50ShadesofBlue 667 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Disappointed in the Loovens and McDonald decisions...but no real surprise! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianBacon 2,088 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I have to laugh at McDonald having "no case to answer" Filthy wee scrote, was a certain red card at the very least. Report from sfa site here http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_ne...amp;newsID=4890 Apparantly this is a legal tackle http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c183/Cal...if?t=1249654216 If Rangers FC (Murray) doesn't appeal this awful decision we're in for another long season of injustices and rule bending to suit Nonce FC. Lafferty was foolish - Loovens tried to deliberately injure Edu. There is no comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 9 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I have to laugh at McDonald having "no case to answer" Filthy wee scrote, was a certain red card at the very least. Report from sfa site here http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_ne...amp;newsID=4890 Apparantly this is a legal tackle http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c183/Cal...if?t=1249654216 All well and good, and I agree that it's a dreadful tackle, but what of Charlie Adam who didn't even get hauled for disciplinary hearings when during 2 successive matches he clearly and deliberately stamped opponents on the deck last season? The point is sometimes this stuff goes for you, other times it doesn't. And far too many fans remain angry at the ones which don't and conveniently forget the ones which do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 9 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I have to laugh at McDonald having "no case to answer" Filthy wee scrote, was a certain red card at the very least. Report from sfa site here http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_ne...amp;newsID=4890 Apparantly this is a legal tackle http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c183/Cal...if?t=1249654216 If Rangers FC (Murray) doesn't appeal this awful decision we're in for another long season of injustices and rule bending to suit Nonce FC. Lafferty was foolish - Loovens tried to deliberately injure Edu. There is no comparison. Correct, so your thoughts on Charlie Adam getting away with the same thing in 2 matches on the trot? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I have to laugh at McDonald having "no case to answer" Filthy wee scrote, was a certain red card at the very least. Report from sfa site here http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_ne...amp;newsID=4890 Apparantly this is a legal tackle http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c183/Cal...if?t=1249654216 All well and good, and I agree that it's a dreadful tackle, but what of Charlie Adam who didn't even get hauled for disciplinary hearings when during 2 successive matches he clearly and deliberately stamped opponents on the deck last season? The point is sometimes this stuff goes for you, other times it doesn't. And far too many fans remain angry at the ones which don't and conveniently forget the ones which do. Danny, I agree on the Charlie Adam point, but it's almost irrelevant in this case. The fact that he's been hauled up in front of the beaks means that he's been caught - he shouldn't get away with it because Charlie Adam wasn't hauled up for it. If the SFA seriously think that...; ...isn't worthy of an explanation, then I must be on the wrong planet. If it's acceptable, I hope to see it employed more often against Celtic next year though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right_To_Censor 1,951 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 How come dodds wasn't up as well for that tackle of edu at the last game of the season. mind you if you go back further trawling through the archives, a certain old firl encounter at ibrox which saw thompson and sutton being sent off, lennon getting a way with murder and henri camara getting away with raising his hands and deliberately stamping on vignal's knee right in front of the linesman. balde's reckless leg breaker tackles, mcmanuas's leg breaker tackles and not to mention the constant elbowing and head butting from lennon and brown. when it comes to these incidents its always a reply of "i never seen it" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueNoseAdam 0 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I have to laugh at McDonald having "no case to answer" Filthy wee scrote, was a certain red card at the very least. Report from sfa site here http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_ne...amp;newsID=4890 Apparantly this is a legal tackle http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c183/Cal...if?t=1249654216 All well and good, and I agree that it's a dreadful tackle, but what of Charlie Adam who didn't even get hauled for disciplinary hearings when during 2 successive matches he clearly and deliberately stamped opponents on the deck last season? The point is sometimes this stuff goes for you, other times it doesn't. And far too many fans remain angry at the ones which don't and conveniently forget the ones which do. Danny, I agree on the Charlie Adam point, but it's almost irrelevant in this