Sfa explain Flanagan decision

[Big Al 55 9,252]

None of Morelos incidents can be categorised as brutal

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Nothing like flogging a dead horse to deflect away when The Times is ripping  their club apart over child rape and links to some of the worst peado’s in UK history. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

6 minutes ago, Big Al II said:

None of Morelos incidents can be categorised as brutal

Should’ve appealed his Red for the slap n the chest. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

8 minutes ago, Big Al II said:

None of Morelos incidents can be categorised as brutal

Certainly not the Sheep away one where his foot was held in place by McKenna's leg. The other contradictory one was the ref apparently not having full view of an incident despite cameras clearly showing Madden did in the incident between McGregor /Ferguson.

They've tried to clarify legislarion, often with pretty absurd definitions, but have still managed to fuck it up in the decision making at disciplinaries (not in this instance).

[AdmiralBlue 84]

9 minutes ago, Ozblue said:

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.

 

Well put. Sorry to see so few acknowledgements for your work in posting this law. The football Authorities, as usual in this parochial, over-familiar little backwater of a cesspit land, have no clue of their own laws and are reactionary, weak minded fish out of water jumped up little cunts. I fuckin hate what Scotland has become, in all aspects of society, sport, politics and decency.  Rant over. 

[Bears 792]

The only thing Flanagan should have been red-carded for was stupidity in giving them the opportunity to demand he be red-carded.

Shall we be expecting SFA explanations for every decision next season we don't get our way?

If the Compliance Officer cannot comply with the rules then who is guiding/influencing her?

[Ozblue 4,331]

10 minutes ago, AdmiralBlue said:

Well put. Sorry to see so few acknowledgements for your work in posting this law. The football Authorities, as usual in this parochial, over-familiar little backwater of a cesspit land, have no clue of their own laws and are reactionary, weak minded fish out of water jumped up little cunts. I fuckin hate what Scotland has become, in all aspects of society, sport, politics and decency.  Rant over. 

4

It won't make any difference to the end product whether people read it or not, but I know there is a sizeable amount of football fans that have no idea what these laws state, so maybe they might be more aware that the custodians of Scottish football are actually disregarding the laws of the game that they themselves had a hand in making. The SFA and the SPFL are an utter disgrace and are not fit for purpose.

[Negri's lovechild 14,055]

2 minutes ago, Ozblue said:

It won't make any difference to the end product whether people read it or not, but I know there is a sizeable amount of football fans that have no idea what these laws state, so maybe they might be more aware that the custodians of Scottish football are actually disregarding the laws of the game that they themselves had a hand in making. The SFA and the SPFL are an utter disgrace and are not fit for purpose.

To quote the great Malcolm Tucker, they are "a fucking omnishambles"

[Ozblue 4,331]

3 minutes ago, Bears said:

The only thing Flanagan should have been red-carded for was stupidity in giving them the opportunity to demand he be red-carded.

Shall we be expecting SFA explanations for every decision next season we don't get our way?

If the Compliance Officer cannot comply with the rules then who is guiding/influencing her?

To reply to your post in a nutshell!......YES, I agree with you.

Don't hold your breath getting any sensible explanation from the SFA.

I think it's fairly evident which person/organisations are pulling the strings of the puppet.

[Ozblue 4,331]

3 minutes ago, Negri's lovechild said:

To quote the great Malcolm Tucker, they are "a fucking omnishambles"

I haven't got a clue who Malcolm Tucker is, but I certainly agree with his quote.

 

[Negri's lovechild 14,055]

Just now, Ozblue said:

I haven't got a clue who Malcolm Tucker is, but I certainly agree with his quote.

 

The thick of it. Great comedy. Well worth checking out. 

[foghorn leghorn 608]

Clancy could've awarded them a pen after dishing out a yellow card to Flanagan. 

[Ozblue 4,331]

5 minutes ago, Negri's lovechild said:

The thick of it. Great comedy. Well worth checking out. 

I'll check it out on youtube, because I don't think it was shown on Australian television (possibly the ABC) which is boycotted in my house due to their biased programming content which seems to be in line with their distant cousins in Scotland.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

23 minutes ago, foghorn leghorn said:

Clancy could've awarded them a pen after dishing out a yellow card to Flanagan. 

Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play.

Not sure the kick had been taken when the 2 collided. If it hadn't, ball wasnt in play and Collums actions were correct.

[Heshootshescores 1,904]

8 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.

 

It goes too far in trying to re referee every game. If someone unjustly gets a red, affecting their ability to play, and earn a living, then they deserve the right of appeal. There's no need to take it any further than that. 

