Collum laying out both clips made the point obvious: these were not the same challenge. One was studs up and hit high on the ankle; the other landed on the foot. You only need to watch both to see they are different in nature and in potential consequence.
Different contact, different consequence
To be fair, contact area matters. A boot on the foot can be nasty — it might snap a small bone and it hurts like mad — but an impact to the ankle is a different animal. The ankle is the pivot between leg and ground. Strike it hard and you can destabilise the whole lower limb. That’s why refs and medics treat those challenges with particular caution.
Transparency won’t stop the stories
Collum’s clip was meant to show openness: this is what referees saw, this is how decisions were reached. The truth is, some people will still spin conspiracy out of any angle they don’t like. Even when you lay out the footage side by side, there will be those who insist both incidents must be the same because it suits whatever narrative they favour.
Why fans see a conspiracy
Fans are emotional and we look for patterns. If a decision goes against you at a crucial moment it gets amplified and filed as evidence. That’s human. But it doesn’t make every complaint fair. What we need is consistent application and clear communication. Collum tried to give that. He shouldn’t be crucified for attempting transparency — though you know how it goes, stories have a life of their own.
At the end of the day, seeing two different types of contact makes the referee’s conclusions easier to understand. You can still be annoyed about the result, and rightly demand better consistency. But recognising the difference between a foot clash and an ankle strike doesn’t make the clip any less valid.
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.
