Jump to content

Morelos card appealed.


backup

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 771
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Maybe it does account for some of the reasoning for the red.

Shouldn't come into the equation retrospectively when the panel look at his offence for violent conduct / serious foul play, not whether he's rolled about after it.

He wasn’t citied for simulation. 

Would love someone to tell us what a violent roll on the ground looks like 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Courtyard Bear said:

He wasn’t citied for simulation. 

Would love someone to tell us what a violent roll on the ground looks like 

No I agree, but I wouldn't be surprised if the ref / linesman never bought the rolling around as being genuine, and that influenced their views that he was then guilty of something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimbeamjunior said:

Say what you like but his reactions including the wee look to the ref while supposedly in agony were embarrassing

Embarrassing agreed. 

Maybe he needs to act like McKenna, I mine here’s a guy just booted violently twice in the baws (according to the SFA) but still manages to kick a guy in the face from flat on his back then jump up like he’s just been shocked with a cattle prod screaming his innocence. 

What a man give him a medal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Embarrassing agreed. 

Maybe he needs to act like McKenna, I mine here’s a guy just booted violently twice in the baws (according to the SFA) but still manages to kick a guy in the face from flat on his back then jump up like he’s just been shocked with a cattle prod screaming his innocence. 

What a man give him a medal. 

When he signs for the scum, he'll not even get red carded for that either :no:

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

No I agree, but I wouldn't be surprised if the ref / linesman never bought the rolling around as being genuine, and that influenced their views that he was then guilty of something.

So you reckon they thought McKenna missed but the intent was there. 

But surely that should come under the new super duper rule that the SFA don’t think the Ref had a good enough view so we will step in. Of course paragraph 23 section 2a sub section 10 says that only comes into practice if Brenda/scum mention it should be looked at. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

So you reckon they thought McKenna missed but the intent was there. 

But surely that should come under the new super duper rule that the SFA don’t think the Ref had a good enough view so we will step in. Of course paragraph 23 section 2a sub section 10 says that only comes into practice if Brenda/scum mention it should be looked at. 

Not sure how you're getting that from my post. I'm saying they may well have believed Morelos was rolling around as a way of distracting from something he himself had done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Embarrassing agreed. 

Maybe he needs to act like McKenna, I mine here’s a guy just booted violently twice in the baws (according to the SFA) but still manages to kick a guy in the face from flat on his back then jump up like he’s just been shocked with a cattle prod screaming his innocence. 

What a man give him a medal. 

You know you dont need to make contact with someone to be sent off, if the officials think theres intent they can do you, its then up to the club to show there was no intent, however i think morelos' reaction made him look guilty as fuck

If morelos drops to the ground and holds his face after being kicked he probably gets reduced to a yellow yesterday, his subsequent rolls and wee look done him imo

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

You're missing my point, the whole incident including his reactions to the boot to the face made him look guilty, 

Perhaps to match officials.

But that shouldn't influence decisions made on his own actions in the violent conduct context to ex refs reviewing from multiple angles retrospectively.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Perhaps to match officials.

But that shouldn't influence decisions made on his own actions in the violent conduct context to ex refs reviewing from multiple angles retrospectively.

The panel will look at the whole incident, the lead up, the offences and the aftermath, 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimbeamjunior said:

The panel will look at the whole incident, the lead up, the offences and the aftermath, 

They were there to examine his conduct 're the charges. They can't know  or assume why he rolled around like that, it's got fuck all to do with violent conduct. If anything it's to do with the violent conduct he's just been a victim of.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Not the point, if morelos really did just get his legs tangled up and was just an innocent victim, he had no reason to act like he did after it, instead by doing that he made it seem as if there was intent and he was trying to get out of the punishment, 

See if it was genuinely accidental about his foot raking mckenna, then when he took the boot to the face he should have took a knee or simply turned away holding his face, that rolling around pish and wee daft look to the ref made him look guilty

It is entirely the point as he was charged for violent conduct. 

If it was simulation then I'd agree with you, but he wasn't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Not sure how you're getting that from my post. I'm saying they may well have believed Morelos was rolling around as a way of distracting from something he himself had done.

They can’t act on that, they can only act on what they see if they saw Mo get a boot in the face then over reacting or not he’s entitled to go down. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

You know you dont need to make contact with someone to be sent off, if the officials think theres intent they can do you, its then up to the club to show there was no intent, however i think morelos' reaction made him look guilty as fuck

If morelos drops to the ground and holds his face after being kicked he probably gets reduced to a yellow yesterday, his subsequent rolls and wee look done him imo

No offence mate. 

But that’s a load of Bollocks, he either kicks him in the baws or he doesn’t. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Courtyard Bear said:

They can’t act on that, they can only act on what they see if they saw Mo get a boot in the face then over reacting or not he’s entitled to go down. 

Mate all I'm saying is there's 2 separate incidents. His as offender, him as victim.

He does excessively roll around. I'm just saying I don't think it's outwith the realms of possibility that they've looked at his rolling around (unnaturally imo) as a means of accentuating the kick on him, or to take the focus off his wrong doing. I'm not saying it's right, nor it's definitely happened, but that it wouldn't surprise me. It's been fucked up at pittodrie and retrospectively, so regardless, what should or shouldn't impact appears not to be worth a fuck when it involves us.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

Does he miss the replay? 

Apparently not.

"The third match of the three-game ban must be served in the league which means he could play in any cup replay against Killie. Instead he is poised to miss a league clash with Hamilton."

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Bill Leckie's unsurprising take on it...

"If anything, McKenna’s the unlucky one out of it all, because we’d all kick out if someone stamped on us where it hurt"

 

:justno:

 

😂 surprised he doesn’t want McKennas ban rescinded for just defending himself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They all seem to miss the point that any stamp to the balls is painful, I am sure mckenna has iron baws and didn't feel a thing going by his non-reaction. Never in the whole incident does he scream in pain, nor does he grab his baws. I can only deduce there is no stamp, no contact... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, dummiesoot said:

They all seem to miss the point that any stamp to the balls is painful, I am sure mckenna has iron baws and didn't feel a thing going by his non-reaction. Never in the whole incident does he scream in pain, nor does he grab his baws. I can only deduce there is no stamp, no contact... 

History of the incident already been rewritten by the scum media, now widely and regularly reported and accepted as a "stamp" by Alfredo. 

Blatant lies, there was no stamp, it never happened but it doesn't stop the cunts from their witch hunt against the wee man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...