As Rangers defeated Hibs 1-0 courtesy of a Kemar Roofe penalty, the ridiculous reaction of Easter Road boss Jack Ross sums up the bonkers approach to penalties given to Rangers in Scotland.

Sky Sports’ post-match coverage of the incident was bad enough – this pacifying insistence that it was somehow a soft penalty – but Ross went one further with a confusing comment which appeared to suggest that if it had happened to Hibs, then he’d have taken it.

Get a load of this and try make some sense of it from within the seethe.

“He (Ryan) was adamant at the time that it wasn’t a penalty in the aftermath of the game and having watched it again I tend to agree with him,” said Jack Ross [Sky Sports].

“I would be claiming for it if it was in the opposite box but that doesn’t mean to say I think it was a penalty.

RONALDO NEEDS TO STOP WHINING.

“That sounds a bit contradictory but you would ask for it – I had no idea at the time because I’m so far away – but having watched again I think Ryan (Porteous) pulls away.

“There’s very little contact and it’s a 50-50 one in terms of the refereeing giving it and unfortunately for us he has.”

Jack Ross in bonkers Rangers Hibs penalty claim

Right so if it was given for your team it’d be a penalty but because it wasn’t, then it isn’t?

We suspect the ordinarily well-spoken Jack Ross might have had some red cheeks about these comments today.

But the problem is this nonsense feeds into a strange press narrative that appears to form whenever Rangers get a positive decision in their favour which influences a match.

Forget the fact it was a stonewall penalty; when it comes to match-altering decisions involving Rangers, that’s not important.

rangers hibs penalty kenny miller

Jack Ross basically said that if the Rangers call was in favour of Hibs he’d have felt it was a penalty. (Photo by Ian MacNicol/Getty Images)

Referees are not to be judged on their application of the rules but rather their propensity for Rangers-centric decisions or their valiant honour in refusing to award them.

The balance apparently is a numbers game and it isn’t about what is and what isn’t a penalty, or what is and what isn’t a red card.

It’s manic; it’s merely an attempt to soothe the pain of a result by deludedly screaming conspiracy but now the press – who see an opportunity to gain traction – play up to it every single time.

The below tweet sums up the sentiment:

Then there are butthurt and upset Celtic-minded pundits utilising their positions in the media to push this patently false narrative regarding decisions.

Rangers aren’t supposed to get penalties – even if they’re as stonewall as this one – and the reaction since has been infantile, pathetic and really quite depressing.

Kudos to John Beaton – who took his time to make the decision – for getting it right and ignoring this constant pressure surrounding the refs.

The problem these people have isn’t with the fact that Rangers got a positive decision, it’s much more transparent than the hairbrained conspiracies would suggest.

The issue is that Rangers won a match they were all hoping we’d drop points in.

Rangers scored the penalty after Hibs defender Ryan Porteous clearly fouled Ryan Kent in the box and the Ibrox support have been quick to thank the Easter Road defender.

Have something to tell us about this article?