05 Feb 2026 14:40:50
See McCann saying tav should've got a red as his tackle was exact same i can't remember it.
05 Feb 2026 15:03:44
Was pretty similar, to be fair, and Tav was already on a yellow. The pen was a definite pen, but it was a coming together. Was no malice in it, much the same as Tavs. Unintentional clash imo.
05 Feb 2026 15:06:22
The one where they 'came together' in the middle of the park and the guy went to ground. Saying it was a goal scoring opportunity, I imagine. Didn't think there was much in it. Granted, I think the Killie one, a sending off is too harsh there.
Yes, no attempt to play ball, but penalty and yellow card would be fairer in circumstances where the defender doesn't know the forward is there.
05 Feb 2026 15:06:50
It was the exact same apart from it wasn't in the area and wasn't preventing a goal scoring opportunity. Very good, Neil. Liked you as a player, but that was not the same. Sour grapes.
05 Feb 2026 15:15:29
Difference for me was the Killie player was never getting to the ball, so not a clear goal scoring opportunity.
They are already starting to highlight every issue. Pressure is getting to them, and trying to influence everything they can. Even had that old clown Rod Stewart complaint about biased refs on Talksport about our penalty, but then says he thought it was a penalty. ?
05 Feb 2026 15:22:08
I thought the Killie player ran into Tav. Nothing in it for me.
05 Feb 2026 15:34:28
I was initially surprised at Killie's red card, but on replays, yes, he doesn't know the player's there, but it is a penalty, and he's the last man stopping a goal scoring opportunity, so yes, a red. Unfortunate for the boy, no malice or whatever, just never realised the player was there.
05 Feb 2026 15:42:17
Its a penalty every day of the week, and the rule is its a red card. However, the rules need changed, as it is harsh and should be a yellow.
With the Tav one, the Killie player runs into Tav and falls over very easily. Like all the Killie players had been doing the full game (diving), so serves them right for not getting anything.
Never a red card. Barely even a foul.
So sick of even stone wall penalties getting labelled as cheating or corruption just because its for Rangers. The bias is at a whole new level and makes watching/listening to any football shows/channels unbearable.
05 Feb 2026 15:49:30
To be honest, when Tav fouled the guy, i held my breath, cause I thought it was a yellow for obstructing the guy. That would have been his second yellow and a sending off, and would have evened things out, as the straight red for that penalty was a bit harsh.
And Gassama was looking for that penalty call, he was never going to shoot.
Both decisions went strongly in Rangers favour. I don't mind though, these things happen and we got the 3pts, so bully for us.
05 Feb 2026 15:51:47
Ally, I think that Killie players were looking for free kicks, and Anderson, for one, got them every time he was touched at all. It is what I found annoying with Dessers and now with Gassama. Yes, they go to ground, and yes, too easily, but are they any different from what happened last night?
Do I want our players to do that? Possibly not, but the rules are the same, so if Anderson gets it for 'initiating contact', then surely Gassama needs to be treated the same.
05 Feb 2026 16:14:50
Tav's wasn't a red card.
Thought he was lucky to escape a second yellow, though, given he was booked 2 mins before. That's why Rohl took him off imo.
Killie one is down to ref interpretation.
I don't think that should be a red, given it was clumsy more than anything, but rules say it has to be a genuine attempt to play the ball, and there wasn't, so I can see why it was given.
05 Feb 2026 16:32:37
To be fair, gdog55, I don't think Gassama was making a genuine attempt to play the ball either. He was just looking for a soft landing spot as soon as he felt the defender. Sad, but this is part of the modern game now.
05 Feb 2026 16:35:59
More rolls than a McGhees delivery van.
05 Feb 2026 16:51:40
Referee got the penalty decision correct; he applied the rules, which is his job.
I know folks have said it's a bad rule, but I completely disagree. Football is the most cheating sport there is by a country mile. It's genuinely the only sport I can think of where you regularly benefit by breaking the rules.
Before this rule, we seen attackers taken out by defenders, just like the Killie boy done, because the benefit to doing that outweighed the punishment for doing so.
I particularly like the double jeopardy rule because you only get punished if you are trying to play within the rules. I do get really annoyed that refs seem to think it applies to yellow cards, particularly when a player has already been booked.
05 Feb 2026 17:15:46
Just read Rangers have had 17 goals chalked off this season. The latest against Hibs was ridiculous.
05 Feb 2026 17:20:29
Tav, never a red, but u never know with some refs, for a second yellow to even things up. The Killie one, yes, accidental, but the way the laws of the game is, it's a pen and a red. If the Killie defender actually trying to get ball, then only a yellow and pen.
You think common sense should be assessed to the laws, as the boy was not pulling him down intentionally or trying to get ball?
05 Feb 2026 18:03:09
Yes, players do take advantage of the rules, and I agree, I would call it cheating. What about the attacker who sprints to get to the ball and then stops so they get contact with the defender? Probably a fair description of what happened for the penalty.
It was a penalty because of the contact, but the Killie player didn't make an attempt, really, to bring him down.
A bit more than a coming together, but "deliberate"?
