Has there been a change in the rules?

[Inigo 32,532]

9 hours ago, legalbeagle said:

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.

Yeah, this. I'm in the sparsely populated camp of people that think neither Halliday's nor Brown's were reds. Brown's being rescinded is strange though for the reasons given above. It's never a clear cut mistake and it's bizarre that they can rescind such a thing. It'll be fascinating to see what similar tackles are downgraded in the future...

[Jamie0202 12,272]

12 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Yeah, this. I'm in the sparsely populated camp of people that think neither Halliday's nor Brown's were reds. Brown's being rescinded is strange though for the reasons given above. It's never a clear cut mistake and it's bizarre that they can rescind such a thing. It'll be fascinating to see what similar tackles are downgraded in the future...

I see where you're coming from and I almost agreed with you but...

Halliday's yellow was correct. It was a ridiculously mistimed effort but feet were low and studs were low.

Brown's was definitely a red. It was a perfectly timed injury inducing tackle as he intended and had the scissor motion which we're constantly told nowadays is a red card offence. He knew what he was doing. He meant it. Panel have blundered big time.

[gmcf 34,199]

31 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Yeah, this. I'm in the sparsely populated camp of people that think neither Halliday's nor Brown's were reds. Brown's being rescinded is strange though for the reasons given above. It's never a clear cut mistake and it's bizarre that they can rescind such a thing. It'll be fascinating to see what similar tackles are downgraded in the future...

Browns was definetly a red . And tbh honest so was Hallidays. Doesn't mean you reduce one because of the others as The Sun ( I think ) have said . 

Personally , I'm not bothered , I see Brown as overrated and will give me someone to sing and shout abuse at tomorrow. 

Fuck' im. 

[AlbertzLoyalRSC 18,072]

30 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Yeah, this. I'm in the sparsely populated camp of people that think neither Halliday's nor Brown's were reds. Brown's being rescinded is strange though for the reasons given above. It's never a clear cut mistake and it's bizarre that they can rescind such a thing. It'll be fascinating to see what similar tackles are downgraded in the future...

Broonaldo obviously went for revenge against the guy ??

Hope gets  what he's due !! 

[.Williamson. 82,224]

I still haven't even seen the tackle

[Dlydon81 245]

21 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.

I agree 100%! Any bias aside, this is a dangerous decision by the SFA.  

Yes the challenge may have been given a yellow by some refs but players need to feel they risk a red card if they make that type of challenge.  Otherwise there is no deterrent.

I'd say the same about Halliday and Beerman's challenges last week.  I think they were yellow cards both of them but if the ref had pulled out a red would we have been justified in feeling hard done by - probably not.  After the Brown decision, all of these challenges are just part of Scottish football!  Dangerous precedent!

[Glasgowrangersafc 432]

As also a trained ref its a red for so many reasons

 

its two footed

its from behind

with excessive force 

with no itnention to play the ball

[Bruno's Manbun 2,631]

22 hours 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.

Wasn't that surprised at all to be honest. In fact it was expected from me. The SFA is totally corrupt. 

[tam57 698]

Let's hope that this works again them. hopefully this prick now thinks he is going to get away with these kinds of tackles and gets sent off again today.

I wont hold my breath.

[devref 201]

1 hour ago, 55Bear said:

Wasn't that surprised at all to be honest. In fact it was expected from me. The SFA is totally corrupt. 

can see where your coming from. but my thoughts are with the refs on this one it totally undermines them. from the spl to the lowest sunday lge ref hung out to dry. a disgraceful decision.

[LaudrupsPatrickBoots 13,510]

That cunt on Clyde 1 was reading out the SFA's guidelines on cards the other night after the other cunt won his appeal.

A yellow card is a tackle that's deemed to be reckless and/or dangerous.

A red card is a tackle that is deemed to be serious foul play with intent to harm.

So basically you can tackle however you want just as long as when you end a player's career it isn't deliberate and you should be fine to appeal your sending off and get it reduced to a booking.

 

Also, a tarrier called in and asked why Brown is able to play against us today because even he couldn't understand it when he was 1 yellow away from a 2 game ban anyway.

The SFA rules on this one are as follows, a straight red card is an immediate ban but apparently if you pick up a yellow that takes you over that limit then your 2 game ban will take 14 days to kick in. We've to play them today, 13 days after the Ross County game. Coincidence I'm sure.

[tannerall 25,935]

Every poster from the most annoyed to the most reasonable on this thread has got it right, as would the biggest majority of those who know football. 

The SFA decision was wrong.

As was the unauthorised decision by the ref to ignore the minute's silence, without realising the anger that could have caused our fans. Fotunately our fans were not provoked by it, but it does make you wonder why he chose to do it.

 

Scottish football and its rulers are a farce.