weeyin Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 If you are speeding and you get a ticket, "But other people were speeding too" is no defence. Likewise if you deliberately elbow someone in the face. Does anyone think it was accidental? Or is the "outrage" because he got caught? A 60 second segment on a low rated football programme isn't exactly a witch hunt. I haven't read any more articles about it since the game itself; except on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 The paranoia and conspiracy theories re Skippy are reaching levels the blue and green ugly sisters would be proud of. He elbowed the other guy end of he got away with it during the game but if he now gets pulled up he can have no complaints, leave all this whataboutery pish to the old firm. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilmour Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Hearing Pearson has broken ribs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 A 60 second segment on a low rated football programme isn't exactly a witch hunt. I haven't read any more articles about it since the game itself; except on here. Its more than that. A quick check of online reports in the Scotsman, Daily Record, and Dundee Courier reveals that they all mention the incident and express surprise that MacDonald got off. None mention Morris's 2 incidents nor Rankine's elbow. I'm sure there must be more examples if I was to check. It may just be lazy journalism or it may be more than that. With the exception of the BBC, the other media outlets are not there to report the facts, despite what people may think. They are there to make money and therefore pander to what they see as the biggest sections of their customers. They need big circulation figures or viewing figures. They have no requirement to be fair. We have examples in the past of nepotism on TV sports programmes. Comments which seemed odd at the time turned out to have logical, if worrying, explanations afterwards. In short, I'm not promoting a conspiracy theory but neither am I ruling it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 I don't think the elbow was that bad 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villageman Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 I don't think the elbow was that bad Having seen it at the game and again on video recording I agree 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 I don't think the elbow was that bad Especially in a match where we had three players kicked off the park and Dundee Utd could easily have had two players sent off as a bare minimum. If the referee isn't going to protect players it's up to the players to protect themselves. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del_Superwell Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Hearing Pearson has broken ribs and a punctured lung as well btw. Pretty nasty injury by the sounds of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Apologies in advance for linking to The Sun however they're the first one I've seen run this but as suggested no further action for McDonald. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/motherwell/7002436/Motherwell-ace-Scott-McDonald-escapes-ban-for-Dundee-United-match-elbow.html?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-scotsunsport-_-20160315-_-SunScotSport-_-397088740-_-Imageandlink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotts Well Fan Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Apologies in advance for linking to The Sun however they're the first one I've seen run this but as suggested no further action for McDonald. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/motherwell/7002436/Motherwell-ace-Scott-McDonald-escapes-ban-for-Dundee-United-match-elbow.html?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-scotsunsport-_-20160315-_-SunScotSport-_-397088740-_-Imageandlink Great news if correct (it is the Sun after all!!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pettywulliegrew-2 Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Apologies in advance for linking to The Sun however they're the first one I've seen run this but as suggested no further action for McDonald. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/motherwell/7002436/Motherwell-ace-Scott-McDonald-escapes-ban-for-Dundee-United-match-elbow.html?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-scotsunsport-_-20160315-_-SunScotSport-_-397088740-_-Imageandlink Yes good news if it is the case..........bus as previously stated in this thread,the ref decided against action on Friday night......it wasn't off the ball done on the sly etc etc ........if we are going to start getting the compliance officer reviewing every incident the ref did not get right at the time.......there are going to be loads of retrospective punishments dished out As for the pish talked in the BBC studio over the the two "match changing decisions" ........boo hoo.......if yer maw had baws !!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Good news indeed, but did the Compliance Officer speak to Crawford Allan about any other incident during the game? If not why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Good news indeed, but did the Compliance Officer speak to Crawford Allan about any other incident during the game? If not why not? In honesty I'd be surprised if any of it (McDonald included) was even discussed. The whole thing just sounds like it's been media clickbait off the back of a (not really that-) "controversial" incident on telly. As Pettywulliegrew-2 puts quite succinctly above if the compliance officer was drawn into reviewing incidents that the referee saw but there was room for debate around then games would just be perpetually reviewed. I'd have thought that getting a compliance officer in to actively review a referee's decision would be very much