Sfa explain Flanagan decision

[jintybear 8,536]

Probably inundated with request for an explanation!!

Andy Newport✔@AndyNewportPA

 · 2h

On PA wires: Rangers defender Jon Flanagan escaped punishment for his Old Firm clash with Scott Brown after SFA disciplinary bosses ruled it did not meet the “brutality” test required for a sending off

SFA's written reasons can be found here: https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/5281/reasons-jonathon-flanagan-Rangers-fc.pdf …

Andy Newport✔@AndyNewportPA

SFA Complaince officer consulted three former refs before citing Flanagan, with one claiming he had used his arm like a “weapon” while striking Brown. But fast track panel ruled incident was not “excessive”

10

5:54 PM - May 29, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

See Andy Newport's other Tweets

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1133778573523861504

[SonOfLuther 3,400]

Just cellic fans writing to slitty eyes at a differing address.

Let it go ya bams.

[Negri's lovechild 13,859]

Interesting in point 11 there that it states "having viewed the available footage of the incident, provided by both parties.." Suggests that celtic had representation there too.

Surely that shouldn't be the case as it should be Flanagan against the football authorities, unless the notice of complaint was made by celtic?  If it refers to them, they shouldn't be involved.

[LegendofCoop 17,252]

Just now, Negri's lovechild said:

Interesting in point 11 there that it states "having viewed the available footage of the incident, provided by both parties.." Suggests that celtic had representation there too.

Surely that shouldn't be the case as it should be Flanagan against the football authorities, unless the notice of complaint was made by celtic?  If it refers to them, they shouldn't be involved.

Ceptic are the authority.......

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,502]

3 minutes ago, Negri's lovechild said:

Interesting in point 11 there that it states "having viewed the available footage of the incident, provided by both parties.." Suggests that celtic had representation there too.

Surely that shouldn't be the case as it should be Flanagan against the football authorities, unless the notice of complaint was made by celtic?  If it refers to them, they shouldn't be involved.

I assumed that both parties meant flanagan/Rangers footage and the panels footage

[bluenoz 30,688]

Here's my explanation - Flanagan got away with it because it no longer mattered. If the league was still to be decided the outcome would have been different. Appeasing fucks.

[ianferguson 2,619]

Bottom line is that Broonie went down holding his face , Lennon said it was a blatant elbow to the face, yet the panel ,the cameras and the referee said no contact with the face. 

[eejay the dj 31,964]

Again our club are absolutely fucking sickening in all this 

Same time nevt year ,we will back here discussing all the decisions this corrupt panel made against us 

JT is as weak as piss .Fucking prick 

[Dickie 12,905]

13 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

Bottom line is that Broonie went down holding his face , Lennon said it was a blatant elbow to the face, yet the panel ,the cameras and the referee said no contact with the face. 

Lennon also said he was hit on the face by a coin,anatomy obviously not his strong point.

[Ivybank 4,576]

17 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

Bottom line is that Broonie went down holding his face , Lennon said it was a blatant elbow to the face, yet the panel ,the cameras and the referee said no contact with the face. 

Exactly, why wasn't Lego pulled up for simulation?

[five stars 1,635]

25 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

Bottom line is that Broonie went down holding his face , Lennon said it was a blatant elbow to the face, yet the panel ,the cameras and the referee said no contact with the face. 

Should Brown not be charged with simulation if they judged there was no contact with the face? We should of appealed Morelos red card too.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

49 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

I assumed that both parties meant flanagan/Rangers footage and the panels footage

Wouldnt assume that for a minute tbh.

[Laudrup1984 25,100]

Why in the fucking hell are they even clarifying this? Do they only go over and above when explaining decisions in our favour? Does it ever happen the other way round. Every tiny little fucking thing we do or don't do is always over analysed to fuck! What a farce!

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

5 minutes ago, Laudrup1984 said:

Why in the fucking hell are they even clarifying this? Do they only go over and above when explaining decisions in our favour? Does it ever happen the other way round. Ever tiny little fucking thing we do or don't do is always over analysed to fuck! What a farce!

Someone will be along soon to tell you you're paranoid. You ain't.

[Robmc1 4,741]

22 minutes ago, Dickie said:

Lennon also said he was hit on the face by a coin,anatomy obviously not his strong point.

Spot on, clear as day for one and all to see in both instances but I have still to hear just one pundit or media platform highlight this...

[Negri's lovechild 13,859]

35 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

Again our club are absolutely fucking sickening in all this 

Same time nevt year ,we will back here discussing all the decisions this corrupt panel made against us 

JT is as weak as piss .Fucking prick 

Absolutely right mate. 

