Jump to content

SFA issue notice of complaint to Alfredo Morelos - tribunal


CR3

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

No. Not saying anything remotely close to that. I wish people would just read whats there instead of trying to find an alternative meaning to what is said.

Because a Rangers player was cited when others aren't means there's an anti-Rangers agenda?

Yes, potentially. Otherwise why was it the Rangers player cited and others not? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply
28 minutes ago, The Dude said:

The club agreed he merited a two-game ban ffs. And that was AFTER Gerrard spoke post-match and said there was nothing in it.

They could not fight it with this example as proof of bias the club would have looked daft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

So we bent over to accept 'corruption' and 'bias' because it suits us? Cant moan when you get fucked if you're happy to let them fuck you.

There's little alternative but to accept the ban.  Accepting the ban means Morelos misses two easy fixtures.  If it went to the compliance officer they would see the red and issue him with a red so it could only make things worse to appeal.  As I said, would the team want a 3 game ban instead of a 2?  Would we want Morelos to miss a more important game?  The smart thing it to take the ban on the chin but I strongly doubt the club agrees with any of this.

The main point is the system is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt.  Gerrard has spoken about this in the past but the end result is always the club being hit with fines or sanctions.  Remember, Beale brought in to question the impartiality of Clancy after a celtic game, was fined, then later retracted the statement.

I think Rangers have nothing but contempt for the SFA and SPFL.  They even tried to get an independent investigation in to the governing body going during the summer.  Right now things are going well and I think accepting this ban keeps the focus and momentum on the pitch.  Why detract from that for some kangaroo court?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It seems that all we ever do is pick our battles....

What’s your problem with Rangers choosing not pick a fight they can’t win?

Do you honestly think the Rangers management team sat together, looked over the SFA verdict and said: “aye that seems perfectly fair, I’m sure we’re getting treated just like everyone else...”

What fucking planet are you living on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TMB said:

There's little alternative but to accept the ban.  Accepting the ban means Morelos misses two easy fixtures.  If it went to the compliance officer they would see the red and issue him with a red so it could only make things worse to appeal.  As I said, would the team want a 3 game ban instead of a 2?  Would we want Morelos to miss a more important game?  The smart thing it to take the ban on the chin but I strongly doubt the club agrees with any of this.

The main point is the system is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt.  Gerrard has spoken about this in the past but the end result is always the club being hit with fines or sanctions.  Remember, Beale brought in to question the impartiality of Clancy after a celtic game, was fined, then later retracted the statement.

I think Rangers have nothing but contempt for the SFA and SPFL.  They even tried to get an independent investigation in to the governing body going during the summer.  Right now things are going well and I think accepting this ban keeps the focus and momentum on the pitch.  Why detract from that for some kangaroo court?  

If the system is corrupt, isn't losing Morelos for three games rather than two a decent price to pay to put an end to it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to compare Alfie's incident with past ones where guys have gone up challenging for a ball and in the one movement have hit someone in the head. For that you can argue that it's potentially dangerous play worthy of a red card at the time but those never get upgraded after the fact because it's very hard to prove intent if someone is looking at the ball while jumping and its all contained within the one movement that the ref can clearly see.

Alfie here hasn't done this, he's deliberately gone for the player in a second movement with at the very least his forearm. It makes it worse that he barely looks at the ball when he goes for the initial challenge. I've said on here countless times since he signed that this doesn't help him at all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, The Dude said:

If there's so much evidence of bias, it should surely be a winnable fight.

 It's about proving it, there's evidence of bias.

For me it's about parity and accountability when decisions are not consistent. I think the refs match report and CO reports should be published for public viewing so as to understand the reasons for decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

 It's about proving it, there's evidence of bias.

For me it's about parity and accountability when decisions are not consistent. I think the refs match report and CO reports should be published for public viewing so as to understand the reasons for decisions.

Well if the system is as corrupt as some on here would have you think there must be plenty of evidence.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Dude said:

If they'd look daft presenting this as proof of bias, it kinda kills the idea its a bias decision.

It kills it in the instance but there is a lot of challenges like the previous one against Morelos by Dundee Utd when he got studded that could be used to show we are treated differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Smile said:

It kills it in the instance but there is a lot of challenges like the previous one against Morelos by Dundee Utd when he got studded that could be used to show we are treated differently.

Livingston could make the same argument about the one Jason Holt was cited for a few weeks ago. Are Livi being treated differently?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Livingston could make the same argument about the one Jason Holt was cited for a few weeks ago. Are Livi being treated differently?

I have never seen it as I don't really watch many games outwith our games so cannot comment on that.

I do think refs and official find it easier to give poor decisions against us as we just take it whereas if the scum get a bad decision the ref gets the a lot of hassle from the media and faces more scrutiny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Smile said:

It kills it in the instance but there is a lot of challenges like the previous one against Morelos by Dundee Utd when he got studded that could be used to show we are treated differently.

In the same game Morelos received unspeakable abuse. Ross county's player Watson elbowed Aribo in the face but nothing was done about it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sweetheart said:

In the same game Morelos received unspeakable abuse. Ross county's player Watson elbowed Aribo in the face but nothing was done about it. 

He was called a fanny ffs.

4 minutes ago, Smile said:

I have never seen it as I don't really watch many games outwith our games so cannot comment on that.

I do think refs and official find it easier to give poor decisions against us as we just take it whereas if the scum get a bad decision the ref gets the a lot of hassle from the media and faces more scrutiny.

Tackled a St Mirren player, didn't even merit a free-kick in-game. Two match ban from CO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

In the same game Morelos received unspeakable abuse. Ross county's player Watson elbowed Aribo in the face but nothing was done about it. 

We’re all falling into the same trap here, I’m afraid.

This prick thinks that defending those who mean Rangers ill somehow raises him above the mob (ie you, me and everyone else) and that he’s being all grown up and mature and rational compared to us. And we’re all biting, which is exactly what he wants.

We could quote endless examples proving the way our club is unfairly treated but it would be pointless because real debate is not therapy for his ego.

Still not sure whether he’s a fenian or a tosser or both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Colin Traive said:

We’re all falling into the same trap here, I’m afraid.

This prick thinks that defending those who mean Rangers ill somehow raises him above the mob (ie you, me and everyone else) and that he’s being all grown up and mature and rational compared to us. And we’re all biting, which is exactly what he wants.

We could quote endless examples proving the way our club is unfairly treated but it would be pointless because real debate is not therapy for his ego.

Still not sure whether he’s a fenian or a tosser or both.

Not defending anyone. I've made it quite clear I don't even think it warranted a red card, let alone intervention by the Compliance Officer.

You can quote endless examples, I could quote endless examples of similar happening to other clubs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if it's been mentioned, I get the part if it's been missed by the ref at the time it can then be referred to the CO, but I'm pretty sure that the incident took place on the same side of the pitch where the 4th official was, so if I'm correct am I supposed to believe that not only did the referee and linesman miss the incident but also the 4th official?, something doesn't add up here, or maybe it's just that their mikes and earpieces weren't working either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...