Jon Flanagan

[Bears r us 30,791]

14 minutes ago, rabc10000 said:

Why would they? Anyone who thinks King and Co would have the balls to do so is delusional however that's another story. Long for the days when we have a board that stand up for us rather than roll over and get shafter up the shite pupe

I know what you are saying but when you have another incident in the same game which was not cited then this is the perfect time with the session nearly over to try and get across what has been going on since last August. 

[Nameless Ghoul 6,053]

Ref saw it so surely this can gtf? 

Making it up as they go along

[ForeverAndEver 71,465]

9 minutes ago, Sweettartangirl said:

We already know you're one of them.  We don't need reminding. 

 

[rabc10000 5,061]

2 minutes ago, Bears r us said:

I know what you are saying but when you have another incident in the same game which was not cited then this is the perfect time with the session nearly over to try and get across what has been going on since last August. 

Thats the exact point that really gets to me. Now would be the perfect time to point this out and fight our corner, but guess what not a peep from him and I certainly don't expect to hear anything g either. We are being shat on from every angle here and he's happy just to accept it. 

[Bears r us 30,791]

1 minute ago, Nameless Ghoul said:

Ref saw it so surely this can gtf? 

Making it up as they go along

He saw it and booked him, but they seem to just change the rules when they want to do a Rangers player. 

[Blumhoilann 6,712]

52 minutes ago, Robmc1 said:

Exactly, the ref rightly or wrongly has observed an incident and taken the appropriate action deemed necessary to deal with it. The compliance officer (in my mind) was to deal with serious incidents missed by the ref (Defoe incident above). This route is effectively referring a game twice, but only certain MSM constantly highlighted incidents. There was an Hibernian player previously yellow carded then retrospectively cited and banned by her for an challenge on a celtic player so it was only a matter of time before this caught up with us. Hope we get our act together, contest the decision and show the system up for the farce it is... 

Spot on mate.

[Bears r us 30,791]

Just now, rabc10000 said:

Thats the exact point that really gets to me. Now would be the perfect time to point this out and fight our corner, but guess what not a peep from him and I certainly don't expect to hear anything g either. We are being shat on from every angle here and he's happy just to accept it. 

I could not agree more mate, I suppose we will have to wait until tomorrow but I am not hopeful. 👍 

[rabc10000 5,061]

Just now, Bears r us said:

I could not agree more mate, I suppose we will have to wait until tomorrow but I am not hopeful. 👍 

Same here mate but as you I'm not hopeful at all

[Bears r us 30,791]

55 minutes ago, Robmc1 said:

Exactly, the ref rightly or wrongly has observed an incident and taken the appropriate action deemed necessary to deal with it. The compliance officer (in my mind) was to deal with serious incidents missed by the ref (Defoe incident above). This route is effectively referring a game twice, but only certain MSM constantly highlighted incidents. There was an Hibernian player previously yellow carded then retrospectively cited and banned by her for an challenge on a celtic player so it was only a matter of time before this caught up with us. Hope we get our act together, contest the decision and show the system up for the farce it is... 

Excellent post. 👍 

[LaudrupsPatrickBoots 13,510]

22 minutes ago, Sweettartangirl said:

This is all I see when you talk now...

I don't care.

[16BlueSherbert90 19,223]

7 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

 

 

[16BlueSherbert90 19,223]

Just now, LaudrupsPatrickBoots said:

I don't care.

We know. 

[siddiqi_drinker 14,635]

1 hour ago, AdzKyle said:

When did the rules change? It used to be if the ref seen it and booked the player then no more action could be taken unless a Rangers player is the alleged culprit. . 

sorted for you - get your facts straight 

[KBOO72 4,372]

Chance for Wallace to get the send off he deserves. 

[They Gnu 11,553]

1 hour ago, LaudrupsPatrickBoots said:

It was a genuine question. I try and look at these incidents without the blue tinted glasses on and I can't see how that's worse.

