WE'RE WATCHING YOU: Rangers warn SFA they will monitor rival clubs' TV broadcasts after accusing them of making stronger comments than John Brown's 'corrupt' jibe

Daily Mail​

5 hours ago

Rangers have warned the SFA they will be monitoring the club TV broadcasts of rival teams after they were fined £3,000 for a remark made by former Ibrox player John Brown.
A co-commentator at Easter Road on May 17, Brown was incensed when Rangers were denied a seemingly legitimate goal after Hibs defender Rocky Bushiri scrambled to clear Nico Raskin's net-bound effort.
With Rangers' interim boss Barry Ferguson adamant the ball had crossed the line, Hibs went up the park and equalised in a match which ended 2-2.
Neither referee Nick Walsh, his assistants or VAR Andrew Dallas were able to conclude if the Belgian's effort should have stood, and Brown said on air: 'I would say it is corrupt.' Commentator Tom Miller said: 'Well, I'm not sure we can actually say that.' But Brown replied: 'Well, I am saying it'.
Rangers were yesterday hit with a financial penalty for Brown's words, but claimed other clubs had made 'stronger comments on offical platforms without consequence' and accused the SFA of being selective with their punishments.
Found to be in breach of Disciplinary Rule 38 by a judicial panel, the Ibrox club have vowed to monitor all such broadcasts going forward.
A strongly worded statement read: 'We feel it is necessary to highlight the broader concerns this outcome raises and the wider implications this has for clarity and confidence in their (the SFA's) regulatory processes.
'John Brown spoke emotionally and spontaneously as someone who cares deeply about the club.
'His words were not scripted and they were not an official club comment.
'The ruling, however, sets a precedent where even spontaneous, corrected remarks made during live coverage of a clear refereeing error are enough to trigger a formal sanction.
'That is neither proportionate nor consistent, especially when other clubs have made stronger comments on official platforms without consequence.
'As part of our defence today, we flagged numerous examples of similar incidents on club channels.
'These incidents raise legitimate questions about Scottish FA rules and how consistently they are enforced. To our knowledge, none of these cases appear to have resulted in charges against the respective clubs.
'The lack of consistency with the Scottish FA's policing of similar incidents leaves more questions than answers.
'That is why we will be contacting the Scottish FA chief executive and president to seek clarity on what policies and processes the compliance officer has in place, if any, to ensure a consistent and proportionate approach to enforcement and the equal treatment of member clubs.
'We shall also be asking the Scottish FA whether they accept that a rule that cannot be applied consistently across all clubs and all platforms risks losing credibility as a fair and enforceable regulation.
'Our aim here is to understand the rationale behind the differing outcomes. A lack of consistency, or the perception of it, undermines confidence in the disciplinary process and exposes all member clubs to uncertainty about what is and is not allowed.
'There remains no clear guidance on how clubs are expected to manage live broadcast content, though we note the panel acknowledged that the club's internal editorial guidelines may serve as a constructive step for others going forward.
'To be clear, we referenced these other examples not to suggest they should have resulted in sanctions, but to highlight the clear inconsistency in how similar incidents have been handled.
'Club media channels are, by nature, passionate and partisan. Informal, tongue-in-cheek and emotional commentary comes with the territory, especially in live settings.
'But, in choosing to pursue this case, the Scottish FA has opened the door to closer scrutiny of how similar situations are handled going forward. If this is now the standard, they will be watched closely to ensure it is applied across the board, consistently, without exception and without favour.'
Rangers had denied any breach of the SFA's rules and had claimed the verdict of the Key Match Incident Panel highlighted the injustice of no goal being awarded.
By way of defence, Collum pointed to a disallowed goal for Celtic against Hibs which had also led to criticism of officials
Four out of five KMI panel members - individuals with experience from across the game - retrospectively felt a goal should have been awarded to the visitors.
Despite that, Hampden head of referees Willie Collum backed the match officials.
Speaking on his VAR Review Show, he pointed to criticism of officials after they ruled out a Daizen Maeda against Hibs earlier in the season, when the ball was judged to have gone out of play before Alistair Johnston crossed to set up Maeda's 'goal'.
'Let's go back to two incidents this season first - Hibs vs Celtic, possible ball over the line, and Dundee United vs Hibs, possible handball before it goes into the goal,' said Collum.
'We were criticised for both of those decisions, and rightly so, because ultimately there was no conclusive evidence.
'I know people who would look at this decision and say: 'That camera angle, for me, is conclusive'. But the reality is, that camera angle is at an angle looking in the way, there's nothing directly in line there.
'I've quoted before, in a World Cup match, there was a similar angle shown in a Japan game (against Spain in 2022) where, if you'd used that angle, you would say the ball was over the line.
'Then when you line it up directly in line, it only needs a slight part of the ball to be touching that line.
'Can the VAR and the AVAR there categorically, 100 per cent, say the ball was over the line? Not for us.
'Do I think it crossed the line? I think there's a good chance it did.
'But can I be absolutely certain of that? No.
'We've been criticised previously, we've now moved to say we'll only give a decision like that if we've got 100 per cent conclusive evidence, so the VAR and AVAR are correct to say there that they don't have that evidence.'