Has there been a change in the rules?

[five stars 1,656]

1 minute ago, Bellshill_Bear said:

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

For me they were both reds. But because Halliday only got a yellow had no relevance to Brown's appeal. Its a total divesion tactic.

[big blue Fin 3,724]

Here's a lift straight from the sfa website and a link to the same page where the photo at the top of the page explains a lot.

 

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_football.cfm?page=3605

 

Law Twelve

<< LAW ELEVEN                                                                                  LAW THIRTEEN >>
 

LAW 12 - FOULS AND MISCONDUCT

Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).

Penalty kick
A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.

Indirect free kick
An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:

• controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession
• touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player
• touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate
• touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:
• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

The indirect free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).

Disciplinary sanctions
The yellow card is used to communicate that a player, substitute or substituted player has been cautioned.

The red card is used to communicate that a player, substitute or substituted player has been sent off.

Only a player, substitute or substituted player may be shown the red or yellow card.

The referee has the authority to take disciplinary sanctions from the moment he enters the field of play until he leaves the field of play after the final whistle.

A player who commits a cautionable or sending-off offence, either on or off the field of play, whether directed towards an opponent, a team-mate, the referee, an assistant referee or any other person, is disciplined according to the nature of the offence committed.

Cautionable offences
A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:
• unsporting behaviour
• dissent by word or action
• persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game
• delaying the restart of play
• failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in
• entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee's permission
• deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee's permission

A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if he commits any of the following three offences:
• unsporting behaviour
• dissent by word or action
• delaying the restart of play

Sending-off offences
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:
• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
• denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match

A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

 

 

Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't retaliation considered to be either "serious foul play" or "violent conduct"?

In which case how the fuck can they downgrade the legoeater's red cart to a yellow?

[five stars 1,656]

1 minute ago, BLUEDIGNITY said:

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

Can the club ask for clarification from the SFA that the sort of tackle from Brown is now only deemed to be worthy of a yellow, as it obviously effects how we approach a game.

No need to hold back now unless your already on a yellow, take your man out in a dangerous tackle, give him a sore one. Hopefully he'll go off injured or at least be ineffective for the rest of the game.

 

[plumbGER 24,518]

Smells taigy as fuck in here with the whatabouttery.

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,683]

1 minute ago, five stars said:

Can the club ask for clarification from the SFA that the sort of tackle from Brown is now only deemed to be worthy of a yellow, as it obviously effects how we approach a game.

No need to hold back now unless your already on a yellow, take your man out in a dangerous tackle, give him a sore one. Hopefully he'll go off injured or at least be ineffective for the rest of the game.

 

Our club will not ask for anything!

[BlueboyG 5,264]

1 hour ago, Imodium said:

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 ??

As much as I like Holt he's too lightweight to bully leggomuncher.

[orangecountry 148]

Amazed this has been reduced.  Can only phantom it's down to Halliday and Beerman getting yellows to stop them greeting about that! 

[Bellshill_Bear 1,105]

3 hours ago, five stars said:

For me they were both reds. But because Halliday only got a yellow had no relevance to Brown's appeal. Its a total divesion tactic.

Halliday was late with 1 foot,  Brown's was 2 footed with intent yellow and red All day long 

[eejay the dj 31,964]

What a lot of bears don't understand .The appeal process is done by using selected rodents to pass judgement on these decisions 

The whole of Scottish football is corrupt and our club haven't a word to say about it 

[Bearsden bear 2,376]

Two wrongs dont make a right!

Both were red card offences but the ref got it wrong with Halliday.

As i understand it, they cant upgrade a yellow to a red after the event as its been deemed to have been seen and acted on by the ref.

However, they can and did downgrade lego eaters red to a yellow by way of evening it up. So in effect both decisions are now wrong.

 

[Real Ranger 3,195]

5 hours 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.

 

FFS, Brown was rightly red carded, plain and simple. It's not victim mentality questioning how the appeal panel could come to any other conclusion.

Looks like your mask has slipped yet again.

 

 

[Straight-Edge-Loyal 6,696]

The Lego eaters challenge was a straight red and a 3 game at absolute minimum.

[PaulReid 184]

5 hours ago, EatDolphins said:

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

There is no extra punishment for appealing so I read at the start of the season so it's a free for all

[one55 1,510]

nope. the rules state that if you wear blue then you are ignored and have the book thrown at you. wear green and you can do what the hell you want and at worst get a wee slap on the wrist.

[siddiqi_drinker 14,635]

8 hours ago, Captain Hilts said:

Only if you play in green and grey hoops.

TBH doesn't really apply to our current crop of players none of whom could actually spell 'meaty challenge'. 

[Bristoe1872 2,577]

Section 7 sub section 4 paragraph 8: This new ruling only applies to Savco Shelf 1994 FC. 

[legalbeagle 3,734]

Blatantly ridiculous decision, cards should be reduced or removed if there is a clear case that it is a mistake, not just a different judgement call. It is embarrassing but inevitable that they would do this.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

3 hours ago, Real Ranger said:

FFS, Brown was rightly red carded, plain and simple. It's not victim mentality questioning how the appeal panel could come to any other conclusion.

Looks like your mask has slipped yet again.

 

 

Well, they did.

At least broon has a dig in him, unlike the current crop of spineless kings men robbing a wage. In his image indeed

You been eating shite for breakfast again?!

Sorry, I forgot, only victim mentality works for you.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

3 hours ago, Real Ranger said:

FFS, Brown was rightly red carded, plain and simple. It's not victim mentality questioning how the appeal panel could come to any other conclusion.

Looks like your mask has slipped yet again.

 

 

Where did I say Brown's wasn'a red card? You making shite up again to suit your agenda?

[Teamgers 1,214]

Is there any way that they can be forced to explain why his red was reduced to a yellow, surely they have nothing to hide....

[Gascoigne8 3,391]

Im actually surprised they never got a replay because of the penalty incident 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

http://dailym.ai/2qdVjVw#v-7543178100212478444

Since the referee's decision is now irrelevant when the scum is involved, could SFA clarify if this video evidence is relevant for tomorrows game. Possibly part of the new rules.

[Thewhitesettler 2,711]

The only people that should sit on these appeal panels should be referees, or ex refs. They know the rules, and hopefully, wouldn't be biased towards them bastards.

I'm waiting on the young Mr Dallas being given a game against those fuckers. After what they did to his father. I know that if it was me, I'd be dying to get them back for it.

[Jamie0202 12,407]

16 hours ago, Blue Avenger said:

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.

I agree. The laws of the game should be the same no matter who is playing or when a bad tackle takes place. What saved Halliday though is the fact that it was an Old Firm game and his tackle was very early.

I'm not saying I agree with it but how many times in these volatile games have we seen this very thing happen? Collum done the right thing IMO with the Halliday decision. It laid a marker and we became pansies for the rest of the match. I'm a bit under the influence but I'm thinking that if Halliday gets sent off then we don't get caught for the first goal. I'm wondering if the game would have been different with 10 men as we defended well apart from the obvious and they, despite the possession, created very little.

[markem 7,290]

17 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.

Rules?

Rules don't apply to that lot.

They are a club that can operate a blatant Paedophile ring within their corridors and they are not held to account.  An over turned red card is fuck all.

Am I wrong?