[DrLaudrup 4,606]

1 hour ago, Ozblue said:

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.

 

This is exactly why the club need to push this. As I said earlier it was clear that no rule had been broken but still the compliance officer pushed it. The question needs to be asked why this was pushed when the rule you describe above is clear. Much like a criminal court, the SFA should have thrown it out before even reaching the tribunal, but yet again we were offered a ban and it was up to us to challenge it. 

We have undoubtedly been disadvantaged this season, particularly with Morelos being retrospectively refereed with the ‘trial by sportscene’. Unless we tackle this there is no doubt that exactly the same thing will happen next season. The closer we get the harder they will try everything to stop us. Already the theme is there in the media - everyone has to watch out for big bad Rangers with our singing and poor discipline. What the SFA should be doing is sacking their compliance officer. 

[magic8ball 27,901]

27 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play.

Not sure the kick had been taken when the 2 collided. If it hadn't, ball wasnt in play and Collums actions were correct.

Replays showed the ball wasn't in play at the time.

They showed it a few times .not quite as many as the incident itself though .

[Ozblue 4,331]

1 hour ago, DrLaudrup said:

This is exactly why the club need to push this. As I said earlier it was clear that no rule had been broken but still the compliance officer pushed it. The question needs to be asked why this was pushed when the rule you describe above is clear. Much like a criminal court, the SFA should have thrown it out before even reaching the tribunal, but yet again we were offered a ban and it was up to us to challenge it. 

We have undoubtedly been disadvantaged this season, particularly with Morelos being retrospectively refereed with the ‘trial by sportscene’. Unless we tackle this there is no doubt that exactly the same thing will happen next season. The closer we get the harder they will try everything to stop us. Already the theme is there in the media - everyone has to watch out for big bad Rangers with our singing and poor discipline. What the SFA should be doing is sacking their compliance officer. 

I agree with this 100% and what surprises me even more than the SPFL disregarding the power given to referees regarding the Final Say, is the fact that the Referees association haven't kicked up a stink about a Compliance Officer and went on strike over it.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

3 hours ago, Bears said:

The only thing Flanagan should have been red-carded for was stupidity in giving them the opportunity to demand he be red-carded.

Shall we be expecting SFA explanations for every decision next season we don't get our way?

If the Compliance Officer cannot comply with the rules then who is guiding/influencing her?

Why would we expect 🤔

Our club only defend themselves 

They push for nothing and that's why continuing liberties will be taken by our corrupt enemies 

[eejay the dj 31,964]

2 hours ago, Ozblue said:

I'll check it out on youtube, because I don't think it was shown on Australian television (possibly the ABC) which is boycotted in my house due to their biased programming content which seems to be in line with their distant cousins in Scotland.

Really 

Bheasts have power there also 😏

[Ozblue 4,331]

11 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

Really 

Bheasts have power there also 😏

The cunts have power everywhere these days, eejay. They fucking breed like rabbits. The weird thing is that in Australia we can cull rabbits, but we can't cull tarriers

[AdmiralBlue 84]

2 hours ago, Ozblue said:

I agree with this 100% and what surprises me even more than the SPFL disregarding the power given to referees regarding the Final Say, is the fact that the Referees association haven't kicked up a stink about a Compliance Officer and went on strike over it.

Great observation guys. Can we in any way know if either of these organisations ever have these points put directly to them for answers?  I know someone will say, oh they will just ignore it, but are they ever challenged? 

[Ozblue 4,331]

19 minutes ago, AdmiralBlue said:

Great observation guys. Can we in any way know if either of these organisations ever have these points put directly to them for answers?  I know someone will say, oh they will just ignore it, but are they ever challenged? 

I would be very surprised if anybody would challenge them, but if they were challenged I doubt if we would ever hear about it. Perhaps an unknown deal has been struck with the FIFA technical committee that allows the SPFL to totally disregard Law 5, which in effect mean that FIFA themselves are technically going against their own laws of the game as they are currently written. I might try and get a hold of Jeff Winter on Twitter and raise this subject with him to see if he can shed any light on my query.

[Brian Fantana 28,894]

surprise surprise that wee rhat clare whyte was behind the escalation of a brutality charge.

how the fuck can they claim to be impartial??

[Gazza2258 478]

5 hours ago, Big Al II said:

None of Morelos incidents can be categorised as brutal

Brown went down three times with brutal attacks from Flannagan, Morelos and Kent.  His playacting to get them sent off is brutal, not the attacks.  Fud.