Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Orange and Blue

Wee Rhat Christie 3 match ban for Morelos grab

Recommended Posts


18 minutes ago, scottyscott1963 said:

Good stuff about the hypocrite Bobby.
Read his piece and saw where he thinks "these clubs are obsessed with each other"
Got news for you Irish/English.
This obsession is a one sided fuckin downright hatred from the people who conducted the disgusting paedophilia you referred to.
We are right minded and fair people who want justice for the kids who were abused by the club you support.
Maybe if they had come out and put their hands up years ago and apologised and did the right and proper thing,instead of using a bunch of politicians to try to destroy the whole sordid story,and dodge any sense of fairness to the victims instead of trying to blame them.
Shove your "obsession" shite where the sun don't shine.
Stand up like a man and condemn them to hell. 

Well said Scotty .Top post 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gandalf the Blue said:

I'd forgotten about this. For "not being that type of player" he's involved in quite a lot of incidents

I've never forgotten that one. Thats exactly the type of cheat he is, when he's not making leg break challenges. 

There's loads of examples. He was a actually booked for diving recently and at least once last season and the reason  for the yellow was never mentioned in the match reports . You need to go into the BBC live text retrospectively as the media and tv just don't even refer to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Gandalf the Blue said:

I'd forgotten about this. For "not being that type of player" he's involved in quite a lot of incidents

"Such nonsense making an issue out of that incident. He clipped, R.C. otherwise he wouldn't have fallen as he was in on goal.He's not a cheat"

NINTCHDBPICT000550889821-1-e157838447332

not a cheat at all :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SFA publish reason for Christie ban following his grab on Morelos, ‘Clancy gave evidence to the hearing that he and his assistants didn’t see the incident at the time’. I think this declaration is nothing less than, (at best) total incompetence, at worst (imo) blatant lies, he gave the foul for the incident (what did he see than?). If I recall the angle of his view correctly there is no way him or at worst, at least one of his assistants missed this. Be better with Stevie Wonder with the whistle for the next derby if this is the level of officiating that the SFA rely on to referee one of the largest televised football games in the UK if not beyond..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id love morelos to take that cunt to court. If anyone does that in the street at best you'll get a sore face. Potentially you could get arrested and charged with sexual assault.

You can't grab another mans baws and moan for getting charged.

Did he mean it that's up for debate but fact is it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SFA ruling on it is out, below is the Sun's take on it, I've linked at the bottom  the actual decision.

 SFA’s statement said: “The submission of the Compliance Officer was that the Alleged Party deliberately committed a violent act whereby he struck an opponent in the groin, with excessive force when not challenging for the ball.

“It was submitted that this was not a reflex action or an unintended consequence. It was advised that this constituted an act of violent conduct, an (A2) sending off offence.

“The match officials all confirmed that they did not see the alleged act at the material time.

“Given the sensitivity of the area of the body targeted by the Alleged Party, the Compliance Officer categorised the act as one involving brutality and also submitted that this was manifestly apparent from the video footage available of the incident.

“The three former match officials, following a review of the video footage had each separately confirmed that the alleged act amounted to a sending off offence for violent conduct.

“Two of these former match officials believed that brutality was also evident.

“In the foregoing circumstances, the Compliance Officer submitted that Disciplinary Rule 200 had been breached and the Alleged Party in Breach should be sanctioned accordingly.”

After the SFA served Christie with a notice of complaint over the incident last week, celtic vowed to defend him vigorously.

In their reasons for their decision, the SFA confirmed that while the Hoops did not make written submissions or provide video evidence on behalf of the midfielder, they did raise issues before the tribunal moved forward.

They said: “Two preliminary matters were raised on behalf of the Alleged Party in Breach.

“Firstly, issue was taken with the merits of the available video footage and whether this video evidence was competent.

“Secondly, and somewhat linked to the first preliminary matter, the fact that the specific element of the physical act constituting a breach of Disciplinary Rule 200 that was unseen by the match officials was disputed by the Alleged Party in Breach, also raised competency concerns for the specification of the breach made in the Notice of Complaint.

“After careful consideration of these preliminary matters, it was decided that the Tribunal could apply its discretion, interpret the video footage and either accept, reject or rely on any part of it as appropriate whilst considering all available evidence (including that of the three former match officials) in accordance with Judicial Panel Protocol 10.10.6.

“Consequently, the video footage was accepted as competent in terms of Judicial Panel Protocol 13.2.2.”

After the SFA confirmed Christie’s ban this week, celtic hit out at them in a strong-worded statement.

They called for a “disciplinary process which is fair, consistent and fit for purpose”, and said they would contact the SFA regarding their concerns.

Link https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/5936/reasons-ryan-christie-celtic-fc.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6.  Written submissions and video evidence were not submitted on behalf of the Alleged Party in Breach.

So much for their dossier 😂

 

 

"The three former match officials, following a review of the video footage had each separately confirmed that the alleged act amounted to a sending off offence for violent conduct. Two of these former match officials believed that brutality was also evident." 

Good to see 2 brothers overruled the beast ref 👍😁

Blueteeth likes this

Share this post


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

SFA ruling on it is out, below is the Sun's take on it, I've linked at the bottom  the actual decision.

 SFA’s statement said: “The submission of the Compliance Officer was that the Alleged Party deliberately committed a violent act whereby he struck an opponent in the groin, with excessive force when not challenging for the ball.

“It was submitted that this was not a reflex action or an unintended consequence. It was advised that this constituted an act of violent conduct, an (A2) sending off offence.

“The match officials all confirmed that they did not see the alleged act at the material time.

“Given the sensitivity of the area of the body targeted by the Alleged Party, the Compliance Officer categorised the act as one involving brutality and also submitted that this was manifestly apparent from the video footage available of the incident.

“The three former match officials, following a review of the video footage had each separately confirmed that the alleged act amounted to a sending off offence for violent conduct.

“Two of these former match officials believed that brutality was also evident.

“In the foregoing circumstances, the Compliance Officer submitted that Disciplinary Rule 200 had been breached and the Alleged Party in Breach should be sanctioned accordingly.”

After the SFA served Christie with a notice of complaint over the incident last week, celtic vowed to defend him vigorously.

In their reasons for their decision, the SFA confirmed that while the Hoops did not make written submissions or provide video evidence on behalf of the midfielder, they did raise issues before the tribunal moved forward.

They said: “Two preliminary matters were raised on behalf of the Alleged Party in Breach.

“Firstly, issue was taken with the merits of the available video footage and whether this video evidence was competent.

“Secondly, and somewhat linked to the first preliminary matter, the fact that the specific element of the physical act constituting a breach of Disciplinary Rule 200 that was unseen by the match officials was disputed by the Alleged Party in Breach, also raised competency concerns for the specification of the breach made in the Notice of Complaint.

“After careful consideration of these preliminary matters, it was decided that the Tribunal could apply its discretion, interpret the video footage and either accept, reject or rely on any part of it as appropriate whilst considering all available evidence (including that of the three former match officials) in accordance with Judicial Panel Protocol 10.10.6.

“Consequently, the video footage was accepted as competent in terms of Judicial Panel Protocol 13.2.2.”

After the SFA confirmed Christie’s ban this week, celtic hit out at them in a strong-worded statement.

They called for a “disciplinary process which is fair, consistent and fit for purpose”, and said they would contact the SFA regarding their concerns.

Link https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/5936/reasons-ryan-christie-celtic-fc.pdf

'and said they would contact the SFA regarding their concerns.'

So they will contact themselves as they are the SFA.  Crazy talk from crazy people. We will never know which of the officials thinks its ok to grab a players knob, but we have our own view. Its a war on and off the pitch and we can't lower our guard for a second.

Share this post


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

SFA ruling on it is out, below is the Sun's take on it, I've linked at the bottom  the actual decision.

 SFA’s statement said: “The submission of the Compliance Officer was that the Alleged Party deliberately committed a violent act whereby he struck an opponent in the groin, with excessive force when not challenging for the ball.

“It was submitted that this was not a reflex action or an unintended consequence. It was advised that this constituted an act of violent conduct, an (A2) sending off offence.

“The match officials all confirmed that they did not see the alleged act at the material time.

“Given the sensitivity of the area of the body targeted by the Alleged Party, the Compliance Officer categorised the act as one involving brutality and also submitted that this was manifestly apparent from the video footage available of the incident.

“The three former match officials, following a review of the video footage had each separately confirmed that the alleged act amounted to a sending off offence for violent conduct.

“Two of these former match officials believed that brutality was also evident.

“In the foregoing circumstances, the Compliance Officer submitted that Disciplinary Rule 200 had been breached and the Alleged Party in Breach should be sanctioned accordingly.”

After the SFA served Christie with a notice of complaint over the incident last week, celtic vowed to defend him vigorously.

In their reasons for their decision, the SFA confirmed that while the Hoops did not make written submissions or provide video evidence on behalf of the midfielder, they did raise issues before the tribunal moved forward.

They said: “Two preliminary matters were raised on behalf of the Alleged Party in Breach.

“Firstly, issue was taken with the merits of the available video footage and whether this video evidence was competent.

“Secondly, and somewhat linked to the first preliminary matter, the fact that the specific element of the physical act constituting a breach of Disciplinary Rule 200 that was unseen by the match officials was disputed by the Alleged Party in Breach, also raised competency concerns for the specification of the breach made in the Notice of Complaint.

“After careful consideration of these preliminary matters, it was decided that the Tribunal could apply its discretion, interpret the video footage and either accept, reject or rely on any part of it as appropriate whilst considering all available evidence (including that of the three former match officials) in accordance with Judicial Panel Protocol 10.10.6.

“Consequently, the video footage was accepted as competent in terms of Judicial Panel Protocol 13.2.2.”

After the SFA confirmed Christie’s ban this week, celtic hit out at them in a strong-worded statement.

They called for a “disciplinary process which is fair, consistent and fit for purpose”, and said they would contact the SFA regarding their concerns.

Link https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/5936/reasons-ryan-christie-celtic-fc.pdf

So if the match officials did not see it, what did Clancy award the free kick for or am I missing something?

Right decision to ban the prick but it is still glossing over one of the worst ref performances in recent times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ayro said:

So if the match officials did not see it, what did Clancy award the free kick for or am I missing something?

Right decision to ban the prick but it is still glossing over one of the worst ref performances in recent times.

Can award a decision for an infringement, a pull or a block. Ref clearly saw a block but didnt see what exactly hed done with his left hand. The battering and grabbing of the baws is the bit missed, the violent conduct and brutality part.

Nothing wrong with that despite what the taigs greet about.

Share this post


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

SFA ruling on it is out, below is the Sun's take on it, I've linked at the bottom  the actual decision.

 SFA’s statement said: “The submission of the Compliance Officer was that the Alleged Party deliberately committed a violent act whereby he struck an opponent in the groin, with excessive force when not challenging for the ball.

“It was submitted that this was not a reflex action or an unintended consequence. It was advised that this constituted an act of violent conduct, an (A2) sending off offence.

“The match officials all confirmed that they did not see the alleged act at the material time.

“Given the sensitivity of the area of the body targeted by the Alleged Party, the Compliance Officer categorised the act as one involving brutality and also submitted that this was manifestly apparent from the video footage available of the incident.

“The three former match officials, following a review of the video footage had each separately confirmed that the alleged act amounted to a sending off offence for violent conduct.

“Two of these former match officials believed that brutality was also evident.

“In the foregoing circumstances, the Compliance Officer submitted that Disciplinary Rule 200 had been breached and the Alleged Party in Breach should be sanctioned accordingly.”

After the SFA served Christie with a notice of complaint over the incident last week, celtic vowed to defend him vigorously.

In their reasons for their decision, the SFA confirmed that while the Hoops did not make written submissions or provide video evidence on behalf of the midfielder, they did raise issues before the tribunal moved forward.

They said: “Two preliminary matters were raised on behalf of the Alleged Party in Breach.

“Firstly, issue was taken with the merits of the available video footage and whether this video evidence was competent.

“Secondly, and somewhat linked to the first preliminary matter, the fact that the specific element of the physical act constituting a breach of Disciplinary Rule 200 that was unseen by the match officials was disputed by the Alleged Party in Breach, also raised competency concerns for the specification of the breach made in the Notice of Complaint.

“After careful consideration of these preliminary matters, it was decided that the Tribunal could apply its discretion, interpret the video footage and either accept, reject or rely on any part of it as appropriate whilst considering all available evidence (including that of the three former match officials) in accordance with Judicial Panel Protocol 10.10.6.

“Consequently, the video footage was accepted as competent in terms of Judicial Panel Protocol 13.2.2.”

After the SFA confirmed Christie’s ban this week, celtic hit out at them in a strong-worded statement.

They called for a “disciplinary process which is fair, consistent and fit for purpose”, and said they would contact the SFA regarding their concerns.

Link https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/5936/reasons-ryan-christie-celtic-fc.pdf

So... their "vigorous" defence of him was to question if the multiple camera angles of the assault was "competent" enough video evidence and if deliberately grabbing Alfredo by the balls while making no attempt to win the ball qualifies as an act of brutality/violent conduct? Am i reading that right? 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, YearsofWar said:

So... their "vigorous" defence of him was to question if the multiple camera angles of the assault was "competent" enough video evidence and if deliberately grabbing Alfredo by the balls while making no attempt to win the ball qualifies as an act of brutality/violent conduct? Am i reading that right? 🤔

Yup 😁

Share this post


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

Obviously Clancy has a problem seeing hands, he didn’t see Christie’s and he didn’t see the hand ball for the goal. 

Clancy is all about over officiating minor infringements against Rangers whilst not seeing things go the other direction.

-Sending off Morelos at sheep away despite McKenna having 2 barges at him. Red card, rescinded.

-Booking him for a dive at Ibrox versus sheep despite being fouled in box in the SC. Banned now as a result for stranraer game.

- 2nd yellow for falling down deep into injury time, now banned for 2 games.

Compare that to what he's missed in those games and it's an incredible injustice both against Rangers and specifically against Morelos.

Share this post


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

Those jolly craicsters and there video evidence that doesn’t show what you think you see and hear. 

Still hear plenty of them saying the LCF goal was onside. They actually think Helanders arm makes it ok.

Decisions against = forensic analysis.  Decisions for = ignore rules.

It's in their DNA. 

Share this post


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

Clancy is all about over officiating minor infringements against Rangers whilst not seeing things go the other direction.

-Sending off Morelos at sheep away despite McKenna having 2 barges at him. Red card, rescinded.

-Booking him for a dive at Ibrox versus sheep despite being fouled in box in the SC. Banned now as a result for stranraer game.

- 2nd yellow for falling down deep into injury time, now banned for 2 games.

Compare that to what he's missed in those games and it's an incredible injustice both against Rangers and specifically against Morelos.

Will always remember when Buff is running up to the back of Lego you can actually see Clancy just waiting for any little touch, the card is out before he blows the whistle. 

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...