Wellfan1984 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 He had every right to go for it, and any half decent striker would have done, at least to try and put the keeper off. If he makes any kind of mistake and drops the ball, it's a tap in. Of course he did. But any contact between the two if the keeper gathered the ball (which he did) should have either resulted in a free kick to the keeper or playing advantage towards the keeper. All in all, it leads back to Randolph facing a two match ban for breaking no laws, and technically being fouled. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browni Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Club are appealing the ban http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2012/11/28/club-statement-darren-randolph/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Of course he did. But any contact between the two if the keeper gathered the ball (which he did) should have either resulted in a free kick to the keeper or playing advantage towards the keeper. Not if the keeper moved his leg towards the player (which he did) causing the contact and that contact wouldnt have taken place if he had not (that part is up for debate). I still dont think it was violent conduct. A bit naughty/silly on Randolphs part and he was lucky to avoid the refs attention during the game, but certainly not worthy of a 2 match ban. On that basis the club are right to appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 I don't really understand some peoples complaint about players only being punished if they are on television. It's a bit like saying that criminals that are caught on CCTV shouldn't be punished because other people commit crime and get away with it because there is no evidence. You can only prosecute people where you have sufficient evidence and obviously televised matches provide that evidence. You're missing the point. Most folk don't object to the use of TV evidence. The issue is how it is used. Why does the Compliance Officer focus on some incidents and ignore others in the same game? Steve Jennings' red card against St Mirren is a case in point. I and several other fans have contacted the Compliance Officer at various times with details of incidents which were televised. No action was taken - why? The process has to be consistent. TV coverage of an incident is not sufficient to arrive at a decision. Sometimes it is necessary to take further evidence. According to Stuart McCall's comments it seems that the referee may have changed his mind/interpretation post match. Now, if he has done that and weight is placed on his report, why did he not highlight other incidents, which were incorrectly handled at the time? If referees are going to change their mind about incidents post match why does that not include legitimate goals being chalked off? Officials can't pick and choose which major incidents to amend post match. Another point worth considering - assuming the referee was right to change his mind post match, his error could cost Darren Randolph a game's suspension. Had Randolph been sent off at the time he would receive a one match ban. Post match the "offer" is two matches. Why? Why should a player pay for a referee's error? As I said before the process is not transparent and is fundamentally flawed and unsafe. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orinoco Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 alarm bells should be ringing if the referee has changed his story post match. not as if they dont have previous for cooking reports post match! Maybe we should hire the Celtic lawyers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East_Stand_Al Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 So if the Referee called it wrongly what if any sanction will he receive? Its the double standards yet again "Trial by Sportscene" Andy Wanker made a big hoo ha about it so it gets looked at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 alarm bells should be ringing if the referee has changed his story post match. not as if they dont have previous for cooking reports post match! Maybe we should hire the Celtic lawyers! He's deid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian-in-Oz Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 He's deid. The zombies will be hiring him then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Ban upheld. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milo Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Will we get any explanation as to the in and outs of this? Any sort of defence that it isn't Andy Walker and Rob McLean pointing out what actually gets looked at? Explanation for the lack of consistency? I won't be holding my breath. The SFA can go fuck themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosser1886 Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 As ever all we ever look for is consistency, and it's what we never get. Apart from the SFA, decisions being made and refereeing being consistenly shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameltoe Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 “Who are these people? I want to know who these people are. I'm a Motherwell supporter and the Motherwell supporters and the Scottish public deserve to know who these people are, people who are working for the SFA. “Make no mistake about it, this is an SFA decision. They have appointed the panel so therefore they are working for the SFA, but who are they?” No consistency as per usual, cant say im surprised tbh. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finlay Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Whole system is odd, open to criticism in respect to fairness, and as I've said before just another section of our National Sport that looks ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East_Stand_Al Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 They'd never have pulled a stunt like this with SEVCO! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelmaninOZ Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 "Who are these people? I want to know who these people are. I'm a Motherwell supporter and the Motherwell supporters and the Scottish public deserve to know who these people are, people who are working for the SFA. "Make no mistake about it, this is an SFA decision. They have appointed the panel so therefore they are working for the SFA, but who are they?" No consistency as per usual, cant say im surprised tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 At least it's not a ban like Lomas' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 At least it's not a ban like Lomas' Indeed, don't know what's been said but it seems pretty extreme. Think Lennon got 3 games + 3 suspended for confronting ref on pitch at the Craig Beattie semi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Did Lomas not already receive a suspended ban? I think that's why it's so harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaag Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Better get Hollis' joints oiled and dust off the jersey - need a performance from him on Saturday like the one he displayed the last time he played at Celtic Park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finlay Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Still conceeded four goals though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaag Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Still conceeded four goals though Unfortunately that's not an uncommon thing when playing the Old Firm teams these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJC_MKI Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Still conceeded four goals though In fairness to him it was four going on ten that day. He did extremely well to limit them to four goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnstone Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 In fairness to him it was four going on ten that day. He did extremely well to limit them to four goals. You would have to remember that game wouldn't you. Bet you have the highlights in yer wank bank! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gav212 Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Some folk need to take off their claret and amber tinted specs. Randolph was lucky to have not recieved a straight red card and concede a penalty. If it had happened the other way round the same folk would be the ones crying for a ban for the hearts keeper. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Gav I think like some other folk you are failing to separate the incident itself and how the Compliance Officer goes about his business. It is the latter that most folk have a problem with. 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.