to get the red card out for Wanyama. 29 seconds to get the red card out for Bocanegra. (No, I never timed it.......but someone did). In all likelihood there is nothing up with that. But it isn't just about being impartial, it is about being seen to be impartial. I read a comment that Murray nearly tripped over his sash trying to get the cards out. Right or wrong, Murray didn't give himself any time to consider the variables. Especially with Cha. Look at a cricket umpire. HOWZAT?.. They'll have a right good think before raising their finger.
A fair point when you look at the timings, in Murray's defence I think he had to ask the Linesman to make the call (I don't know why) so that would take a wee bit longer.
**** sake He had to ask the linesman who actually made the challenge... bocenegra or the other defender :wallace I think)
i can't verify the accuracy of that, but I know what it looked like at the time. At the time I thought they were both the correct decision. Now I think Cha was unlucky. But he still got caught horrendously on the wrong side and I am annoyed with him for that. In the same way I was annoyed with Dan for falling asleep when he got sent off.
I know that. The point is that he didn't consult with the linesman on it being a clear goal scoring opportunity for Wallace before sending off Cha. It is a major decision and still not necessarily the wrong one. The perception is that he rushed 2 decisions that negatively impacted Celtic. Whether he did or he didn't, I'll say that it isn't about being impartial, it is about being seen to be impartial as well.
