Rangers statement r.e. Flanagan Citation

[BouncyBluenose87 1,559]

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/

Think this link highlights all the citations which are going to a panel for analysis. No mention of Simunovic's swinging elbow on Defoe, so I don't think the CO raised this.

Am I surprised?...nope, not when she's a season ticket holder at the piggery.

It's the lack of parity that boils my piss. The CO role was created to highlight incidents which went unpunished at the time. Flanagan, McKenna and Johnston all got punished at the time with yellow cards, so the upgrading to red cards shouldn't have been allowed to happen. If Scottish Football is gonna go down the route of allowing the CO to re-ref games, then both they and the panel of refs analysing the incident should be impartial...simple as that. Until then, this corruption to the benefit of only one team will continue.

All other clubs in the SPL should be rounding on these corrupt fuckers!

[magic8ball 27,901]

18 hours ago, andyhrfc said:

The Club needs to continue standing up to the corruption and open bias displayed by those in positions of influence be they on the pitch, in the media or the SFA.  I am not suggesting that JF has not committed an offence, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  In any other league  all teams would be treated equally with incorrect refereeing decisions balancing out over a season.  Not in Scotland.  This is what happens when those that despise our club permeate every position of influence possible.   

would i be off the mark suggesting the hatred of our club is actually sectarian 

or is only non catholics that can be sectarian.

 

[Thermopylae 15,286]

Highlighting the double standards in the game these days is long overdue

[soulboy 2,518]

9 hours ago, rabc10000 said:

What's even more staggering is that all the teams in the league have been cited on numerous occasions as well while they have never had a single one all season I believe. Something is not right no matter what way you look at it

They have been cited just never anything came of it

[backup 4,724]

19 hours ago, andyhrfc said:

The Club needs to continue standing up to the corruption 

The board need to start standing up for players and fans, full stop.

Words are just that, actions speak louder than words.

[Drunk and disorderly. 14,418]

8 hours ago, KeyserSoze said:

Nobody jumped mate. Flannigan caught him a good one and should have been sent off.  No point in saying otherwise  

The issue is retrospective action yet again and simunovic’s assault on Defoe to show fair refereeing 

 

Broon fell like a sack of potatoes. Was a yellow imo. The baldy inbreed elbows players in the face all the time and gets away with it. 

[72barca 1,788]

11 minutes ago, backup said:

The board need to start standing up for players and fans, full stop.

Words are just that, actions speak louder than words.

I think one of the most frustrating things in this whole procedure is when the statement is made that a player does not get cited because the 3 person panel, which advises the CO, has stated that they are not in unanimous agreement therefore no charge can be brought.
Firstly, who are these people and secondly, upon what evidence have they based their decision and thirdly, what is their reasoning?

[Laudrupsleftfoot 10,872]

Gave up after the decision not to rescind Morelos' red card after he lashed out ballet danced around McKenna.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

9 hours ago, Bakbear said:

I agree. But you can’t make that case while saying “we will defend mr Flanagan”. You can’t defend Flanagan as it is a red card all day long. 

Attack the process. Challenge the process. Seek the clarity of the process and ensure it’s transparency. Even insist the process be abolished. 

But don’t say we will defend Mr Flanagan. It’s a losing battle to defend the indefensible. 

The ref on the day didn't think so. His decision should be final. The panel should only take action when the referee misses an incident. They should defend Flanagan as he was cautioned by the referee on the day. That should be an end of the matter. 

He was defending his space at the corner, he didn't catch Lego in the face and the charge is, materially, incorrect. The last is the strongest defence, the referee did see the incident, the charge states he didn't.

[Bakbear 3,586]

9 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

The ref on the day didn't think so. His decision should be final. The panel should only take action when the referee misses an incident. They should defend Flanagan as he was cautioned by the referee on the day. That should be an end of the matter. 

He was defending his space at the corner, he didn't catch Lego in the face and the charge is, materially, incorrect. The last is the strongest defence, the referee did see the incident, the charge states he didn't.

I appreciate that might be your opinion. The vast majority agree it’s a red card offence. 

Regarding what the ref saw, we don’t know what he saw because he doesn’t and can’t  tell us. He was positioned directly behind Brown so maybe he thought it was a shoulder barge and another camera angle shows a raised elbow that he didn’t see?

my point remains that we should challenge the double standards, it’s just a shame that the particular case we are challenging in is a red card. I would have spent much more effort on the Candeias red earlier in the season which was outrageous. 

I also still maintain that it’s critical to know if Simunovic, or whatever his name is, was cited because the basis of this institutional bias is the CO and how she determines who gets cited and who doesn’t. 

[backup 4,724]

"but that sending off offence was not seen by any of the match officials at the time that it was committed"

Clancy saw a yellow card offence, the co referred it to the panel, she must be asked by our board why suminovic was also not referred.

[Blumhoilann 6,712]

Sportscene replayed the Flanagan incident 7 times, from many different angles,the Simunovic elbow once,just as Sky did and it's on their broadcasts these judgements are made.What happens when VAR is introduced? In the Simonivic case,would it have been looked at,I doubt it and Flanagan certainly would have and likely would have gotten a red ,mainly because Broon is excellent at throwing himself down while holding his mongoid face.

