Has there been a change in the rules?

[five stars 1,635]

After Brown's appeal being successful, are we now to assume that late, aggressive, dangerous tackles from behind are now deemed to only warrant a yellow card?

I'm old enough to remember when tackles like that were commonplace, and a yellow was the usual consequence of such a tackle, but how long ago was it that it became a red card offence, over a decade ago?

So have the rules been changed back? Will tackles like Brown's, if they happen up and down the country tomorrow be deemed to be only worthy of a yellow card?

In a court of law when a judgement is passed this is often used as a reference for future cases, it affects and shapes how the law is applied. And this is similar, as the independent panel have set a precedent, that such tackles only warrant a yellow.

Well I'm looking forward to an exciting weekend of football, with plenty of potential leg breaking meaty challenges flying in, I'm just glad I'm not a referee, as they have been totally undermined by the panel's decision.

[Captain Hilts 12,819]

Only if you play in green and grey hoops.

[Junior Soprano 22,428]

Canny talk about it due to legal reasons

[devref 201]

as a fan and ref I am stunned that he got that reduced to a yellow. the whole context of the tackle was with intent. he had been caught and should have had a foul then the penalty decision gives him the right hump and he lost the plot in that tackle even timmy mate down here is lost on how he got away with it.

[ElBufalo20 7,875]

1 minute ago, devref said:

as a fan and ref I am stunned that he got that reduced to a yellow. the whole context of the tackle was with intent. he had been caught and should have had a foul then the penalty decision gives him the right hump and he lost the plot in that tackle even timmy mate down here is lost on how he got away with it.

Thats what I don't understand. They had already had a tussle and it was quite clearly a dangerous pre planned tackle

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

7 minutes ago, five stars said:

After Brown's appeal being successful, are we now to assume that late, aggressive, dangerous tackles from behind are now deemed to only warrant a yellow card?

I'm old enough to remember when tackles like that were commonplace, and a yellow was the usual consequence of such a tackle, but how long ago was it that it became a red card offence, over a decade ago?

So have the rules been changed back? Will tackles like Brown's, if they happen up and down the country tomorrow be deemed to be only worthy of a yellow card?

In a court of law when a judgement is passed this is often used as a reference for future cases, it affects and shapes how the law is judged. And this is similar, as the independent panel have set a precedent, that such tackles only warrant a yellow.

Well i looking forward to an exciting weekend of football, with plenty of potential leg breaking meaty challenges flying in, I'm just glad I'm not a referee, as they have been totally undermined by the panel's decision.

More chance of a leg break or cruciate damage with a tackle front or side on. It's how leg's are structured that make this so.

Now what about the Halliday challenge?

We know what the SFA are and won't be losing sleep about it, because the point is we were/are shite and it made no difference to the result and will make no difference to the next result against them, because we are quite simply, shite, unless you are validating that Brown is the man.

We appear to be adopting the victim mentality and that's more embarassing than Brown getting off with it. We should be about us and not about them.

 

[whitecity 3]

Was told last night by a ref that any tackle that is dangerous is an automatic red card, the fact that his reduced charge mentions dangerous only supports the original red card I was told.

[EatDolphins 5,355]

Well I'd be interested to see if more teams appeal under the same circumstances. Time will tell.

[Copland bear 7,966]

11 minutes ago, Blue Avenger said:

More chance of a leg break or cruciate damage with a tackle front or side on. It's how leg's are structured that make this so.

Now what about the Halliday challenge?

We know what the SFA are and won't be losing sleep about it, because the point is we were/are shite and it made no difference to the result and will make no difference to the next result against them, because we are quite simply, shite, unless you are validating that Brown is the man.

We appear to be adopting the victim mentality and that's more embarassing than Brown getting off with it. We should be about us and not about them.

 

What has Halliday got to do with Scott browns red card against Ross County ? Why mention it ?  What about the tackle 5 years ago by someone else?  These have nothing to do what so ever with this and only a Celtic player would have got away with this.

