Refereeing conspiracy
in [Rangers]
|
Prev: Tam Cowan's mask slips...
Next: deserved
From: Fish Supper on 21 Mar 2010 14:51 If there was any doubt there can be none now - the refs will do everything in their power to ensure a Rangers victory. Referee Thompson knew that by sending off two Gers he would force St Mirren into the offensive and thus allow Rangers to play on the break. And did they not score from just such a break? Proof positive of hunnish corruption!
From: liam67 on 22 Mar 2010 14:19 "Fish Supper" wrote: > If there was any doubt there can be none now - the refs will do everything > in their power to ensure a Rangers victory. > > Referee Thompson knew that by sending off two Gers he would force St Mirren > into the offensive and thus allow Rangers to play on the break. > > And did they not score from just such a break? > > Proof positive of hunnish corruption! Ach you were lucky...you clearly didn't deserve to win...since, and I know you like your stats, St Mirren got 9 corners to your 2 and saints had 65% possession.... ;0)
From: bizenya on 22 Mar 2010 14:52 "liam67" <liam.shaw.glasgow(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:ea0a90ba-ad3d-4069-ab7c-eb7543dcee48(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > "Fish Supper" wrote: >> If there was any doubt there can be none now - the refs will do >> everything >> in their power to ensure a Rangers victory. >> >> Referee Thompson knew that by sending off two Gers he would force St >> Mirren >> into the offensive and thus allow Rangers to play on the break. >> >> And did they not score from just such a break? >> >> Proof positive of hunnish corruption! > > Ach you were lucky...you clearly didn't deserve to win...since, and I > know you like your stats, St Mirren got 9 corners to your 2 and saints > had 65% possession.... ;0) Lucky in as much as they were shite and ineffectual against a team of nine men? If two boxers are hugely mis-matched so much so that X beats Y with his good hand tied behind his back, is he lucky or is he just superior? If the stats show that the weak boxer threw and landed many more punches ineffectually does that mean he was unlucky to lose? Your straws are looking rather ragged these days pal! ;o)
From: liam67 on 22 Mar 2010 15:54 "bizenya" wrote: > "liam67" wrote > > "Fish Supper" wrote: > >> If there was any doubt there can be none now - the refs will do > >> everything > >> in their power to ensure a Rangers victory. > > >> Referee Thompson knew that by sending off two Gers he would force St > >> Mirren > >> into the offensive and thus allow Rangers to play on the break. > > >> And did they not score from just such a break? > > >> Proof positive of hunnish corruption! > > > Ach you were lucky...you clearly didn't deserve to win...since, and I > > know you like your stats, St Mirren got 9 corners to your 2 and saints > > had 65% possession.... ;0) > > Lucky in as much as they were shite and ineffectual against a team of nine > men? > > If two boxers are hugely mis-matched so much so that X beats Y with his good > hand tied behind his back, is he lucky or is he just superior? > If the stats show that the weak boxer threw and landed many more punches > ineffectually does that mean he was unlucky to lose? > > Your straws are looking rather ragged these days pal! > ;o) Just a wee joke biz. Fish Supper suggested the gers werent lucky in the last old firm game since they had ten corners. I was just wondering how nonlinear suppers logic was...
From: Fish Supper on 22 Mar 2010 19:43
"liam67" <liam.shaw.glasgow(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:59f6e154-7b89-4c67-ae63-0661bf7f40b0(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > "bizenya" wrote: >> "liam67" wrote >> > "Fish Supper" wrote: >> >> If there was any doubt there can be none now - the refs will do >> >> everything >> >> in their power to ensure a Rangers victory. >> >> >> Referee Thompson knew that by sending off two Gers he would force St >> >> Mirren >> >> into the offensive and thus allow Rangers to play on the break. >> >> >> And did they not score from just such a break? >> >> >> Proof positive of hunnish corruption! >> >> > Ach you were lucky...you clearly didn't deserve to win...since, and I >> > know you like your stats, St Mirren got 9 corners to your 2 and saints >> > had 65% possession.... ;0) >> >> Lucky in as much as they were shite and ineffectual against a team of >> nine >> men? >> >> If two boxers are hugely mis-matched so much so that X beats Y with his >> good >> hand tied behind his back, is he lucky or is he just superior? >> If the stats show that the weak boxer threw and landed many more punches >> ineffectually does that mean he was unlucky to lose? >> >> Your straws are looking rather ragged these days pal! >> ;o) > > Just a wee joke biz. Fish Supper suggested the gers werent lucky in > the last old firm game since they had ten corners. I was just > wondering how nonlinear suppers logic was... I think you'll find that I said we weren't lucky because we played you off the park, of which our ten corners to nil was merely a reflection. We weren't lucky then and we weren't lucky yesterday. We were, in fact, unlucky with refereeing decisions. In both cases the ref had a choice to make and could have given a yellow card in both instances. In fact, in most games I believe that's what would have been given. I also think he was dead right with the first red and very harsh with the second. The goal yesterday was a textbook piece, slickly played out, perfectly flighted cross and a sublime finish. Not an inch of luck anywhere. |