a last resort and I genuinely don't think that the incident with McDonald warranted that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggischomper Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 This whole Compliance Officer BS has seemed like nothing more than a kangaroo court from the get go. Might be why they are after Skippy, right enough...but I might be jumping to conclusions 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 In honesty I'd be surprised if any of it (McDonald included) was even discussed. The whole thing just sounds like it's been media clickbait off the back of a (not really that-) "controversial" incident on telly. As Pettywulliegrew-2 puts quite succinctly above if the compliance officer was drawn into reviewing incidents that the referee saw but there was room for debate around then games would just be perpetually reviewed. I'd have thought that getting a compliance officer in to actively review a referee's decision would be very much a last resort and I genuinely don't think that the incident with McDonald warranted that. It seems a lot more sensible now that Lunny is away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Just to add fuel to the media frenzy fire the STV evening news sports section mentioned that no action was being taken against Skippy and it then went on to show the elbowing incident twice. However no mention at all was made at all of the John Rankine or Callum Morris X 2 incidents. It just goes to show how selective, subjective and biased media reporting is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweed Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Could also be because they were off the ball and therefore off camera. I wasn't at Fir Park on Friday night and I remember a sly kick by Anier and a few particularly rough tackles (esp by Morris) but not the off the ball things you mention though I did watch the 1st half later and flicked through bits of it. FIFA prohibit a game from being 're-refereed' which means players can only be punished for things that the referee did not see (however common sense dictates it also limits to what has been caught of film). I think the compliance officer punishing players for diving pushes this to the limit but because the charge is 'causing a match official to make a key error' then it is not re-refereeing it. Therefore I entirely believe that Tony McGlennan will have said 'Crawford, did you see McDonald's elbow striking DOnaldson's face' and he'll have said 'Yes, I believed it was being used for leverage and was not violent conduct and decided not to award a free kick'. As soon as he says that, no matter what Tony McGlennan thinks he can take no further action. Don't buy this biased nonsense at all and no matter the provocation we should keep our own house in order and as much as he is a wonderful player for our level, both McDonald individually and us as a team have been lucky here. Violent conduct was questionable but it was certainly dangerous play. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Could also be because they were off the ball and therefore off camera.. .......Don't buy this biased nonsense at all.... . Some good points Tweed. As I said earlier, much comes down to the cameraman and sports editors as to what they film and what they show and down to pundits as to what they highlight. So for various reasons there is potential for inbuilt bias in what is clearly a subjective process. Sporting fairness does not come into it. I recall some years ago the then Compliance Officer, Vincent Lunny, stated that in reviewing games, he took into account all sources of information and I think this threw a few folk. I and a few others wrote to him to highlight potential cases but never received replies or even acknowledgements. A mate then wrote to him to ask what evidence his office used in assessing cases but again never received any acknowledgement. Some time later, he reportedly said that on a Monday morning his staff ploughed through TV footage to identify potential cases. So on that basis the TV and radio companies, and by default their employees, have a huge influence over the compliance officer's baseline evidence. In short it is trial by television pure and simple. We all know TV and radio pundits are not objective and unbiased. The compliance officer system is not consistent, comprehensive or objective in sporting terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweed Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Most TV and radio people are journalists and in turn want a story. Mark my word, if they have footage of someone of any club committing an act of violent conduct you can bet your bottom dollar they'll produce it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daver Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 The game against United was different as it was shown live but most highlights packages are put together by whoever they employ as editor. They in turn rely on the notes taken by whoever was sent to the game with the cameraman. For most games the pundits only see the highlights we see and any act of violent conduct would only be shown if noted down or widely reported by the media. If that game hadn't been on BT Sport then I don't think the incident would have ever been mentioned. