Candeias Red Card

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

Just now, Burnbank Derry said:

The Sheep successfully appealed a yellow back in 2016:

Aberdeen-successfully-appeal-yellow-card-shown-to-james-maddison-for-diving/

Simulation (diving) and mistaken identity are the two reasons yellows CAN be rescinded.

[backup 4,724]

53 minutes ago, tam57 said:

When he reads your post he will be using one of them.

Why would he need to do that, those are the sfa guidelines.

[STEPPS BOY 73,923]

The Rangers statement about them rejecting appeal doesn’t miss.

About time we went to town wi the SFA and Collum..

[STEPPS BOY 73,923]

 

CLUB RESPONSE TO SCOTTISH FA’S DECISION TO DISMISS OUR APPEAL:

Rangers are extremely disappointed with the decision of the Scottish FA’s Judicial Panel to dismiss our appeal against the second yellow card shown to Daniel Candeias in the closing seconds of last Saturday’s match against St Mirren.

Rangers afforded the governing body the opportunity to let common sense prevail and we are surprised they have chosen not to do so by correcting what was, and what remains an inexplicable decision by the match referee, Willie Collum. Rangers shall now seek a fundamental review of the rules relating to red cards which result from two bookings of a player in a game.

If one of these decisions is obviously wrong, it must be possible to correct that mistake. It is wrong that players’ livelihoods and careers can be impacted without the opportunity of redress, especially when the official responsible for the miscarriage of justice is allowed to continue as though beyond question or reproach.

It defies belief that this same referee, who got it so blatantly wrong last Saturday, is awarded one of the biggest matches in Scottish football this weekend while Daniel Candeias is denied the right to go to his work. This, frankly, is unacceptable.

Furthermore, it is understood that a number of people within the Scottish FA are in no doubt Mr Collum’s judgment was flawed and Rangers shall also now be submitting a formal complaint about the performance of this referee. The manner in which he reacted to an incident involving our player made it obvious he did not give due consideration to his decision.

This is by no means the first time errors of judgment have been made in matches involving this official and clearly there is an underlying issue which requires to be addressed.

[shotstopper 765]

Get in there Rangers - let's take this all the way.  Collum has brought the game into disrepute and should be punished as any player/official has been in the past.

[Vision 16,729]

SFA's appeal's board.

[Bears r us 30,798]

10 minutes ago, STEPPS BOY said:

 

CLUB RESPONSE TO SCOTTISH FA’S DECISION TO DISMISS OUR APPEAL:

Rangers are extremely disappointed with the decision of the Scottish FA’s Judicial Panel to dismiss our appeal against the second yellow card shown to Daniel Candeias in the closing seconds of last Saturday’s match against St Mirren.

Rangers afforded the governing body the opportunity to let common sense prevail and we are surprised they have chosen not to do so by correcting what was, and what remains an inexplicable decision by the match referee, Willie Collum. Rangers shall now seek a fundamental review of the rules relating to red cards which result from two bookings of a player in a game.

If one of these decisions is obviously wrong, it must be possible to correct that mistake. It is wrong that players’ livelihoods and careers can be impacted without the opportunity of redress, especially when the official responsible for the miscarriage of justice is allowed to continue as though beyond question or reproach.

It defies belief that this same referee, who got it so blatantly wrong last Saturday, is awarded one of the biggest matches in Scottish football this weekend while Daniel Candeias is denied the right to go to his work. This, frankly, is unacceptable.

Furthermore, it is understood that a number of people within the Scottish FA are in no doubt Mr Collum’s judgment was flawed and Rangers shall also now be submitting a formal complaint about the performance of this referee. The manner in which he reacted to an incident involving our player made it obvious he did not give due consideration to his decision.

This is by no means the first time errors of judgment have been made in matches involving this official and clearly there is an underlying issue which requires to be addressed.

No idea who wrote that but it is fantastic, this is all we ask from our Club when we are treated wrongly. 

 

[Vision 16,729]

6 minutes ago, Vision said:

SFA's appeal's board.

 

18 minutes ago, STEPPS BOY said:

 

CLUB RESPONSE TO SCOTTISH FA’S DECISION TO DISMISS OUR APPEAL:

Rangers are extremely disappointed with the decision of the Scottish FA’s Judicial Panel to dismiss our appeal against the second yellow card shown to Daniel Candeias in the closing seconds of last Saturday’s match against St Mirren.

