Redmond7 979 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Aluko dived. No point in denying it.If the punishment is a 2 game ban, it's a 2 game ban. Agree or not, that is the rules for this scenario.Rangers will appeal this, and in the interest of constancy it has to be overturned. O'Connors is more blatant, and definitely a dive too. What sort of message does that send out both these players escaping punishment?Only the SFA could create a situation whereby no matter what happens now, either us or them are going to be crying conspiracy. If they felt he dived, which I dont actually agree he did but there we go, then why not just impose a yellow card and the disciplinary points that go with that and give the REFEREE the two game ban? After all, whatever Aluko did, if he had thrown himself down in an empty box, at the end the day the referee's job is to deal with that. He didn't, therefore he should be dealt with. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shetland 76 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 If they felt he dived, which I dont actually agree he did but there we go, then why not just impose a yellow card and the disciplinary points that go with that and give the REFEREE the two game ban? After all, whatever Aluko did, if he had thrown himself down in an empty box, at the end the day the referee's job is to deal with that. He didn't, therefore he should be dealt with.Totally agree, if you look at replays Aluko didn't appeal for a penalty at all.. I wouldn't mind a retrospective yellow card as it doesn't look like much but most people forget what it's like being on a football pitch and running at full pelt how easy it is to fall over or trip from the slightest nudge Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topgoalie 637 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 thought it was a DEFINATE penalty,but to be fair to the S.F.A. the one in the Killie game where he was assaulted was more of a dive,well thats my take on it anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clemdog 39,389 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 If they felt he dived, which I dont actually agree he did but there we go, then why not just impose a yellow card and the disciplinary points that go with that and give the REFEREE the two game ban? After all, whatever Aluko did, if he had thrown himself down in an empty box, at the end the day the referee's job is to deal with that. He didn't, therefore he should be dealt with.Why would you ban the referee for someone conning him?If that happened to me at work I'd be furious.Let's say you work in a shop behind the till. A person comes in with a bag from that shop, a receipt and an item of clothing. The person says he wants to exchange the item because it isn't the right size. You ask for the receipt etc. Check everything is okay and perform an exchange. The person leaves happy.Ten minutes later a customer comes into the shop with evidence that the man who made the exchange had stolen his bag with the receipt inside it. You are then sacked from work because he wasn't the purchaser of the goods. Fair? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanilla Bear 0 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Wouldn't be upset about Aluko getting the ban if it wasn't for O'Connors' earlier in the season. Two games might be a bit harsh but they should be trying to get rid of diving from the game, maybe a one game ban is more fair. If we appeal the decision there's no way the SFA can justify it after what happened with O'Connor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mithrandir713 8 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 It's time to leave this hole. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
broxibear87 129 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Didn't Billy Brown (his assistant manager at the time) admit on Sportscene (before they appealed the ban) that O'Connor took a dive? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNuts 552 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Didn't Billy Brown (his assistant manager at the time) admit on Sportscene (before they appealed the ban) that O'Connor took a dive?yes he did Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 more sfa related hatred of all things rangers. should surprise no one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
broxibear87 129 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 yes he didSo I would like to know in what grounds they won their appeal on? And if they took Brown's comments into consideration. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delparlane 5,660 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 If they are going down the ludicrous road, perhaps we should appeal to the SFA for a replay of the Kilmarnock game after Sone was scythed down for a clear penalty. If he does end up with a ban after the Hibs appeal was successful then that makes a complete farce of the whole thing. They must sit there salivating, `which influential Rangers player can we ban next´ whilst everyone else can do whatever the hell they like. (tu) Nail, head, hit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wearethepeople1 3,897 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 If this is the case and he gets banned after the Gary Oconnor dive then it is pretty obvious that this fast track pish is just another stick to beat rangers with. Have the tims ever had anything like this?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marmalade1872 40 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 lets stop acting like children and stop trying to get other players from other clubs banned lets raise above that,but its about time for mr whyte to stand up to the authorities and defend the club. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris182 6,297 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 This whole situation absolutely stinks Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senna 735 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Let's wait and see. It wouldn't be the first time the Sun has got it wrong.I can totally believe the story, but there's no proof yet one way or another.If we do get a ban and it's not overturned, the SFA are truly a bunch of incompetent morons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aarfc 0 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 If this happens then this yet another example of it being one rule for rangers and another for everyone else. An absolute disgrace, sfa sources admitted that they didn't have conclusive video evidence because of the lack of camera angles, so basically hes getting a ban for something they cant even prove he did? Disgraceful treatment dished out to Rangers by the SFA yet again. Imagine this were Celtic, you would never hear the end of the injustice of it all.this Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
varius 8 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 this is utter shit! the lack of consistency by the sfa is incredible. At what time is the verdict? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFC55 108,933 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 @kirkiebear, I seen your post about inconclusive camera angles, well the excuse the sfa gave for not charging hooper against motherwell was inconclusive camera angles! What a fucking joke! That was the weekend before naisy had the whole of the scottish nation up in arms for doing the exact same fucking thing! So we are the only club 2 not only have one player fast tracked for a punishment but now 2? Oconnors was much worse but fuck it, its rangers so let's just ban their players! Institutional bias against taigs? Don't geez yer pish! I think its cause aluko is black Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I agree that it would be great to get it out of the game (though this will never happen) but i'm pretty sure you could find an example of a more blatant dive, even within that game. Was hardly as if he was trying to con the ref, he didn't even appealaye, the tim that dived in the old firm match ( stokes i think)shagger saved the pen but if he hadn't it would have changed the course of last years league titleand if i remember correctly there was no retrospective punishment for that Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFC55 108,933 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 John yorkston has said he should only be awarded a yellow if found guilty! On another note I see the guy dealing with it is vincent lunny! Does he have a good enough football knowledge to decide if he dived or not? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markybear 136 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I think we should employ qc mcbride to challenge it The sfa back down at the mere mention or his name Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachothelegend 1,932 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 For those who say they hate diving , they all do it to gain advantage .Weter inside or outside the box.Wrther you like it or not the refs desision should be final.However not when a Rangets player is involvrd .The rules change then.Does this mean if you go down outside the box .then you get a 2 game ban .Oh and there was contact , heard that scrotum Chick Dung say no contact.He pulled him .This is farsical.If he gets a ban i would be doing everything to appeal this .Disgraceful.On a footnote I Would urge all Rangers fans not to attend away games until there is clear transparency in every Panel revue .Then you will see them change .Hit thier members where it hurts .Shambles Football Association. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Just seems a bit odd that the ban effectively doubles if the incompetent referee misses the incident.This fast-track system has quite clearly only been set up to watch Rangers though, no two ways about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougied123 222 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 forgive me if i am saying whats already been said but:1. How can the press know the outcome in advance of a decision being made?2. Mr Whyte must now challenge any ban, using all available means. Even if that means through the courts! There has been a precedent set with the O'Connor decision so we have a very good case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy500 463 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 You can sing the praises of terrorists, just don't fall over. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.