Jump to content
Sparkle

McGregor banned 2 games

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, fanaticCR said:

Extraordinary 

Nothing would surprise about that club, it's only 10 years since a compliance involvement if true they've been allowed to get away Scot free with harbouring bheasts for a lot longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BLUEDIGNITY said:

A mate text me that info, honesty don't know how accurate it is, but it's from a good source. Maybe somebody with more knowledge could confirm it.

Guidetti and Griffiths have both been charged with singing / racist conduct I think.

In terms of on field conduct, nope, can't think of any in recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Bears r us said:

I have found this link on the SPFL site it gives a lot of stats and shows Mo on 8 yellows (I think) but I do not see any dates, I assume it is for the season 18/19. :thumbup:

https://spfl.co.uk/stats-centre

You will notice no selick players on that page. 

So the bottom of the fouls committed table is St Johnstone and the scum only 4 fouls separate them but St Johnstone have 40 yellow cards and the scum have only 23. 

Aye but there’s nothing dodgy going on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

So the bottom of the fouls committed table is St Johnstone and the scum only 4 fouls separate them but St Johnstone have 40 yellow cards and the scum have only 23. 

Aye but there’s nothing dodgy going on. 

Some very interesting stats that is for sure.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached:Disciplinary Rule 200 : Where any one of the sending off offences of (A1) serious foul play, (A2) violent conduct, and (A3) spitting at an opponent or other person is committed by a player at a match, but that sending off offence was not seen by any of the match officials at the time that it was committed the mandatory suspension for that sending off offence as provided for in Annex C of the Judicial Panel Protocol shall be applied to the player.

IMG_20190208_191149.jpg.9b7d9751345a48d0

If McGregor is found guilty, then it's officially corrupt. Straight to CAS.

And fwiw, I think he will be done for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached:Disciplinary Rule 200 : Where any one of the sending off offences of (A1) serious foul play, (A2) violent conduct, and (A3) spitting at an opponent or other person is committed by a player at a match, but that sending off offence was not seen by any of the match officials at the time that it was committed the mandatory suspension for that sending off offence as provided for in Annex C of the Judicial Panel Protocol shall be applied to the player.

IMG_20190208_191149.jpg.9b7d9751345a48d0

If McGregor is found guilty, then it's officially corrupt. Straight to CAS.

And fwiw, I think he will be done for it.

Ref is staring right at the action there ffs ,they bams change it to suit their own agenda ,even mcinnes never mentioned it ffs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

His compliance hearing today then?

Edit. It's tomorrow.

If power doesn't get cited its easy for Rangers show them that picture

IMG_20190208_191149.jpg.9b7d9751345a48d0

Then show them this

0_Kilmarnock-v-Rangers-William-Hill-Scot

Tell them that if  McGregor is a red and this aint then regardless of any decision  Allan will be playing come Saturday at 3 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, KingKirk said:

If power doesn't get cited its easy for Rangers show them that picture

IMG_20190208_191149.jpg.9b7d9751345a48d0

Then show them this

0_Kilmarnock-v-Rangers-William-Hill-Scot

Tell them that if  McGregor is a red and this aint then regardless of any decision  Allan will be playing come Saturday at 3 

 

 

 

Power gets nothing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t see him being in a hurry to want to play for Scotland again if he doesn’t win the appeal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This particular animal will be at it again soon in the cup game .

It's what he does, but that's ok.

The cards are now seriously stacked against Morelos when we go back up there after disposing of Kilmarnock.

I wan't him playing his normal game, in amongst it and IF he he get's a red under dubious circumstances, then the club need to go to war, or it's game over for us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2019 at 13:24, Jamie0202 said:
4 hours ago, Laudrup1984 said:

 

Why the delay? Is liewell too busy to call the CO with his decision today?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe still photograph evidence is not admissible as it does not show the alleged offence in context. ie; movements immediately before and afterwards.

 

Footage has to be direct from a "reputable" source - which does not include YouTube.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice that the photos in the press reporting the decision are now a second or so later showing the boot at waist height or Ryan Jack on the deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Laudrup1984 said:

Delaying the appeal 24 hours seems to imply we may have been awaiting the outcome of the Power incident.

I think we’re waiting on Micheal Stewart and his biomechanical explanation, to bail us out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Laudrup1984 said:

Delaying the appeal 24 hours seems to imply we may have been awaiting the outcome of the Power incident.

Whatever our argument for McGregor's citing to be overturned could only be strengthened by this decision - was never guaranteed, but worth requesting the 24 hour extension - as it now happens, McGregor may still get the ban, but how on earth can it be justified. Sufficient grounds for openly questioning the Compliance Officer role and obvious bias against any Rangers related referral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, 10pshortof17pound said:

Whatever our argument for McGregor's citing to be overturned could only be strengthened by this decision - was never guaranteed, but worth requesting the 24 hour extension - as it now happens, McGregor may still get the ban, but how on earth can it be justified. Sufficient grounds for openly questioning the Compliance Officer role and obvious bias against any Rangers related referral.

If McGregor ban is upheld, could the club be getting ready to take this further? The 24 hour delay suggests something is going on behind the scenes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached:Disciplinary Rule 200 : Where any one of the sending off offences of (A1) serious foul play, (A2) violent conduct, and (A3) spitting at an opponent or other person is committed by a player at a match, but that sending off offence was not seen by any of the match officials at the time that it was committed the mandatory suspension for that sending off offence as provided for in Annex C of the Judicial Panel Protocol shall be applied to the player.

 

Despite the above not being the case, I fully expect ban to be upheld.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...