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Most TV and radio people are journalists and in turn want a story. Mark my word, if they have footage of someone of any club committing an act of violent conduct you can bet your bottom dollar they'll produce it. That depends on who the player or club is. In general though you're right. Its a journalists job to jazz up any event or story to drum up interest amongst viewers or readers. However the media does not want to alienate certain important sections or customers. Bigger clubs carry bigger supports and in general radio, TV and the press don't want to upset them. Occasionally, they do however. I can think back to the Daily Record having to grovel to Rangers and Celtic after upsetting them. More recently Graeme Speirs was asked to leave the Herald after he upset Rangers. Scottish football is a small circle and bedevilled by the old boys network. Football programmes are often staffed by ex players of certain clubs. Given all this there is a plethora of vested interests to be appeased and so we are where we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 In short it is trial by television pure and simple. We all know TV and radio pundits are not objective and unbiased. The compliance officer system is not consistent, comprehensive or objective in sporting terms. I remember years ago on Radio Clyde, Jimmy Sanderson (told you it was years ago) was discussing whether TV evidence should be allowed when reviewing disciplinary issues. There was great debate at the time, because only one or two games were being covered each weekend, so some people argued it wasn't fair to use it if it wasn't available for each match. His point was that ignoring TV evidence would be like the police ignoring CCTV evidence because not all houses have CCTV cameras. I don't see how the Compliance Officer reviewing the games is Trial by Television given that he has access to all the footage of all the games these days. I know people have a low opinion of these guys, but I seriously doubt that the process consists of listening to Pat Nevin on a Sunday evening and then just looking at what he said. The bottom line is Skippy elbowed someone in the face and we all saw it on telly. The level of conspiracy theories, and suspicions of bias, and outrage is reaching OF levels of paranoia. If we were being hauled up in front of the authorities every week, that would be one thing, but the number of occasions that has happened are pretty rare. Not only that, but there have also been occasions when we have had red cards rescinded, in part, because of the TV footage that has shown no red card offence was committed. If we are happy to accept TV evidence when it clears players, we can't really argue when TV evidence identifies offences being committed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_P Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 The bottom line is Skippy elbowed someone in the face and we all saw it on telly. The level of conspiracy theories, and suspicions of bias, and outrage is reaching OF levels of paranoia. Well, if making the observation that there was disproportionate level of focus from the media on an incident that the referee saw but chose to not to take any action, whilst others of a similar or even more blatant nature went largely without reference by the same media folk; and pondering the reasons for that makes me as paranoid as your average Old Firm then that's a charge I suppose I'm just going to have to live with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Scottish League Cup at Ibrox. McCulloch blatantly elbows Hutchison ( I think) in the face. Game changer as Motherwell looking fairly comfortable until Hutchinson forced to go off. Motherwell get trounced. Assault clear as a bell on TV coverage. No media/pundit witch hunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 You can have all the whataboutery that you like however for me the point is quite simple. The referee saw the incident and chose not to take any action. He played on, he checked Donaldson and didn't even stop the game for a head knock. As soon as it's clear that the referee saw the incident then that's pretty much a line drawn under it. In that sense it makes all the replays and subsequent pontification pretty much redundant. Ultimately that's what irked me, it's fair enough that they highlighted it but the extent to which it was replayed and analysed was ludicrous and that's before we even get on to the whole "should he be expecting a phone call from the compliance officer" chat. What annoyed me was that there seemed to be no acknowledgement in the subsequent commentary that on a basic level the referee did actually see the incident and just didn't think it was a foul. In fact the bit about it in The Scotsman suggested that the ref "missed it", Jackson was foaming at the mouth suggesting "had the referee seen it, he'd be off the park" or words to that effect. I only had a replay on Sportscene and was able to screenshot it and establish that he was looking straight at it, christ knows what BT were doing with their technology. But again it's their thing, as a regular viewer of their output they have an unhealthy obsession with micro-analysing fairly trivial points to try to create controversy or talking points. It's a game of football. Donaldson wasn't seriously injured, McDonald could have been sent off but wasn't not because the ref was conned or anyone cheated but because he took a view that something wasn't a free kick, Chris Sutton thought otherwise. It's unlikely that the compliance officer is going to be seen to be re-refereeing a game and frankly I wouldn't want them to. They'll absolutely get involved with incidents the ref missed, was unsighted for or simulation where it's perceived that the ref has been conned. However in this case the referee looking straight at the two players with his view unobstructed, rightly or wrongly, played on. That's his decision. As soon as the compliance officer asks "did you see the incident" and the ref says "yes" and explains his decision then there's no real case to answer. That said I guarantee that if anyone even remotely raises their arms in Crawford Allan's next game then there's a fair chance they'll be off the park as I'd imagine he'd have got his baws toed. Anyway this is getting all a bit #againstmodernfootball on my part so that's me done. 1 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.