I have seen many a player sent of for less than what Brown did and the decision is disgraceful 

[five stars 1,635]

15 minutes ago, Blue Avenger said:

More chance of a leg break or cruciate damage with a tackle front or side on. It's how leg's are structured that make this so.

Now what about the Halliday challenge?

We know what the SFA are and won't be losing sleep about it, because the point is we were/are shite and it made no difference to the result and will make no difference to the next result against them, because we are quite simply, shite, unless you are validating that Brown is the man.

We appear to be adopting the victim mentality and that's more embarassing than Brown getting off with it. We should be about us and not about them.

 

You don't seem of grasped my main point, which is that the panel, by deeming Browns tackle to be worthy only of a yellow, have set a precedent that similar tackles are also only worthy of a yellow. 

The argument put forward by many tims that because Halliday only got a yellow then Brown should too, is pathetic and easily dismantled by anyone with basic intelligence.

[Imodium 410]

It's only because the ref got the penalty wrong. It was a red all day.

id much rather he plays on Saturday than starting with Rogic, he bullies the midfield and is dangerous when he gets a chance at goal.

Stick Holt tight on Brown and nip at him the entire game. He can't handle that and he either loses the rag or misplaces passes. Holt done well in the last league game against them he's got something about him ??

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

19 minutes ago, Copland bear said:

What has Halliday got to do with Scott browns red card against Ross County ? Why mention it ?  What about the tackle 5 years ago by someone else?  These have nothing to do what so ever with this and only a Celtic player would have got away with this.

I have seen many a player sent of for less than what Brown did and the decision is disgraceful 

The decision not to send Haliday off was disgraceful. If nothing else, we need consistency, otherwise it's just hypocrisy and victimhood.

I don't really give a fuck if Brown is ever sent off or not, as we are not about them. Brown is their business, unless you want to validate him, making him the man.

We have than enough troubles to seek within our own house, far less moaning about the SFA, who we know what they are, but have no control over. Better we indeed manage better what we do have control of and that's ourselves, but hell will freeze over first before that ever happens.

[Dietspam 733]

Apparently the rules state that Reckless and Dangerous are yellow cards. Red cards are for serious foul play. 

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

16 minutes ago, five stars said:

You don't seem of grasped my main point, which is that the panel, by deeming Browns tackle to be worthy only of a yellow, have set a precedent that similar tackles are also only worthy of a yellow. 

The argument put forward by many tims that because Halliday only got a yellow then Brown should too, is pathetic and easily dismantled by anyone with basic intelligence.

I do, but the panel will make continue to to make decisions that are inconsistent. That's just the way of it. We know what they are like, so unless we do something about it and we won't, little point in is stating the obvious. You argue that the tims used the Halliday premise and I say why not? I would expect us to do same in defence of our player.

Would there be such a fuss if Brown's next game was not against us? Fucking too right there wouldn't, so not only do we engage in hypocrisy, we also endorse Brown as the man and sad to say, against this current squad he is and that is not scum fc's problem, it's well and truly ours!

[danger ranger 922]

21 minutes ago, Copland bear said:

What has Halliday got to do with Scott browns red card against Ross County ? Why mention it ?  What about the tackle 5 years ago by someone else?  These have nothing to do what so ever with this and only a Celtic player would have got away with this.

I have seen many a player sent of for less than what Brown did and the decision is disgraceful 

It's unbelievable that the red card was overturned and shows the utter contempt the SFA hold for players to be protected from tackles like Browns and why has Ross county not issued a statement of disgust, if the teams involved can't be bothered then they will get away with it all day long.

As for Brown playing in the two old firm games, it was our failings and not Brown playing that caused the defeat and could be the same this weekend.

