Rangers angered by Scottish FA charge as club hit back at 'selective' punishment

Brown branded a controversial refereeing decision “corrupt” while performing punditry duties for Rangers TV during the 2-2 draw against Hibs at Easter Road on May 17.

Rangers thought they had taken a two-goal lead in the match when Nicolas Raskin appeared to have bundled the ball over the goalline before Hibs defender Rocky Bushiri was able to complete his clearance.

Referee Nick Walsh allowed play to continue with Hibs going straight up the park to equalise through Kieron Bowie. VAR also failed to intervene despite video replays appearing to show the ball had crossed the line.

Rangers slammed the decision and called for the introduction of goal-line technology but it is the comments made by Brown which has led to the club being issued with a notice of complaint.

“I would say it is corrupt,” the former defender stated, before commentator Tom Miller interjected, “Well, I’m not sure we can actually say that.” Brown then doubled down, replying: “Well, I am saying it”.

Rangers backing Brown

Rangers have been angered by the SFA charge as they accused the governing body of taking a "selective" stance by attempting to punish Brown while overlooking similar comments made elsewhere.

A club spokesperson said: “Rangers FC has submitted a full response to the Scottish FA’s Notice of Complaint concerning a remark made during commentary of the Hibernian v Rangers match at the end of last season. The club firmly denies any breach of Scottish FA rules.

“We are surprised that a complaint has been raised at all, given the context of the comment and the Scottish FA’s prior treatment of similar incidents.

“Our response highlights that the Scottish FA’s own Key Match Incident Panel judged that the referee’s decision on the day was incorrect, with four out of five panel members agreeing that a goal should have been awarded to Rangers. That finding helps explain the nature of a spontaneous emotional comment, delivered during a highly charged moment and immediately challenged live on air.

“Our response also sets out serious concerns about the Scottish FA’s selective enforcement and inconsistency. We have highlighted multiple examples of similar or stronger remarks made elsewhere in Scottish football that have led to no charges or sanctions.

“While we remain committed to maintaining high standards, we will continue to challenge any action we consider to be unfair or disproportionate. For many supporters, this charge only adds to the wider frustration surrounding regulatory oversight in recent months when there are more serious issues in the game to tackle, including improving officiating standards for the benefit of Scottish football.”

SFA head of referees unconvinced

While the KMI panel, which is convened by the SFA and made up of individuals with experience from across the game, believed a goal should have been given, head of referees Willie Collum took a different view and backed the match officials.

Speaking on his VAR Review Show, he stated: “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% conclusive evidence, so the VAR and AVAR are correct to say there that they don’t have that evidence.”

Brown has been charged with breaching article 29.2 of the rules which reads: “A club or recognised football body which publishes, distributes, issues, sells or authorises a third party to publish, distribute, issue or sell a match programme or any other publication or audio/visual material of any description in any media now existing or hereinafter invented, including but not limited to the Internet, social networking or micro-blogging sites, shall ensure that any such publications or audio/visual material does not contain any criticism of any match official calculated to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official or to impinge upon his character.”