Re double jeopardy, the player can make an attempt to send the lad into row Z and only get booked. Which is the worst offence? Both penalties, but one yellow and the other red. A penalty is enough punishment in circumstances where the player wasn't aware. The difficult part is knowing that, granted.
05 Feb 2026 18:19:53
It was a sending off, no attempt to play the ball, and especially when already on a yellow.
People saying it was a coming together, then our pen was a coming together. Take the blue tinted specs aff.
05 Feb 2026 18:25:19
In the box, it's only a red if there's no attempt to play the ball. It's not denying a goal-scoring opportunity, it's the double jeopardy rule. There was no attempt to play the ball. Felt sorry for the boy, but going by the rules, it's a red.
05 Feb 2026 18:37:43
I think its 100% a red card for Tav. He was on a booking, which i don't think would have mattered, as he got caught on the wrong side of the Killie player and made contact, thus a foul. Soft, but its a foul, and as such he is denying a goal scoring opportunity as last def, so straight red. We got lucky, as if the same happened to one of our players, we would be going mental.
I have no problem calling out incorrect decision that go in our favour. No agenda or conspiracies, just rubbish refs and even rubbishter VAR officials across the board. (Oops, don't mention board, i will be dodging sharks for the rest of the year.)
05 Feb 2026 18:41:45
Tav could have got a second yellow, I suppose.
05 Feb 2026 18:44:16
I love when someone on here makes a statement that is so wrong it is laughable. Tav wasn't booked 2 minutes before the incident, he was booked in the first half and this happened in the second half.
The two incidents were not the same. Gassama was clear of Thompson, who deliberately stumbled into him from behind.
Gassama wasn't playing for it and there was no attempt to play the ball, so its a red. In the Tav incident, John Jules turned into Tav and threw himself down when he realised he wasn't getting the ball. The ref didn't even give a foul. Honestly, its like reading the Celtic conspiracy forum on here at times.
05 Feb 2026 18:55:45
I get where you're coming from, Angus, but you take that rule away and overnight there will be a massive upturn in accidental running into the back of someone in the penalty area when they're through on goal.
The last thing football needs is more cheating, which it would end up causing, and if it takes the odd harsh decision like this one was, then it's worth it.
I don't agree on the attackers, because if you have possession of the ball, then the defender has to avoid those collisions for me. Running behind someone in possession means you cannot do anything really, and if the attacker stops and you run into him, you have fouled him. So when fans say, "What's he supposed to do to avoid a collision?", the answer is be in a better defensive position imo.
The biggest problem for me with attackers is the blatant diving that happens constantly in the game. We give refs a hard time, but it's become so difficult for them to tell if a foul is really a foul when the vast majority are so good at making any kind of contact look a foul. It's so common that the only time I hear it discussed is by someone with an agenda against a particular player or club.
I personally watch very few live games these days because with all the cheating, I find it tedious to watch.
I would introduce a VAR yellow for all simulation. It would cut out the worst part of the diving and possibly change the culture.
05 Feb 2026 20:04:14
Right before Tav does that, Mivovski gets manhandled, so it should have been a foul to us first.
05 Feb 2026 20:05:13
Wsl, it's your opinion it's not a foul, but that's because of your blue tinted specs. Some of us fans don't wear them ?. It's a foul every day of the week. Just because the ref doesn't give it doesn't make it any less of a foul ?.
05 Feb 2026 21:21:46
Have to agree, Storm, looked like a foul and a second yellow for me. Mark it down as got away with one for a change.
05 Feb 2026 21:48:32
For me, the Kilmarnock player initiates the contact. He has a wee look at Tav and delays his run, knowing Tav will collide. The Kilmarnock red was harsh, but the rule does state a player who commits a foul, intentionally or not, without making a genuine attempt to play the ball will be shown a red.
If the player commits a foul making an intentional challenge for the ball, they will be shown a yellow and a penalty awarded to the attacking player. The double jeopardy rule.
05 Feb 2026 22:22:22
Tommy, we are agreeing in the main. It was a penalty by the law, but was it so bad an offence that it deserved a red, even if it was right by the laws? Gassama made a quick sprint at the last minute to initiate contact, probably.
I like the way they are looking at it down south, where there needs to be sufficient contact. Very subjective, but stops the diving for little contact resulting in a penalty.
I find other teams initiate this contact regularly and get the decisions more often than our players. Wife still laughs at me shouting at the screen, so get exactly what you mean.
I agree with VAR getting involved, but fear it would result in more stoppages. Feel it should be post-match, identified by VAR to look at, and punishment of a 1 game ban for offences. It will stop it, even if they get some wrong.
06 Feb 2026 13:20:27
Storm, I don't have blue tinted spectacles, I give my opinion just like you and others. I thought that Fernanzez should have given away a penalty against Livi, for example. The way I judge it is, would I have been screaming for it if it happened against Rangers? I thought John Jules initiated the contact and it wasn't a foul and the ref, perhaps surprisingly given what we have had to put up with this season, agreed.
The Rangers pen was a stonewaller and the guy had to go, he tried to make it look like an accident but it wasn't. We watched a game on Sunday where the ref got 3 corner kick decisions wrong, the basics, so maybe if the other clubs are unhappy they should stop moaning and back up Rangers call for improved standards and accountability by Colum.