[East Enclosure Row N 2,820]

As I understand it;

a) Brown was given a straight red by the ref for violent or wreckless conduct

b) Mhanks appealed

c) SFA were the prosecution at the hearing, mhanks were the defence

d) Independent panel were judge and jury, and it was they who reduced it to a yellow, not the SFA

So.........

Who are the independent panel?

 

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

3 minutes ago, East Enclosure Row N said:

As I understand it;

a) Brown was given a straight red by the ref for violent or wreckless conduct

b) Mhanks appealed

c) SFA were the prosecution at the hearing, mhanks were the defence

d) Independent panel were judge and jury, and it was they who reduced it to a yellow, not the SFA

So.........

Who are the independent panel?

 

King, mini and Whitney.

[centenarystand 2,227]

The day after the game.

"Liam Boyce last night compared the red-card challenge on him by Scott Brown to being hit by a bus.

The Ross County spot-kick hero insists the Celtic skipper’s rage boiled over through a sense of injustice seconds before the tackle which earned him a straight red card.

Boyce revealed he felt the full force of aggrieved Brown’s challenge, which left him with a painful swollen leg as tempers flared in injury time.

“Once I flicked it, I just felt like I had been hit by a bus. I looked down and my sock was ripped and my leg is really swollen now. I’ve got a couple of weeks now to deal with it and get myself right for the next game."

 

Scottish football is corrupt no denying it.

Why do people, whether players, fans or management  feel a sense of achievement in winning  tainted trophies?

 

[the sliver fox 1,660]

The Lego munchers appeal was successful because the player and the offending tackle are in fact separate entities, so the red card should not have been issued in the first place! I thought everyone knew this?

[five stars 1,635]

31 minutes ago, Blue Avenger said:

I do, but the panel will make continue to to make decisions that are inconsistent. That's just the way of it. We know what they are like, so unless we do something about it and we won't, little point in is stating the obvious. You argue that the tims used the Halliday premise and I say why not? I would expect us to do same in defence of our player.

Would there be such a fuss if Brown's next game was not against us? Fucking too right there wouldn't, so not only do we engage in hypocrisy, we also endorse Brown as the man and sad to say, against this current squad he is and that is not scum fc's problem, it's well and truly ours!

Because it's an argument that makes little sense, they have to judge each case on its own individual merits according to the rules of the game. Either it's a tackle worthy of a red or its not.

Right or wrong decision made by other referees in different games have no relevance whatsever.

[scottyscott1963 18,208]

Welcome to the bheggars running of Scottish football,where the victim of the episode was the person missing games and not the perpetrator.
Best get used to shite like this on a regular basis since the bheggars are running the whole show to suit themselves and giving the rest a big GIRFUY.

[Bears r us 30,770]

I think the rule was changed for them at the same time as the trip to Japan, oh wait..... 

[Rambo1872 4,065]

I'll ask Dougie Smith if he would have gave it a yellow or red ?

[Bellshill_Bear 1,105]

2 hours ago, five stars said:

After Brown's appeal being successful, are we now to assume that late, aggressive, dangerous tackles from behind are now deemed to only warrant a yellow card?

I'm old enough to remember when tackles like that were commonplace, and a yellow was the usual consequence of such a tackle, but how long ago was it that it became a red card offence, over a decade ago?

So have the rules been changed back? Will tackles like Brown's, if they happen up and down the country tomorrow be deemed to be only worthy of a yellow card?

In a court of law when a judgement is passed this is often used as a reference for future cases, it affects and shapes how the law is applied. And this is similar, as the independent panel have set a precedent, that such tackles only warrant a yellow.

Well I'm looking forward to an exciting weekend of football, with plenty of potential leg breaking meaty challenges flying in, I'm just glad I'm not a referee, as they have been totally undermined by the panel's decision.

It was the intent that made it a red for me. Halliday intent was the ball. Brown's intent was revenge and a nasty tackle

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,638]

There's going to be a lot MORE disappointment, grief, heartache and tears before the fans realise that the rules have changed, they fuckers are running the show end of !