case. The fact that he's been hauled up in front of the beaks means that he's been caught - he shouldn't get away with it because Charlie Adam wasn't hauled up for it. If the SFA seriously think that...; ...isn't worthy of an explanation, then I must be on the wrong planet. If it's acceptable, I hope to see it employed more often against Celtic next year though cant belive that the board of committees have ruled that kyles dive is worse than loovens,mcdonalds tackles.this goes 2 show were the sfa loyaltys lay,septic fc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Taking it down another level; If the SFA had any shred of humanity, they'd see it was Lee Wilkie who has nearly had his career ended twice with knee injuries. That makes a premeditated tackle like that a hundred times worse. Awful from McDonald, a little scumbag. Wouldn't mind see someone doing the same to him next year if it's (apparently) legal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 9 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Danny, I agree on the Charlie Adam point, but it's almost irrelevant in this case. The fact that he's been hauled up in front of the beaks means that he's been caught - he shouldn't get away with it because Charlie Adam wasn't hauled up for it. But the break is that Adam wasn't hauled up for it. Loovens hasn't gotten away with it, he's received the going rate for the crime. And Adam got away with it entirely so in a way Celtic have been more harshly dealt with than we have because an off the ball incident in the OF game was dealt with while 2 by our player in 2 matches were ignored. I just feel we're looking for a reason to complain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I don't know mate. The fact that it's there, in front of the SFA and they've looked at that video and deemed it acceptable - seems very, very wrong to me. How can that be allowed in the game? Fair enough about Adam, but he had no case to answer and that's that. He's a lucky boy and no-one's denying it, but it doesn't have any bearing on the McDonald tackle whatsoever. I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of who they've pulled up and why, but how 'football people' can look at that and say it's okay is just beyond me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 If Adam was hauled up, I'd expect a minimum 2 match ban for violent conduct (although I can't remeber said stamps). Just because Loovens was punished, doesn't mean that his punishment isn't too lenient. I'm sure that a red card for violent conduct is minimum two match ban, with a 3rd often given by the disciplinary committee. Why is violent conduct that the referee missed given a more leniant sentence? I also don't get this. Surely a stamp (in Adam's case) or a stud to the knee (Loovens or McDonald) must be automatic and un-appealable three match bans? That McDonald thing has properly fucking annoyed me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 9 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I don't know mate. The fact that it's there, in front of the SFA and they've looked at that video and deemed it acceptable - seems very, very wrong to me. How can that be allowed in the game? Fair enough about Adam, but he had no case to answer and that's that. He's a lucky boy and no-one's denying it, but it doesn't have any bearing on the McDonald tackle whatsoever. tbh I wasn't really talking about the McDonald tackle, just the Loovens assaults. But to address your point, I agree McDonald did have a case to answer - and I simply have no idea why he's been let off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I don't know mate. The fact that it's there, in front of the SFA and they've looked at that video and deemed it acceptable - seems very, very wrong to me. How can that be allowed in the game? Fair enough about Adam, but he had no case to answer and that's that. He's a lucky boy and no-one's denying it, but it doesn't have any bearing on the McDonald tackle whatsoever. tbh I wasn't really talking about the McDonald tackle, just the Loovens assaults. But to address your point, I agree McDonald did have a case to answer - and I simply have no idea why he's been let off. It's absolutely astonishing. Dundee Utd (or Wilkie) should be writing to them for an explanation of their decision. As I said, it's actually annoyed me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueNoseAdam 0 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Danny, I agree on the Charlie Adam point, but it's almost irrelevant in this case. The fact that he's been hauled up in front of the beaks means that he's been caught - he shouldn't get away with it because Charlie Adam wasn't hauled up for it. But the break is that Adam wasn't hauled up for it. Loovens hasn't gotten away with it, he's received the going rate for the crime. And Adam got away with it entirely so in a way Celtic have been more harshly dealt with than we have because an off the ball incident in the OF game was dealt with while 2 by our player in 2 matches were ignored. I just feel we're looking for a reason to complain. this is a diffrent game and a diffrent argument,these 2 tackles r worse than kyles dive,so get this in 2 perspective.kyle did not try 2 hurt anybody,these 2 scum players did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 9 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Danny, I