72barca

Here's some highlights ...

They have managed to circumvent Rule 5 by the following text into their disciplinary procedures. I like your interpretation better. ... https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/compliance-disciplinary-qa/ ... Can the Compliance Officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents? The Compliance Officer can only raise a Fast Track Notice of Complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials. When investigating a potential Fast Track case, the Compliance Officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the Laws of the Game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials. When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the Compliance Officer seeks opinions from three independent experts. Those experts are drawn from a pool of former Category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A Fast Track Notice of Complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence. ... After the game Clancy's explanation for not sending off Flannigan was that he never seen exactly what happened. He would know about the CO being able to upgrade the card to a red if she thought he had not seen the incident in its entirety, as stated.How to abdicate responsibility and kick us in the ass later, eh?

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.

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

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?

You have no idea what transpired. It seems like you are championing a position which may not exist.

As I said in my first post, the club has a duty of care to punters. When a player signs a contract with a club he acknowledges that contract with the punters exists and he is part of the club. He cannot just selectively ignore this contract and expect to be in the right. In other words he cannot, under any circumstances, accost a paying punter except in self-defence of phyiscal attack.

No idea, bud. You are making the case where he stepped over the line and I'm saying he can say what he wants, but I never seen anything from him that was physically threatening. Either way Neymar is out of order.

Nobody paid to watch you. As such, the club have a duty of care to protect their paying customers. As a football player you have to accept that the fans pay their money and are entitled to offer any criticism they please. The fan did not instigate any physical violence. If you don't like it get a transfer, or call a steward.

Enjoy that glow bud. Squeeze it, caress it, nurture it. It is all we'll get until the start of next season. 55 is on the way.

I did, the scoreline changed to 7-1 for the Famous !!

That game was worth setting the alarm for. Now for a wee nap, sweet dreams. C'mon the famous ...

I agree with you, bud. I'll be setting my alarm too. I've been in the colonies for 45 years and yet I'm still excited for this game. To the OP I'd say - 'Don't let the Old Man in'. If you lose the edge you lose the game. We can't ever let them think they have worn us down. It's important for the players to understand that we, the support, believe in them.

My God, does that man understand verbal irony?

No one has to. By denying them a GOH our club has given them a royal GIRFUY without inviting a discussion with them. I'm sure they get the picture.

Sounds like this is a good young crop coming through from the farm. Good fight back.

re·spect /rəˈspekt/ noun 1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. Respect is earned. Trust Is Granted, Not Earned. ... Trust is one of the most critical elements of healthy relationships, families, teams, organizations and communities. However, you may have an odd or disempowered relationship to trust—you've been taught that people must earn your trust, when in fact, it's something you grant to others. Honour is the idea of a bond between an individual and a society as a quality of a person that is both of social teaching and of personal ethos, that manifests itself as a code of conduct, and has various elements such as valor, chivalry, honesty, and compassion. Where Respect has not been earned and Trust has not been granted - Honour can not be acclaimed. If the players are forced to line up at the tunnel as their opponents exit on to the field they should turn their backs inwards as an expression of an unfavorable opinion.

I'm sure their fans would appreciate us giving them a goh ... TheCelticBlog‏ @CelticBlog2018 FollowFollow @CelticBlog2018 More Today we should make it eight titles in a row. Once this one is secure we'll start working towards nine. All the bombast from Ibrox does not detract from a simple truth; their grandkids will be celtic fans because they have no idea how to stop us. https://thecelticblog.com/2019/05/blogs/celtics-generation-of-dominance-rolls-on-and-king-has-no-plan-to-stop-it/ Aye right.

Remember who is doing the reporting and whether they have made it up or are reporting verbatim.

Boyd's face when the kids are celebrating with the cup. My God Almighty, it is a GAME. Rancid little man !!!

Better than nothing.

Lennon can say what he wants but it feels like the slide is on. Three more draws and a defeat or one win and three defeats and 55 is on the cards.

In my opinion their PR has erred by bringing this point up. It is a fact that five previous employees of celtic have been convicted in a court of law of paedophilia activities. At the time when these employees committed their offences they were employed, in one form or another, by celtic FC & the affilitated CBC. When the dollies highlight these activities in song all they are doing is being transparent about this paedophilic behaviour. How can this be construed as "vile abuse"? Surely there is a vast difference between spotlighting court-convicted actions and outright sectarian vicious bile. Their PR 'spokesman' is more to be pillaried than lauded for this whataboutery statement.

Assuming that is so, how do the rest of them rein in the monster and put a harness on it? There is no accountability from the SFA/SPFL.