I'm going to hedge my bets now and say that it will be even worse next season with us (should) being closer to them. 

The theatrics have hit a new low from them this season and the more they get away with it, they further they will push boundaries.

We need to have the sleeves rolled up, and be ready for battles pretty much every game next season, although we also need to be prepared for a new record number of red cards and recinded decisions, and for our brand to be muddied by a celtic friendly media. 

[Creampuff 22,628]

2 hours ago, Negri's lovechild said:

Interesting in point 11 there that it states "having viewed the available footage of the incident, provided by both parties.." Suggests that celtic had representation there too.

Surely that shouldn't be the case as it should be Flanagan against the football authorities, unless the notice of complaint was made by celtic?  If it refers to them, they shouldn't be involved.

I’d imagine it would be listed as an action of the Compliance Officer against Flanagan. 

So the CO will have provided video evidence/submissions in support of their recommendation, and Flanagan/Rangers will have done the same.

[theiconicman 2,977]

Compliance officer's video submission

[Laudrup1984 25,100]

 

[DrLaudrup 4,565]

A remarkable moment of clarity when the SFA appear to merely confirm their own rules. Everyone on here, whether you think Flanagan was lucky at the time or not acknowledge that the referee saw the incident and dealt with it at the time therefore there was no recourse for further action. 

What this pointless statement doesn’t do is explain why the compliance officer referred the case and who prompted that. We all know why and who. The SFA are essentially confirming here that their compliance officer doesn’t know her job or has an agenda. I would expect the club to push that but I doubt they will. 

[Heshootshescores 1,904]

If the extent of brutality needs assessing then how about the extent to which Brown is an arsehole?..I see he was an arsehole again against Hearts.

In real life if you are an arsehole you get a punch on the nose. Of course if Brown gets the slightest push he goes down like a Bangkok hooker, and that in itself is arsehole behaviour. 

In conclusion he's an arsehole, a big arsehole. 

[the cry was no 3,027]

10 minutes ago, Heshootshescores said:

If the extent of brutality needs assessing then how about the extent to which Brown is an arsehole?..I see he was an arsehole again against Hearts.

In real life if you are an arsehole you get a punch on the nose. Of course if Brown gets the slightest push he goes down like a Bangkok hooker, and that in itself is arsehole behaviour. 

In conclusion he's an arsehole, a big arsehole. 

This is not new information

[RangersMedia 35,961]

I'm convinced they just make it up as they go along. A pointless statement confirming their own rules.

Flanagan should have been red carded. The referee seen it and gave him a yellow. He got away with one.

The review seen nothing drastically different to what the referee interpreted - hence decided to overturn the retrospective 2 game ban.

I don't understand why the whole compliance officer thing, which whilst flawed, managed to more or less work with a degree of sense with regards to sanctions, has went crazy this year.

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

5 hours ago, Badger said:

I'm convinced they just make it up as they go along. A pointless statement confirming their own rules.

Flanagan should have been red carded. The referee seen it and gave him a yellow. He got away with one.

The review seen nothing drastically different to what the referee interpreted - hence decided to overturn the retrospective 2 game ban.

I don't understand why the whole compliance officer thing, which whilst flawed, managed to more or less work with a degree of sense with regards to sanctions, has went crazy this year.

 

Based on which legislation should he have been red carded?

 

[Ozblue 4,331]

Has it ever occurred to the SPFL that they are in fact in breach of the laws of the game, namely Law 5?  For those not familiar with laws and rules, etc, The Laws of the Game are the codified rules that help define association football. They are the only rules of association football subscribed to by the sport's governing body FIFA

Now Law 5 is the one that describes the role of a Referee, so let's clarify this law:

POWERS OF THE REFEREE

Takes action against team officials who fail to conduct themselves in a responsible manner and may, at his discretion, expel them from the field of play and its immediate surrounds. Acts on the advice of the assistant referees regarding incidents that he has not seen.  ensures that no unauthorised persons enter the field of play.  Indicates the restart of the match after it has been stopped.  Provides the appropriate authorities with a match report, which includes information on any disciplinary action taken against players and/or team officials and any other incidents that occurred before, during or after the match.

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.

The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.

Even with modern technology being used now such as VAR, the Referees decision is final and can't be altered after a game, yet we are having referees decisions being changed because some fucking idiot is changing that decision sometimes days/weeks after the event. No wonder Scottish football is a fucking laughing stock.