Strange how the police lost the video evidence concerning the investigation into the sectarian hanging of effigies but couldn't use third party evidence to secure a case,meanwhile the CO and her team are using none SFA/SPFL footage to condemn and punish players???

Seems to me there are two sets of rules in the game these days and we all know why.

[Blumhoilann 6,712]

BTW,Flanagan did NOT use his elbow,if anything it was the side/underside of his forearm.

[72barca 1,788]

21 minutes ago, backup said:

"but that sending off offence was not seen by any of the match officials at the time that it was committed"

Clancy saw a yellow card offence, the co referred it to the panel, she must be asked by our board why suminovic was also not referred.

Suminovic was referred to the panel. They were not unanimous in their opinion that he committed an offence, hence case dropped.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

15 minutes ago, Bakbear said:

I appreciate that might be your opinion. The vast majority agree it’s a red card offence. 

Regarding what the ref saw, we don’t know what he saw because he doesn’t and can’t  tell us. He was positioned directly behind Brown so maybe he thought it was a shoulder barge and another camera angle shows a raised elbow that he didn’t see?

my point remains that we should challenge the double standards, it’s just a shame that the particular case we are challenging in is a red card. I would have spent much more effort on the Candeias red earlier in the season which was outrageous. 

I also still maintain that it’s critical to know if Simunovic, or whatever his name is, was cited because the basis of this institutional bias is the CO and how she determines who gets cited and who doesn’t. 

The ref will put in his report what he saw to warrant the caution. Its standard practice to take the referees decision as final when he has cautioned a player. If they are going to upgrade red cards then players should be allowed to challenge them.

It doesn't matter what ,'people on here' think, what matters is the integrity of the game and its become a joke in Scotland. If this is the incident the club take a stand on then so be it, it should have happened long before this.

[backup 4,724]

8 minutes ago, 72barca said:

Suminovic was referred to the panel. They were not unanimous in their opinion that he committed an offence, hence case dropped.

He isn't on the list only JF is.

 

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/

 

 

[72barca 1,788]

12 minutes ago, backup said:

He isn't on the list only JF is.

 

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/

 

 

The way I understand proceedings is that the CO finds and refers possible infractions to a three man panel. If they give unanimous agreement that a Notice of Complaint should be issued then she goes ahead and does so. I don't know how she decides what should be fast-tracked.
It would appear in Sumonivich's case the three-man panel were not unanimous in their verdict hence no Notice of Complaint was issued against him.
I would be interested in who these three-man panels are and would like to see their arguments and reasonings published.

[backup 4,724]

36 minutes ago, 72barca said:

The way I understand proceedings is that the CO finds and refers possible infractions to a three man panel. If they give unanimous agreement that a Notice of Complaint should be issued then she goes ahead and does so. I don't know how she decides what should be fast-tracked.
It would appear in Sumonivich's case the three-man panel were not unanimous in their verdict hence no Notice of Complaint was issued against him.
I would be interested in who these three-man panels are and would like to see their arguments and reasonings published.

He would still need to be cited to be cleared.

[siddiqi_drinker 14,635]

56 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

The ref will put in his report what he saw to warrant the caution. Its standard practice to take the referees decision as final when he has cautioned a player. If they are going to upgrade red cards then players should be allowed to challenge them.

It doesn't matter what ,'people on here' think, what matters is the integrity of the game and its become a joke in Scotland. If this is the incident the club take a stand on then so be it, it should have happened long before this.

Other countries are using VAR and goal-line technology to SUPPORT the match officials -- in Scotland, we have some wee woman lawyer overruling match officials game decisions. 

Ref saw the incident and made a decision - should be the end of the story. 

[Drunk and disorderly. 14,418]

1 hour ago, Blumhoilann said:

BTW,Flanagan did NOT use his elbow,if anything it was the side/underside of his forearm.

I agree. Also Broon played for it hoping for a penalty then went down as if he was shot. There was no real force either. My 4 year old lassie could have hurt him more. Never merited a red card and should not have got this far.

 

[backup 4,724]

There was a saying that decisions evened themselves out over a season, Wattie quoted it often, how we doing with the evening out with this new fangled system, we aren't !

[eejay the dj 31,964]

Remember the days when the bheasts wanted clarification on everything about referees in Scotland ....

Well strangely enough, having 3 old refs who's identity isn't revealed sitting on panel making vital decisions  , doesn't seem to bother them these days .

They know they have it wrapped up . The moaning after the Old firm games were an absolute curve ball

[Helicopter Sundae 5,986]

I seriously though he just brushed his head with his arm. Thought there was fuck all in it.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,540]

1 hour ago, backup said:

He would still need to be cited to be cleared.

Nah, im sure the "citing" is when the 3 man panel agree that a red card is missed, then the compliance officer issues the retrospective ban

The issue Rangers should have is her inability to refer other incidents to the panel, but seemingly in this case she did

[Dave Hedgehog 10,673]

Flanagan is citied and it appears on the SFA disciplinary updates page on their website.

Rangers ask why Flanagan is being citied after being dealt with by the ref but Simunovic isn’t despite it being missed by the officials.

The SFA then say Simunovic was citied but the panel couldn’t agree to ban him.

That is bullshit. If he had been citied it would have appeared as a charge on their disciplinary updates. It didn’t.

They are now lying to cover their tracks. Corrupt to the core.