Rangers afforded the governing body the opportunity to let common sense prevail and we are surprised they have chosen not to do so by correcting what was, and what remains an inexplicable decision by the match referee, Willie Collum. Rangers shall now seek a fundamental review of the rules relating to red cards which result from two bookings of a player in a game.

If one of these decisions is obviously wrong, it must be possible to correct that mistake. It is wrong that players’ livelihoods and careers can be impacted without the opportunity of redress, especially when the official responsible for the miscarriage of justice is allowed to continue as though beyond question or reproach.

It defies belief that this same referee, who got it so blatantly wrong last Saturday, is awarded one of the biggest matches in Scottish football this weekend while Daniel Candeias is denied the right to go to his work. This, frankly, is unacceptable.

Furthermore, it is understood that a number of people within the Scottish FA are in no doubt Mr Collum’s judgment was flawed and Rangers shall also now be submitting a formal complaint about the performance of this referee. The manner in which he reacted to an incident involving our player made it obvious he did not give due consideration to his decision.

This is by no means the first time errors of judgment have been made in matches involving this official and clearly there is an underlying issue which requires to be addressed.

[magic8ball 27,901]

I'm assuming the incident where Jack was fouled in the lead up to the tarriers goal at the piggery is what they are alluding too .

Suddenly Gerrards pop at referees after the game at pittodrie  doesn't look so outrageous now 

[tam57 698]

3 hours ago, backup said:

Why would he need to do that, those are the sfa guidelines.

Because he doesn’t have a clue.

[tam57 698]

4 hours ago, backup said:

Why would he need to do that, those are the sfa guidelines.

It was my idea of a joke. You pointing out the rules to a ref who it looks like doesn’t know them after sending one of ours off for nothing in my opinion.

[Amato 3,016]

Sent off for gesturing according to the SFA. ?.

Scandalous

The referee provided a statement confirming the nature of the offence in respect of which the player was cautioned for a second time.

"He confirmed that he issued the caution to the player as at the time he believed that the player had been involved in two incidents, making gestures towards the opponent, the St Mirren No 35, after the scoring of a goal and becoming further involved with the opponent as he made his way upfield after celebrating the goal.

"The tribunal viewed the video footage of the incidents, supplied by the claimant, and carefully considered the claimant's written submission and the written statement of the player.

"Having done so, the tribunal found that the referee correctly identified the player as being the player involved in the incidents with the St Mirren No 35. The video footage showed this.

"The claimant, in their written submission, had accepted that there had been contact between the payer and the St Mirren No 35. The referee cautioned both players.

Accordingly the tribunal found, on a balance of probabilities, that there had been no error on the part of the referee and no mistaken identity with regard to the players involved in the incidents and specifically in relation to the player for whom the claimant had appealed.

"Therefore the determination of the tribunal was that the claim be dismissed and that the caution and dismissal, and mandatory sanction, be reimposed."

[Laudrup1984 25,100]

Absolute lies. It's only took about 2 weeks for them to get their story straight!

 

[trueblueal 2,117]

Becoming further involved by what, being taken hold of and given a dunt by Ferdinand? They cited Lennon yet for gesturing to the Hibs fans and inciting trouble? 

[five stars 1,621]

The SFA are a joke. Getting attacked by an opponent is now a bookable offense!!?

[kanjo 26,328]

They are digging themselves into a hole each passing week.

[sandyinroyalblue 16,478]

Lying bastards.

[Bakbear 3,586]

And there it is. The post truth, alternative fact, double speak dystopian future has become firmly entrenched in Scottish football. 

Sickening 

[Laudrup1984 25,100]

Is there any footage of where the ref is facing when Candeias blows the kiss? Did he even see it?

If so and he's not looking he's clearly lying.

If so and he is looking why did he not book Candeias straight away for that as opposed to then booking him for being assaulted. It makes no sense.

Regardless he is talking absolute shite and we shouldn't let it go IMO.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

The biggest disappointment for me was our manager saying positive things about this biased bastard 

Major error for me .

[They Gnu 11,553]

The footage clearly shows what happened, lying won’t change that.

[BridgeIsBlue 66,606]

[Laudrup1984 25,100]

 

[ger4life_1872 29,516]

The club shouldn't let this go , even if it means taking collum through the civil courts  , and we should be putting out a full list of similar incidents,  lennon gestures etc 

[Colin Traive 22,779]

Right.

So blowing kisses is worth a statement and a punishment.

Fine.

So what do they have to say about providing a conveyor belt of youngsters for paedophiles and then covering up the crimes?