In the situation of the Tokely penalty today is it correct that a team should be penalised twice. Once with the penalty and second with the straight red for preventing a goal scoring opportunity? The whole purpose of defenders is to prevent goal scoring opportunities yet they are double penalised for doing so. Personally I feel this is a ridiculous rule.

You are missing the main point Alex - it wasnt a penalty !! - Despite what Neil McCann may say it was an absolute "toss up" as to whether Rosscoe made contact with Naismith or the ball first - but fer fecks sake a great tackle takes out the man and the ball - which Rosscoe did.

Lets face it the ref was either told about - or possibly even shown - the incidents in the first half and that clearly influenced the decision against Tokely. I defy anybody to justify a penalty decision after watching the TV replays. Along with the red card that sole decision totally changed the game. The second was harsh but probably correct. Aldred simply was'nt concentrating and IMHO held back when he should have gone through. But the non reactions to the save by the two central defenders - Aldred and Hogg - was disgraceful - they were both feckin sleeping and switched off

The rule is right, it's just that the refs need to apply it only when a foul has actually been committed!

Great tackle by Tokely. Horrific decision by the "referee".

Horrendous decision by the ref, Tokely won the ball

After watching the replay on sky plus, Tokely clearly got the ball before man. Even if he didnt get Naismith he was going down anyway as Rangers were getting desperate as they couldnt break us down in normal play.

Appeal, appeal, appeal.

We are all Ross Tokely. Justice for the number 3!

In my opinion the rule should be changed to a penalty and a caution as opposed to a penalty and a straight red, its bad enough conceding a penalty but losing a man i feel is an unjust and unnecessary rule to add.

In my opinion the rule should be changed to a penalty and a caution as opposed to a penalty and a straight red, its bad enough conceding a penalty but losing a man i feel is an unjust and unnecessary rule to add.

I think that would be fair, unless its a deliberate challenge on the player, Aberdeen raised this problem before when they finished a game with 9 men.

Naismith should be taken to task over his continual cheating, every week without fail he seems to be the centre of controversy, invariably with a smirk on his face to add insult to injury.

There should be a distinction between plain cheating where a defender prevents a player from scoring by simply taking him out when he knows he can't get the ball, and a genuine attempt at getting the ball which takes the player rather than the ball. The distinction is pretty clear in the vast majority of situations. Even if the referee genuinely thought Tokely had fouled Naysmith today he surely would not dispute that Tokely went for the ball.

We can feel hard done by with the decision today but these things tend to even out over the course of the season - Celtic will get just as many dubious decisions as Rangers will.

If it denies a goal scoring opportunity then yes send him off. There's always a chance the keeper will save it.. Regarding the Tokely challenge though, it wasn't even a penalty. It was a very good challenge.

Maybe the question should be what does the SFA do about incompetent refereering?

what annoys me is that there is no goalscoring opportunity when essons protecting our goal!!!

Edited August 13, 201114 yr by lukemackay

What is more to the point is ....what is the club going to do about it? A P P E A L ?

If the club does not appeal this ridiculous incident then why? A P P E A L?

And are we going to keep on allowing this double penalty to the team stuff? A p p e a l?

The way some of these convoluted rules are playing out these days only offers stultifying nonsene to the game and just chokes up the fans and creates no worthwhile FAIR entertainment. At least that is MHO.

Get rid of penalties all together and open up the game where everybody knows they can play with abandon, without fear of draconian penalties being heaped on a team at the worst possible moment.

Terry now says that the team cannot tackle now in the box for fear of getting a red card--bl..oo.d y nonsense.

I mean, that first penalty today sunk any chance that Caley Thistle had to get on top of the Rangers

and was a sickening game turner.

Really mad I am,so I will quit whilst I am ahead.

Cheers folks.

The club simply have to appeal and make the guvnors make a decision that will have to stand as a precedent fer the rest of the season - especially as it is there for slow motion, different angle analysis. Unfortunately I dont think that they have to give a rationale for any decision they come to.

As I have said elsewhere - and I would love to know if I am correct - that the ref was confronted about his first half display and judging by TV replays the one mistake he made was not giving a penalty for Rangers and the culprit who got off with a penalty was Rosscoe - if you watch the TV replays he is just about to whistle and then stops himself. I truly believe that if that happened then he would have gone out with the unconscious psyche of making ammends, To be slightly fair to him he was positioned behind the players so his view would have been blocked - but that means that he must have looked towards his assistant who must have had a very clear view.

Not a criticism but Rosscoes style of tackling is the old fashioned way - a bit of lunging in with a sometimes apparent struggling fer pace motion and taking a piece of the man with the ball - just look at his tackle at the edge of the box in the first half. It is simply a case of changing yer style which aint easy to do when it comes to tackling. That is why it is a bit of a risk playing Rosscoe in his current position.

I was always of the opinion that it was a CLEAR goal scoring opportunity which merited a red. This was not one. 2nd he won the ball clearly. Fantastic tackle. The 2nd was shoulder to shoulder and Goian should be awarded a medal for that dive. That Tom Daley has nothing on him. Even my hun buddy called it as a dive.

Not sure we can appeal for an incident like this. Has to be violent conduct or mistaken identity etc.

Can you imagine we lost 1 nil to the first penalty. We appeal and win. Ross is not even given a yellow which means it wasn't a penalty. Would that mean the results would be void?

Neither was a pen so technically the result could be described as void anyway.

I think....where there is any ambuiguity regarding the players intention, then the refs decision should be lenient on the "offending" player. Fair enuff, Roscoe didnt clearly win the ball (no one could say that, given the access to the same decision making equipment the ref had...ie one pair of eyes) but at the same time...it wasnt a blatant foul either, so a penalty was punishment enuff under such circumstances....not that i believe it was a penalty in the first place!

A penalty awarded against the last man should result in a red IMHO. We have benefitted in the past from these decisions but it doesn't make it any easier to swallow.

Regards any appeal, is there not a new process set up for this season?

i am on holiday in Greenland and the Danish TV2 station said that Rangers were very fortunate to get a penalty, although they did not show the penalty claim, they had a picture of us playing rangers in our old strip, the Flybe.com one from a couple of years ago

i am on holiday in Greenland and the Danish TV2 station said that Rangers were very fortunate to get a penalty, although they did not show the penalty claim, they had a picture of us playing rangers in our old strip, the Flybe.com one from a couple of years ago

Watch out fer them feckin polar bears mate.

Can anybody lipread - as I said during the game it looked like Ross questioned Naismith's integrity before he left the scene.... ;-)

Aint no polar bears in Greenland 'cos, now the Arctic ice is all melting, the swim from there is too far. Soon, there will be no polar bears left at all in the North.

:panda02: now in China though.

Aint no polar bears in Greenland 'cos, now the Arctic ice is all melting, the swim from there is too far. Soon, there will be no polar bears left at all in the North.

:panda02: now in China though.

That is why I told him to watch out - cos if he sees one in Greenland they will be mightily cheesed off bestards.

We are appealing the decision