STEVEN GERRARD aimed stinging criticism at referee Euan Anderson and his team of officials after seeing Rangers overcome Livingston at Ibrox.
Scott Arfield netted the only goal of the game to give Rangers a deserved victory but Gerrard was furious with the performance of Anderson and linesman David Doig as a host of key decisions went against his side.
Gerrard had no complaints at Florian Kamberi’s strike being chopped off for offside but he took issue with the decision to deny Alfredo Morelos a goal as he beat keeper Ryan Schofield with the score at 1-0.
And the 39-year-old was angry at the bizarre explanation offered by Anderson when he failed to award a penalty when the ball struck the arm of Ciaron Brown inside the area.
Gerrard said: “I think he got the second one just right but normally that might go for you. We accept that one. Morelos one is onside and there is a stonewall penalty.
“I don’t like talking about officials, especially after a defeat, because you can look like you have the violins out or are looking for excuses. But after a win I think the timing is right and I must say I was disappointed in them today.
“The result is very important to us but people will probably look at the highlights of this game and think Rangers rode their luck because they hit the post.
“But if we had the right officials today that would have been a 3-0. If we score the penalty, which I am not sure you would back us right now. We could have been out of sight and more comfortable if the officiating was better.
“It is a blatant handball [against Brown]. The referee said it is because of the conditions he didn’t mean it. He said to Connor Goldson I couldn’t give it because of the conditions, he didn’t mean it. Yeah, that is new.
“This is what I am saying, we could have been in a lot more comfortable position. It will look like we have rode our luck today but I am really pleased with the players and I am sure Gary is pleased with his players because the conditions were brutal.
“It is nothing to do with how I feel or where we are. I just think at this level you expect decisions like that to be right and that is all I ask. I don’t ask for favouritism at all, I just ask for them to be right.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here