nemisis 358 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Dunfermiline chairman's view,"I do not see what this SFA panel thing is going to do, give the boy two games? If the referee had got it right all he would have got was a yellow card.If the boy is found guilty, all he should be given is a yellow card and not a two-game ban."If the player has committed an offence, he should not get a heavier penalty because the referee missed it.I just think the punishment procedure is incorrect. Nobody should get done more because of a referee's mistake. "The bottom line is that if the referee had seen it as a dive, the player would have been booked so how could you change it to a two-game ban because the referee missed it." Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,600 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Dunfermiline chairman's view,"I do not see what this SFA panel thing is going to do, give the boy two games? If the referee had got it right all he would have got was a yellow card.If the boy is found guilty, all he should be given is a yellow card and not a two-game ban."If the player has committed an offence, he should not get a heavier penalty because the referee missed it.I just think the punishment procedure is incorrect. Nobody should get done more because of a referee's mistake. "The bottom line is that if the referee had seen it as a dive, the player would have been booked so how could you change it to a two-game ban because the referee missed it."Spot on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemisis 358 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 If they think it was a dive, then the ref got it wrong the most, why isn't he facing a two match ban? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBlue 136 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 If they think it was a dive, then the ref got it wrong the most, why isn't he facing a two match ban?Because if we started banning refs every time they got conned we wouldn't have any games to go to.The reaction on here is ridiculous. The football authorities worldwide have been trying to clamp down on " simulation" for sometime by making examples of players who have successfully gained an advantage by cheating. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.The compliance officer has looked at the video and decided it's a dive and taken exactly the same action as he did over O'Connor - that's completely consistent. Whether you agree it was a dive doesn't really matter, let's face it, it might have been.The problem the SFA have is the ludicrous decision to accept O'Connor's appeal. This means they have little choice but to accepts Aluko's as his incident is less clear cut. If they don't then they will have a lot of explaining to do, but the decision hasn't been made yet so why all the frothing indignation on here? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Is it the case that, if the referee had seen it and booked Aluko, he couldn't have been done with this two-game ban? I know retrospective red cards can only be handed out if the ref misses the incident, but not sure if that applies to this as well. It makes absolutely no sense if it does. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBlue 136 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Is it the case that, if the referee had seen it and booked Aluko, he couldn't have been done with this two-game ban? I know retrospective red cards can only be handed out if the ref misses the incident, but not sure if that applies to this as well. It makes absolutely no sense if it does.Yes, had the referee seen it he would have got a yellow but then he would not have gained an advantage (this is assuming he dived, of course). The policy is to punish players who successfully con refs in an attempt to stamp it out. It's a reasonable approach, but now that it's one of ours it's a conspiracy by the taigs to stop us winning the league Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Yes, had the referee seen it he would have got a yellow but then he would not have gained an advantage (this is assuming he dived, of course). The policy is to punish players who successfully con refs in an attempt to stamp it out. It's a reasonable approach, but now that it's one of ours it's a conspiracy by the taigs to stop us winning the leagueDoesn't make sense to me at all. If you dive, you dive. It's the same offence. Depending on whether the ref makes the call correctly or not, the punishment is a yellow card or a two game ban? So a player committing the same offence gets a different punishment, and the deciding factor is the referee's competence? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hambone 328 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Remember when Eduardo dived over borac against them in Europe . FIFA had to back down because it's almost impossible to tell if the player felt minimal contact which caused him to go down. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
King_gazza 1,065 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 One of them phoned the RR phone in the other night & said "Rangers have been getting the big decisions for years" & "we are all a bunch of cheats" etcWould like to remind this prick that they got a dodgy penalty in last years OF game which shagger saved & that IRA loving cockbag Stokes got booked for diving AGAIN 5 mins later.Pot kettle black Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBlue 136 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Doesn't make sense to me at all. If you dive, you dive. It's the same offence. Depending on whether the ref makes the call correctly or not, the punishment is a yellow card or a two game ban? So a player committing the same offence gets a different punishment, and the deciding factor is the referee's competence? Or how effective the player is at conning the ref. The point of the exercise is to discourage players diving. If you drive dangerously and no-one is hurt the penalty is very different compared to if you kill someone.If you dive, get a penalty and win the game the outcome of your action is very different compared to the ref spotting it, so it's not unreasonable that the punishment is different Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Or how effective the player is at conning the ref. The point of the exercise is to discourage players diving. If you drive dangerously and no-one is hurt the penalty is very different compared to if you kill someone.If you dive, get a penalty and win the game the outcome of your action is very different compared to the ref spotting it, so it's not unreasonable that the punishment is differentWhat if you dive, win the penalty but still lose the game, or would have won it anyway? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemisis 358 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 What football experience or qualifications does, lawyer Lunny, have? 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.