Justice (half) Prevails

[Sweetheart 8,458]

8 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Despite the protests of the minority, I think the majority are happy to keep any spotlight we can on them.

Gerrard speaking out helps, I envisage the club will be working on it behind the scenes and may become public if there's more games like the sheep one or last season's hivs one.

We need to do our bit too. Collectively / united through the likes of 1872. Individually through raising awareness on social media or via complaints to the governing bodies / compliance officer. I'm still waiting for response to highlighting the Christie dive.

Agreed  I'm glad to hear that people are working on it behind the scenes. I don't think the gap between us is that big, I think poor refereeing has cost us in goal difference and points. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,025]

32 minutes ago, King Jela said:

I don’t need to, I’ve got a brain and I don’t want to risk damaging the brain cells. 

Unlike yourself..

So breaking it down...

1. Ref misses incident

2. Compliance Officer considers it worthy of review under their remit of possible red card offences

3. It is reviewed by 3 competent persons ie referees, who are fully aware of rules, legislation etc. They consider this incident as a standalone one.

4. Rules state there must be unanimous agreement to find guilty of offence.

5. No unanimous agreement

6. Finding = not guilty of red card offence. No red card offence awarded, no punishment.

7. Decision categoric and final. No avenue for recourse, appeal.

8. King Jela disagrees and says it's a red

 

You've got a brain. What have I missed or misinterpreted? Please stick to this incident, legislation, ruling etc. Not just what you fink...  

[King Jela 20,544]

9 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

So breaking it down...

1. Ref misses incident

2. Compliance Officer considers it worthy of review under their remit of possible red card offences

3. It is reviewed by 3 competent persons ie referees, who are fully aware of rules, legislation etc. They consider this incident as a standalone one.

4. Rules state there must be unanimous agreement to find guilty of offence.

5. No unanimous agreement

6. Finding = not guilty of red card offence. No red card offence awarded, no punishment.

7. Decision categoric and final. No avenue for recourse, appeal.

8. King Jela disagrees and says it's a red

 

You've got a brain. What have I missed or misinterpreted? Please stick to this incident, legislation, ruling etc. Not just what you fink...  

 

idiot

[Tiger Shaw 30,688]

If only we had a match this weekend then we could move on from this shite...

onto the next ‘refs a fenian bastard’ discussion ?

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,025]

8 minutes ago, King Jela said:

 

idiot

Clearly making yourself out to be that. 

Emojis don't hide your stupidity.

 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

57 minutes ago, King Jela said:

I don’t need to, I’ve got a brain and I don’t want to risk damaging the brain cells. 

Unlike yourself..

Use it then and stopped being hoodwinked into what muppets like Sutton are telling you. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,025]

3 hours ago, Howsitgoing said:

Use it then and stopped being hoodwinked into what muppets like Sutton are telling you. 

He is using it. He's working hard to respond to posts without backing up his original point.

 

[folkestoneger 8,230]

15 hours ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

He would have been wrongly red carded, yes.

 

15 hours ago, King Jela said:

Utter shite-talk 

It’s not shite talk. FIFA changed the rules recently to reduce the amount of red cards for things like this where the player maybe kicked out but did not ( as sporting said ) use “ excessive force or brutality “. 

No doubt McGregor gave him a kick but it is open to interpretation whether it was brutal. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,025]

20 minutes ago, folkestoneger said:

 

It’s not shite talk. FIFA changed the rules recently to reduce the amount of red cards for things like this where the player maybe kicked out but did not ( as sporting said ) use “ excessive force or brutality “. 

No doubt McGregor gave him a kick but it is open to interpretation whether it was brutal. 

Of course.

But some like to argue against this, claim it's a red, but can't justify it so come out with feeble attempts to deflect.

Strange that even though all that's happened is that rules and critetia have been measured against the incident and have proven it was not a red, there's folk vocal and adamant it is. The same as the taigs are...

[King Jela 20,544]

3 hours ago, Howsitgoing said:

Use it then and stopped being hoodwinked into what muppets like Sutton are telling you. 

I’m not  you don’t need Chris Sutton to tell you that if the ref or linesman has spotted that on Sunday he’d have been off. 

[King Jela 20,544]

3 hours ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Clearly making yourself out to be that. 

Emojis don't hide your stupidity.

 

I really am all that though, gift and a curse. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,025]

4 hours ago, King Jela said:

 

idiot

 

3 hours ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Clearly making yourself out to be that. 

Emojis don't hide your stupidity.

 

 

4 minutes ago, King Jela said:

I really am all that though, gift and a curse. 

Enough said.

[folkestoneger 8,230]

2 hours ago, folkestoneger said:

 

It’s not shite talk. FIFA changed the rules recently to reduce the amount of red cards for things like this where the player maybe kicked out but did not ( as sporting said ) use “ excessive force or brutality “. 

No doubt McGregor gave him a kick but it is open to interpretation whether it was brutal. 

Clarification of original 

Apparently changed the guidance about what constitutes violent conduct rather than the rules