Rangers exited the Scottish League Cup at the semi-finals stage on Sunday afternoon at Hampden Park, losing out 3-1 to Celtic after extra time.
Danny Rohl’s side played over 80-minutes with ten men after Thelo Aasgaard was dismissed for a high foot on Anthony Ralston by referee Nick Walsh, who did not, along with the equally culpable VAR team, send off Celtic’s Austin Trusty or Daizen Maeda for similar challenges.
In the aftermath the Gers have released an official statement and made an official complaint to the Scottish Football Association regarding the inconsistency of decisions in the match, and the pattern of inconsistency when playing Celtic.
Ex-Rangers heroes Ally McCoist and Andy Halliday have both commented publicly on the Trusty decision, branding it “one of the worst ever” and claimed there is “one rule for one, one for the other,” when the sides are refereed.
However, as expected, the other side have made disparaging comments the other way, with ex-Hearts midfielder Michael Stewart, who was on trial with Rangers in the early 2000’s but was not offered a contract, saying Rangers themselves lack consistency due to an appeal against a Kemar Roofe ban four years ago.
Stewart accused Rangers of “playing to the gallery” with their statement and question to the SFA and Willie Collum.
He cited Rangers reaction as a club following Roofe’s challenge of Slavia Prague goalkeeper Ondrej Kolar in the 2020/21 UEFA Europa League.
On the Scottish Football Social Club podcast Stewart said: “Remember Kemar Roofe caught the goalkeeper in the head and he had a fractured skull?
"Rangers appealed that, my point is, a bit of consistency.
"You appeal kicking a guy in the head with the studs with a fractured skull and then you're asking why was a guy not sent off for touching him?
"A bit of consistency. See when clubs play to the galleries? It does my head in."
Stewart’s comparison, however, falls apart under the slightest scrutiny – as usual!
The Roofe incident was a European tie, governed by UEFA disciplinary procedures, and Rangers appealed not the foul itself – or even the red card issues - but the severity of the punishment issued afterwards.
Roofe was sent off on the night. There was no dispute over that. The argument concerned whether a lengthy retrospective ban was proportionate, a completely different framework and context to a domestic game where one side repeatedly avoided red cards for near-identical offences.
Trusty’s challenge arguably as dangerous as Aasgaard’s, lacking the force but aimed at the head and undoubtably more deliberate.
One was punished with a straight red and changed the match. The other wasn’t even reviewed with the same threshold.
That is the core issue. That is the basis of the complaint. And that is where Stewart’s attempt at equivalence collapses.
Rangers are not asking for sympathy. They are asking for consistency, transparency, and a refereeing standard that does not fluctuate based on fixture, colour of shirt, or the noise around it.
Stewart may be desperate to play the contrarian pundit, but on this one, he is miles off.
And the irony is, Stewart himself has argued for exactly that.
Only last week, he criticised officials for failing to explain why Dundee were denied a penalty against Falkirk, saying supporters deserved clarity and respect.
His words: “[They should] Come out and say they’ve got it wrong.
“It’s rubbish, it’s absolutely disrespectful to the punters who are at that game.”
So, when it suits Stewart, officials should be held accountable.
When Rangers ask the same? Suddenly it’s “playing to the gallery.”
The inconsistency here isn’t coming from Ibrox Michael.