Is Anyone Else Getting Fed Up With The Conspiracy Nonsense?

Aye that year was the daddy of bad decisions. Especially in Old Firm matches.

 

I reckon it'd be easier to convince Rangers fans with such evidence shown in this thread than some of the Celtic fans in here. I genuinely don't know how people can be so blind ot it? Club legends, ex-players, ex-managers, the board, past and present, have all alluded to the annti-Celtic, the anti-Catholic and the anti- Irish feeling within the SFA. There have been numerous ocassions of clear evidence showing it too yet people are desperate for it not to be true. And they have laughed at the huns for burying their head in the sand in recent times

 

Look at the game at Tynecastle several weeks back. We played some excellent football and won the game convincingly. Decisions go against every team in football, that is a fact. My main concern is why in these games against the huns, killie and hearts we have been so bad and not come near to the level of football we are capable of. The way people are talking is as if the ref just threw the ball in our net to give the opposition the win. We were woeful in these games and that is why we lost. It's football for * sake. Even at Sunday League level, if you play crap you will probably fail to win the game.

 

Exactly, we havent turned up for the 3 big games mentioned, nothing to do with refs

 

We should be be able to play crap and win. We can't because if we don't play as well as we can then we have the cheating on top of it to contend with. It should be a level playing field, and it's certainly not. How much evidence do you need? How about all the people who are blaming the team and Lenny start showing us some anti-Protestant, anti-rangers, anti-British and anti-McCoist evidence? Yes let's do that. Go ahead, I await your evidence backing your argument.................

 

That statement is just not true whatsoever.

 

I don't believe the conspiracy pish. I blame the team/tactics when they play crap and get beat. (Although by your logic we should still win when we're *. hmm)

If i don't buy into it against Celtic then i'm not going to believe the opposite either

 

So we are to play brilliant every week just to compensate for refereeing decisions? Utter bullshit, I actually can't believe people peddle this * about how we should be winning anyway as if it excuses the constant terrible decisions. We didn't even play crap on Sunday, we dominated the game - go back and watch it. Forster, bar a short back-pass, didn't touch the ball in the first half - we hit the post and had a fair few good chances. The first ten minutes of the second half we were poor but after that we had them penned in their own half and the goal was inevitable. Can't believe people are happy to accept the downright cheating just because Ki hit the post twice and we should have done a bit better...Pathetic.

 

Does anyone mind 2 seasons ago when Michael Duberry put his hand on the ball twice for a few seconds at a time and no penalty was given. Shaun Maloney twice fouled in box at ibrox-booked.

Any Celtic fan who is fed up with "conspiracy nonsense", obviously doesn't watch many games. I have seen bad decisions against us and in favour of them all my life. If it walks like a duck....

 

How can it be nothing to do with the refs when the referee gave a penalty, that wasn't a penalty, in the last minute of the game on Sunday?

I agree with you that Celtic were well below par on Sunday but to say that the referee had nothing to do with the result is just ridiculous.

 

Bang on there man. We played well enough and created enough on Sunday there, and in the LC final. Aye we might not have taken our chances, but why should we need to go out and score 3-4 goals every game just to compensate a dubious decision which we tend get given against us 8/10 times?

 

Kilmarnock Cup Final:

Dominated the game throughout and came up against a very disciplined defence. Created a lot of decent chances, Hooper's, Sammy's volley, Stokes' turn and shot etc. We were the better team. They scored a sucker-punch goal as a result of a defensive error. These things happen, fair enough. We need to claw it back - we get our chance, Stokes through on goal, rounds the keeper and is taken down as he is about to put it in the net



Clear penalty as was admitted by Kilmarnock defender Nelson.

Hun game:

Rangers took a deserved lead, no denying that, we were poor in the first half hour or so. Now Wallace takes a touch that takes the ball completely out of his possession - it was at least 10 yards away from him. There were defenders covering and the keeper would probably have got there. Wallace knows this and falls to the deck - there is no contact, minimal contact from Wallace on Cha and then he goes to ground. Firstly, it isn't even a foul. Secondly, it is, in no way, denying a goal-scoring opportunity. Cha is red-carded - something which most in the press and most pundits on TV etc stated was the wrong decision. Lennon is angry and confronts the referee who then sends him off for, if Lennon is to be believed and I dont see why Celtic fans would believe otherwise, very, very little. Sending off Cha changes the game completely and the momentum is in Rangers favour. Bear in mind it was 1-0 for quite a while whilst we had 9 men and they had 11. We would have brought it back I reckon had it been 11 v 11.

Hearts Semi-Final:

In the first half, it hasn't really been mentioned, Lustig cut inside and hit a tame effort that the Hearts player stuck his head out to block - clear as day corner and Norris overrules it, pointing to a goal kick, much to everyones confusion. The whole first half of the game we played well, we dominated and had most of the ball, some lovely interchanges and good usage of Lustig going forward - we hit the post and had several other half chances. Bar a ten minute period of the second half, we dominated and created good chances - cleared off the line, hit the post etc. Now had we been luckier and Hearst defence hadn't been as stubborn, we'd have been 4-0 up but we weren't and that is through no fault of Lenny or the team. To then suggest that we should have had it wrapped up before the decision as if it is our own fault is just utterly embarrassing. There is then the decision to book Mulgrew for a fair tackle in which he took the ball whilst having to consult his fourth official before even brandishing a yellow to Black for what is a clear sending off - only really need to look at the photo stills of the studs up challenge and the following effects on Joe's knee. Then there is the penalty - the rules clearly state a penalty for handball be given if it is an intentional usage of the arm. Zaluikas was maybe a yard at msot away from Ledley when he struck a fast and wayward shot that hit Ledley's arm, literally impossible for him to move it out of the way. The ref then points to the spot from an angle where it is virtually impossible for him to have seen the incident (sound familiar?). Never a penalty in a million years, something Craig Beattie stated straight after the game. Celtic then go up the other end and the exact same incident occurs - ball to arm from a close-range - not a penalty but if it is enforced at one end of the pitch then it ought to be enforced up the other end.