Maybe just try ordinary glasses then. 

[Laudrup1984 25,100]

 

[Dave Hedgehog 10,673]

39 minutes ago, rabc10000 said:

Pretty sure they changed them tho as their has been a few players cited despite receiving bookings. The guy for hibs springs to mind but been 4 or 5 this season

The bit highlighted is the ruling from today so the rules can’t have been changed surely. If they had the wording would show that. Corrupt bastards.

[Negri's lovechild 13,987]

Trial by media strikes again.

It seems like the CO will only act in incidents brought to her attention via Sky Sports or by Sportscene, and with their slanted viewpoint. 

We should challenge this as it goes against their own rules on what can be sited, and really smacks of making the rules up as they go. Surely the referees must be feeling undermined as well, especially when they have dealt with the incident during the game and are then being refereed. 

If we don't deal with it now, can you imagine what next season will be like when we mount a more serious challenge? 

The system does need to change as at the moment there is no consistency, no parity. 

Wether or not anyone agrees that the simunovic incident with Defoe needs looked at, it was similar to one's that we have been cited for and have received bans for, so should have at least been part of a conversation. 

the way that the system is at the moment, it benefits one team only. A back to basics approach is needed in dealing with incidents and another show of balls by our club in challenging the system. 

 

[backup 4,724]

1 hour ago, AdzKyle said:

When did the rules change? It used to be if the ref seen it and booked the player then no more action could be taken. 

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.

[Dave Hedgehog 10,673]

Just now, Laudrup1984 said:

 

Yasssss take the fuckers all the way 👍

[Negri's lovechild 13,987]

1 hour ago, KBOO72 said:

Chance for Wallace to get the send off he deserves. 

The way the system is used against us, there's a chance he might get a send off in more ways than one!

[siddiqi_drinker 14,635]

 

 

 

 

 

4

28 minutes ago, Blumhoilann said:

Cellic lost,Broon was made a dick of on several occasions,someones gotta pay and it's Flanagan.

This is re-refereeing the games and needs to be stopped.

A CO who is a Tim ST holder,aye that'll be fair right enough, NOT!

 

Andy WalKer Sutton and Sportscene running the game now --- really want Gerrard to speaK on this one 

[Negri's lovechild 13,987]

1 hour ago, backup said:

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.

The only way we can imagine they are fudging their way around their own rules is that I think from Clancy's viewpoint he sees the incident from behind Brown, so they may say that he didn't see the action happen, only the reaction from Brown. 

That said, they make it up as they go along so could be anything

[rabc10000 5,061]

5 minutes ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

The bit highlighted is the ruling from today so the rules can’t have been changed surely. If they had the wording would show that. Corrupt bastards.

I'm not doubting you but I remember r a couple of players on the same eve all being brought up in the same circumstances. Carded in the game then banned afterwards. 

[cascadeshrimp 1,455]

Club response to SFA/Flannigan

A club spokesperson said:

‘Once again, there seems intent to change the decision of a Referee in a match involving Rangers. There seems to be a steady erosion of respect for Scotland’s Referees and the authority they are meant to enjoy under Rule 5 of the Laws of the Game. The decisions of Referees regarding facts connected with play are meant to be final but Referees are now routinely invited to change their decisions after a game has finished.


It is particularly shocking that another Rangers’ player has been singled out for retrospective action and issued with a notice of complaint while Jozo Simunovic, the celtic player who used an elbow to fell Jermain Defoe, has escaped any kind of censure. Why did one incident escape punishment while the other is now deemed worthy of a red card? We cannot understand how these two incidents could be studied yet only one be considered worthy of punishment. It seems as if Rangers’ players are being held to a different code of conduct from players at other clubs. We shall vigorously defend Mr Flanagan and have also asked for full transparency on what matters are brought forward for retrospective action. Are those decisions being made even-handedly?’

 

Doesn't go far enough for me