Lobey_Dosser Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Al and Eddie spot on. Accept the understandable punishment and move on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Wellfan 2k7 Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Grabbing someones face isn't a red card offence, punching it is. Yes it is Any unnecessary contact can be returned with a red card! Its come under violent, or serious mis-, conduct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamH Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 What I don't get is why is the player punished more severely because the referee misses something. Fair enough if he's dived and conned him but if, as in this case, the referee is just shit why is the punishment increased? Also, is diving outside the box just ignored as I haven't seen anybody pulled up for that yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat_tony Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Yes it is Any unnecessary contact can be returned with a red card! Its come under violent, or serious mis-, conduct. The thing that pisses me off about this is that you can guarantee it will not be consistently reviewed and/or punished. If what Jennings did is considered to be violent or serious misconduct, then this should be enforced in every instance of similar behaviour throughout the season. It's not been so far and I can guarantee that it won't be in future. This fast-track review panel is just another way for the SFA to do whatever the hell they feel like in any given situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickoza Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Yes it is Any unnecessary contact can be returned with a red card! Its come under violent, or serious mis-, conduct. Why wasn't Gary Hooper taken to task for two counts of it against Motherwell? Appears to be down to who you play for really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DosserJoe Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 What I don't get is why is the player punished more severely because the referee misses something. Fair enough if he's dived and conned him but if, as in this case, the referee is just shit why is the punishment increased? Also, is diving outside the box just ignored as I haven't seen anybody pulled up for that yet? See this is the only bit of the scenario I feel hard done by. I'm I'm favour of violent conduct being punished and acted upon retrospectively; but the length has to be both fair and consistent. I think Jenno warranted a 1 match ban and Goodwin the same. We're no talking about unprovoked attacks here or repeat punches to the face; that's when Ye should be thinking 2 or more matches. I would have much preferred if the SFA 'offer' 1 match bans, then increase to 2 at appeal for time-wasting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Wellfan 2k7 Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Lets not make this an argument about the bias of the SFA, but both Rickoza and Fat tony make good points. I look at it as another excuse to highlight the supremacy of the Old Firm by the SFA, by showing them up to be golden boys (or bhoys given the Hooper incident AND the Aluko dive) but, of course, that in itself is a view based upon my hatred of the gruesome twosome. I dont agree with two matches, but I can see their reasoning, and I think they just want rid of Jennings due to the betting "scandal". I suppose it also asks the question, despite the fact that O'Connor was proved to have dived to win a penalty against St Johnstone, why was he not given a "standard" two match ban? the SFA is a farce, it always has been and looks like it always will be. When, the average SPL attendance is in its hundreds (won't be long now) it might decide to see sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Yes it is Any unnecessary contact can be returned with a red card! Its come under violent, or serious mis-, conduct. Naw it isnae, am old skool mind, you're just a young thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Wellfan 2k7 Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Naw it isnae, am old skool mind, you're just a young thing. Straight out of compton and what not? Yep. I'm one of those non educated delinquents of the modern day Too lazy for fitba'. Heck, am too lazy fir FIFA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rab_mackinnon Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 This fast-track review panel is just another way for the SFA to do whatever the hell they feel like in any given situation. And cost it's member clubs more money in the process, not bad for a money making exercise if it's a few grand an appeal, the sfa have nothing to lose but everything to gain from this, they are taking part of the magic out of the game with this i fear, the "unseen and unpunished bits of the game are some of the most entertaining the "vinny jones" nut grab. It's all part and parcel it annoys me that football is turning into a gay sport, soon our new kit will have a tutu and a fairy wand ffs!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweed Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 See this is the only bit of the scenario I feel hard done by. I'm I'm favour of violent conduct being punished and acted upon retrospectively; but the length has to be both fair and consistent. I think Jenno warranted a 1 match ban and Goodwin the same. We're no talking about unprovoked attacks here or repeat punches to the face; that's when Ye should be thinking 2 or more matches. I thought it was now a 2 match ban violent conduct red cards regardless of circumstance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 I wonder if Craig Thomson and Callum Murray will be refereeing this weekend. My money will be on yes. It's about time referees started getting punished for their incompetence. You have the farcical situation that Pawlett got a ban for diving and then a red card from the same game overturned. Respect my arse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 You have the farcical situation that Pawlett got a ban for diving and then a red card from the same game overturned. Respect my arse. The exact same guy who came on as a late sub for Aberdeen at Fir Park, behaved like a thug and was lucky to see out the 90 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweed Posted December 23, 2011 Report Share Posted December 23, 2011 I wonder if Craig Thomson and Callum Murray will be refereeing this weekend. My money will be on yes. It's about time referees started getting punished for their incompetence. Craig Thomson has Dunfermline v St Johnstone and Calum Murray isn't in the SPL if he is refereeing at all. However Murray does have the Edinburgh derby next week. Though it is actually quite unusual for SPL refs to be in the SPL two weeks in a row because there are 16 referees who have been in the SPL this season and only six games a round so I wouldn't read too much into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.