agree on the Charlie Adam point, but it's almost irrelevant in this case. The fact that he's been hauled up in front of the beaks means that he's been caught - he shouldn't get away with it because Charlie Adam wasn't hauled up for it. But the break is that Adam wasn't hauled up for it. Loovens hasn't gotten away with it, he's received the going rate for the crime. And Adam got away with it entirely so in a way Celtic have been more harshly dealt with than we have because an off the ball incident in the OF game was dealt with while 2 by our player in 2 matches were ignored. I just feel we're looking for a reason to complain. this is a diffrent game and a diffrent argument,these 2 tackles r worse than kyles dive,so get this in 2 perspective.kyle did not try 2 hurt anybody,these 2 scum players did. Getting another player sent off is heavily frowned upon. It's despicable behaviour and I don't have any disagreement with the ban. My point is that I refuse to compare the cases as they are different crimes and as such the punishment isn't the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueNoseAdam 0 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Danny, I agree on the Charlie Adam point, but it's almost irrelevant in this case. The fact that he's been hauled up in front of the beaks means that he's been caught - he shouldn't get away with it because Charlie Adam wasn't hauled up for it. But the break is that Adam wasn't hauled up for it. Loovens hasn't gotten away with it, he's received the going rate for the crime. And Adam got away with it entirely so in a way Celtic have been more harshly dealt with than we have because an off the ball incident in the OF game was dealt with while 2 by our player in 2 matches were ignored. I just feel we're looking for a reason to complain. this is a diffrent game and a diffrent argument,these 2 tackles r worse than kyles dive,so get this in 2 perspective.kyle did not try 2 hurt anybody,these 2 scum players did. Getting another player sent off is heavily frowned upon. It's despicable behaviour and I don't have any disagreement with the ban. My point is that I refuse to compare the cases as they are different crimes and as such the punishment isn't the same. see if this was vice versa,i would have had the same punishment,but the player that dived would not have got the hardest punishment.that would have been the consistent.this is the sfa were talking aboot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pearse7 0 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 the fat aussie will get away with it, loovens will get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again and a 1 game ban mullet heid will get 3games, but going on his form , that's not a bad deal wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayboleLoyal_atb 3,765 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 I have to laugh at McDonald having "no case to answer" Filthy wee scrote, was a certain red card at the very least. Report from sfa site here http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_ne...amp;newsID=4890 Apparantly this is a legal tackle http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c183/Cal...if?t=1249654216 If Rangers FC (Murray) doesn't appeal this awful decision we're in for another long season of injustices and rule bending to suit Nonce FC. Lafferty was foolish - Loovens tried to deliberately injure Edu. There is no comparison. Correct, so your thoughts on Charlie Adam getting away with the same thing in 2 matches on the trot? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOLUWDC 1 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leiper 0 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Right...From the punishments handed out, faking injury seems much worse than trying to injure fellow professionals on purpose. Our governing body are a fucking joke. People wonder why the SPL is in a mess? Because the Big Dogs are a bunch of fucking idiots. That's why! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goianegra 4,686 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 So LAfferty got 3 game ban McDonald gor NOTHING?? And Poofy Loovens only got a one game ban Holy geez. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Loovens getting one game is a joke but no real surprise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muff 245 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 You have to laugh at these fucking idiots that run Scottish football. Bunch of t**g bastards! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cam69r 8 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 A point I came across last night and i wanted to run it by you people... Okay Lafferty got a 2 game ban because Uefa are trying to stamp out diving. No problem. But the fact Loovens only got a 1 game ban makes no sense at all in football rules. The fact the SFA reviewed it and banned him clearly means that they thought what he did was a red card offence. If it wasn't a red card offence he would have been awarded a yellow card and no suspension. So if it is a sending off offence then why is it not a 3 game ban for violent conduct? Because that is clearly what it was? Kicking someone off the ball is violent conduct. One again there is no logic in the madness of the SFA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts