Qudus Salihu
Rangers head coach Danny Röhl has ignited a fresh debate in Scottish football after a controlled, yet pointed, critique of what he perceives as a lack of consistency and understanding in decision-making by the Scottish Football Association (SFA) and its officials. The German manager’s comments, made in the aftermath of a controversial cup defeat, have seen him both praised for his clarity and “torn to shreds” by critics for reigniting the often-toxic conversation around refereeing.
’Difficult to Understand’
Röhl’s latest remarks were prompted by the officiating during the recent League Cup Semi-Final against Celtic, specifically the handling of two key incidents. While he initially refused to comment immediately after the match, his subsequent press conference revealed his desires.
The manager stated he found it “difficult to understand” why Celtic defender Auston Trusty only received a yellow card for a boot that made contact with Rangers goalkeeper Jack Butland’s head, especially since his own player, Thelo Aasgaard, was earlier given a straight red card for a high boot. Röhl stressed the inherent danger of any “kick against the head,” regardless of the perceived force.
The reaction to Röhl’s measured critique has been sharply divided. While many within the Rangers support and some impartial pundits viewed his comments as a reasonable call for clarity and consistency, other sections of the media and rival fans have accused him of hypocrisy and of trying to deflect blame away from his team’s performance.
They argue that Röhl, as a manager new to the intensity of the Scottish game, should not wade into the deep-seated disputes over refereeing, suggesting his comments only serve to fuel conspiracy theories and pressure officials. Despite the backlash, Röhl’s approach—waiting until the heat of the moment had passed before offering a calm, logical analysis—was seen by his supporters as a mature display of leadership, contrasting sharply with previous managerial outbursts in the Scottish game.
His challenge to the SFA’s interpretation of rules, particularly concerning dangerous play, now places pressure on the governing body to provide a more transparent explanation for the contrasting decisions.
Qudus Salihu
Rabiu Aminu