I reckon if evidence was ever proved, much like it has in the past (Dallas e-mail, Dallas 1999, Dougie Dougie, Campbell Ogilvie, Jim Farry etc) then some of the people on here would still bury their head in the sand. I actually dont know who these people are, I go to every game home adn away and never see the polarised opinions you tend to see only on here - even on other forums and Celtic cyberspace in general, everyone can see this yet a few on here can't...

 

In the Killie, Huns and mini Huns games we were poor and didn't take or chances that's what cost us the game most of all though inept refs didn't exactly help. We got a break in the first Huns game when Wallace's goal wasn't given and in the opening stages against Hearts so we've had our fair share of luck as well.

There has doubtless been plenty of wrongdoings towards Celtic over the years from the establishment, that is fact but we lost to Kilmarnock, Rangers and Hearts because we were guff with no cutting edge for most of those games. Blaming the ref for these games is deflecting way from our own deficiencies.

 

Black should have been off on Sunday and Stokes should have got a penalty against Kilmarnock but we should have had enough to beat them without these dodgy decisions. It seems if a team sets up with a disciplined defensive formation we have no answers.

 

Erm...why? All teams play * and win. I'm just saying that even when we play crap we should still have a level playing field which enables us to claim a victory in these games.

Anyway that's beside the point. No one including yourself has provided me with the evidence I asked for. I think you and I both know why. There isn't any. Case closed.

You don't believe it? Interesting considering the evidence racking up. How about you answer my question and deliver the evidence I asked for?

TO CLARIFY: I'm looking for Anti-Rangers, Anti-Protestant, Anti-British or Anti-McCoist evidence that shows a prevalence of any of these things in the Scottish game.

 

Tbh I'm a bit fed up with this 'yes the refs are pish but we should be able to win anyway'. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have done better in those 3 big games (though I think some people are doing the team, and particularly Lenny, a disservice with regard to the cup games when you look at the chances we created). The refs are there to enforce the rules. Now we should have been able to put a few past Killie, but that doesn't change the fact that when we got the chance to do so in the last minute, Stokes was denied by Nelson breaking the rules. There's nothing we can do about that, Stokes was illegally prevented from scoring and in that situation you want the ref to do us justice by giving the foul. That didn't happen. Same in the Hearts game; in order to prevent the opposition from scoring, you have to defend well. We defended that last attack, yet we weren't allowed to do so because the referee decided that we had done it illegally. Again, not our fault. People say that we shouldn't have to rely on refs, we will win as long as we score more goals than the opposition. This is true, but in the final we were prevented from scoring a goal at the end by the referee, and in the SC semi we were prevented from defending at the end by the referee. We definitely have a right to feel aggrieved about those, regardless of how poorly we played in the previous 90 minutes.

 

Not only that mate but it was what Sir Walter of Brogueshire was lauded for. Probably by a fair few Celtic fans as well. However when we do it some still dont think its good enough. I really cant understand the mindset of those that think we should automatically pump everyone and be at our best every week. It has never happened with any team in the history of football, yet those fans expect us to attain those standards. Truly * baffling and to use it as some sort of excuse for shambolic refereeing is complete nonsense.

 

I have had a read over and find it strange you seem to be asking for evidence for something that doesn't exist. If it did not, why would there be evidence of it in the first place?

The only evidence of an strange agenda is that bad decisions go against us. They go for as well. E.g Hoopers goal was offside, everyone can rant and rave about it being the linesmans fault and not the referees, or saying it was marginally. But none the less when the ball is played Hoopers foot is offside. What about vs Hearts in the previous game, when the ball crossed the line, and the goal was not given? So apart from bad decisions going against us there is no evidence of an agenda. If you find some please forward it to FIFA and prove me wrong. I would gladly like to see any corrupt officials prosocuted the same way Dallas was, but until then, and not trying to be rude here, it does make us sound like sore losers whenever we bow out of a cup or lose a game to any decision that goes against us we think the referees are plotting to see Celtic lose.

If Ki had buried those 2 free headers into a more or less open net, we would have won. He didn't. Why not linch him for it instead of the referee? Maybe he is involved in this agenda and purposly missed? Would you accept that as proof of Ki being part of it? Or is it only proof when a referee does something wrong against Celtic?

If there is indeed proof as you say of the agenda, it would not be a conspiracy it would be cold hard truth. Like I said, prove me wrong and I will admit I did not see it coming but there are signs. But I am not going to embarass myself by getting carried away and shouting out signs of conspiracy after every single slightest dodgy thing that doesn't go our way.

Also apologies if I have picked up your point wrong as only looked over last few pages. But this would still stand as MY opinion on the matter

 

If Ki had buried his chances I would still be complaining, the tackle Ian Black done on Ledley was shocking and then to handball it a minute later and nothing?

The penalty I would be complaining like * about similiarly with the non award of ours.

And it is truth, every time we have presented it to yourself I haven't seen you give an answer. Just clutch at straws to certain points.