Rangers Defend John Brown Amid SFA ‘Corrupt’ Charge

Rangers have accused the SFA of selectively enforcing their rules after former defender John Brown was charged by the governing body for claiming a controversial refereeing call was ‘corrupt’.

And they have vowed to back the 63-year-old who, while working as a club TV commentator at Easter Road on May 17, was incensed that his side were denied a goal when Rocky Bushiri scrambled to clear Nico Raskin’s effort.

With Rangers adamant the ball had crossed the line, Hibs went up the park and equalised in a match which ended 2-2. With neither referee Nick Walsh, his assistants or VAR Andrew Dallas able to conclude that the Belgian’s effort should have stood, Brown said on air: ‘I would say it is corrupt.’

Commentator Tom Miller replied: ‘Well, I’m not sure we can actually say that’. But Brown replied: ‘Well, I am saying it’.

Rangers later slammed the decision and called for the introduction of goal-line technology, but Brown has still been charged.

The Ibrox club described Brown’s comment as ‘spontaneous’ and ‘emotional’, and pointed out that an independent panel had also arrived at the conclusion that a goal should have been awarded.

A 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.’

While the SFA-convened Key Match Incident panel, which is made up of individuals with experience from across the game, believed a goal should have been given, 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 goal 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,’ Collum said.

‘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.’

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.’