There’s two things bubbling under here: hypocrisy from certain pundits and the fact that simulation has always been part of football. You can dislike it, moan about it, even wish referees were tougher — but the outrage rarely lands evenly.
Double standards on show
Look, fans remember moments and labels. Jamie Walker getting a penalty and being burnt as a "cheat" is still talked about. The same sort of actions from other players somehow get framed as "gamesmanship". You can see why that rankles. People spot what they want to spot when it suits their narrative. To be fair, every club has examples to back their anger — and every fan will make the selective memory worse.
Sutton, bias and the habit of piling on
Chris Sutton has been singled out in that debate, and not without reason according to a lot of fans. Some feel he’s been vindictive towards Rangers players, quick to slap labels like "diver" or "temperamental" and slow to apply the same bar to others. Whether you agree or not, pundits shape the conversation. When someone shouts loudly enough and repeats the take, it seeps into supporter talk and then — unfairly — onto players.
Why simulation stays part of the game
Truth is, simulation isn’t new and it won’t go away overnight. Players will try to influence referees, especially in the box where margins matter. If a Rangers player sells a contact and it wins a decision, most supporters will say: good, grab it. It’s pragmatic. You can condemn the act while also recognising the reality — the referee’s decision is part of the contest.
No one likes constant diving. But the real problem is selective outrage and pundit-led narratives that get repeated until they feel like fact. If we want fairer debate, call out everyone equally — not just when it suits an angle.
Related Articles
About Rangers News Views
Rangers News Views offers daily Glasgow Rangers coverage including match reaction, transfer analysis, SPFL context, tactical breakdowns and opinion-led articles written by supporters for supporters.
