TEFTONG 60,097 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 4 minutes ago, Lord Lockin said: already said if it was a tackle on one of our players would we be saying this - it was a shocker I can only speak for myself here and yes if it was reversed I would be saying the exact same thing as I originally posted. 50/50 Zero Intent. Football is still a contact sport. These collisions happen. The comments from the St Johnstone manager have been ignored. And he was a player who never shirked a 50/50 tackle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart1994 4,302 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 Fuck me man, it really is amazing how the fuck they pick and choose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siam69 26,876 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 There is no CO anymore? Rangers forward Kemar Roofe faces a two-match ban after being charged retrospectively with violent conduct. Roofe, 28, was booked for a lunge at St Johnstone's Murray Davidson in the Scottish Premiership leaders' 1-0 win on Wednesday. But a panel of three former referees have deemed the tackle breached Scottish FA disciplinary rule 200. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWilson 3,386 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 13 minutes ago, Lord Lockin said: I appreciate that's not the problem - the point I'm making it looks a terrible tackle and if it was on one of our players there would be no one on here making excuses for the tackle Its happened to our players a few times and what was said on here didnt matter a fuck cos no one got done retrospectively. Stating whether it was or wasnt a bad tackle misses the point entirely.That aint the wider issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robmc1 4,741 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 27 minutes ago, Bill8972 said: So far this season in the SPFL there has been 3945 fouls committed, 297 by us and 439 yellow cards, 21 by us. Out of them only 4 have been charged retrospectively with violent conduct by the compliance officer, 2 x Morelos, 1 x Roofe and 1 x Holt (Livingston). It's quite a coincidence that they found three they could charge retrospectively with violent conduct out of 297 fouls committed by us, but only managed to find one out of 3648 fouls committed by the rest of the league put together! Great post, always adds weight to any argument when backed up with black and white stats which in my opinion are staggering... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lockin 3,911 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 fuck sake I'm not missing the point, I know our players get cited while other escape scot free Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,720 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 7 minutes ago, TEFTONG said: I can only speak for myself here and yes if it was reversed I would be saying the exact same thing as I originally posted. 50/50 Zero Intent. Football is still a contact sport. These collisions happen. The comments from the St Johnstone manager have been ignored. And he was a player who never shirked a 50/50 tackle. I've still to see anyone anywhere think the challenge was malicious. No one seems to think that. As far as I'm aware that's all he said. He wasn't asked nor did he volunteer if he thought it was a red card. Tbh his comments are being taken out of context by anyone using them to justify it not being a red. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrLaudrup 4,606 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 2 minutes ago, TEFTONG said: I can only speak for myself here and yes if it was reversed I would be saying the exact same thing as I originally posted. 50/50 Zero Intent. Football is still a contact sport. These collisions happen. The comments from the St Johnstone manager have been ignored. And he was a player who never shirked a 50/50 tackle. I agree. I think social media and slow motion replays result in over analysis of many things. Many of us have been watching football for many many years and seen bad injuries. We’ve seen our own players have broken legs ie Terry Butcher. We’ve seen Mols crocked by Khan. David Bust, Edouard etc. It is a contact sport. Challenges will be mistimed occasionally. A tackle that injures a player may be an accident. Old firm games used to be littered with crunching midfield challenges. Hardly any were booked and only occasionally would it blow up. There is difference in competitive committed players versus challenges like Simpson on Durrant. The reactions of the players on the park tells the story. Roofe’s challenge was dangerous but wasn’t malicious. The referee dealt with it. It could and probably should have been a red card but wasn’t. I’d be calling the same if it was against us. Where is the line drawn. Social and broadcast media all last week was trying to get Morelos banned and this week it has been Roofe. People are crying after every contact. Dropping to the floor at the hint of a touch. The entire nature of the game and those playing it is changing. I don’t want to see everything being overanalysed and incidents dragging on for weeks. If we have a quick VAR system there might be a place for it but not the constant circus around every contact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robmc1 4,741 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 5 minutes ago, Siam69 said: There is no CO anymore - Rangers forward Kemar Roofe faces a two-match ban after being charged retrospectively with violent conduct. Roofe, 28, was booked for a lunge at St Johnstone's Murray Davidson in the Scottish Premiership leaders' 1-0 win on Wednesday. But a panel of three former referees have deemed the tackle breached Scottish FA disciplinary rule 200. Someone’s in a position to refer incidents to these referees, who shoulders these decisions now the CO is no more?... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom1780 1,217 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 Who’s this panel hartson,Sutton and derek whyte ???? fucking clowns man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKnight87 17,286 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 5 minutes ago, Siam69 said: There is no CO anymore - Rangers forward Kemar Roofe faces a two-match ban after being charged retrospectively with violent conduct. Roofe, 28, was booked for a lunge at St Johnstone's Murray Davidson in the Scottish Premiership leaders' 1-0 win on Wednesday. But a panel of three former referees have deemed the tackle breached Scottish FA disciplinary rule 200. There has always been a panel involved in this. Three ex officials review and have to agree unanimously. This is the get out in some cases I reckon. Only needing one to go against the others Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,720 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 5 minutes ago, Siam69 said: People going on about the Compliance Officer, there is no CO anymore - Rangers forward Kemar Roofe faces a two-match ban after being charged retrospectively with violent conduct. Roofe, 28, was booked for a lunge at St Johnstone's Murray Davidson in the Scottish Premiership leaders' 1-0 win on Wednesday. But a panel of three former referees have deemed the tackle breached Scottish FA disciplinary rule 200. Someone / some group is still fulfilling that role. Ie ascertaining which decisions warrant the 3 man panel to review. The CO has a legal background. If the person covering that role in the interim until a successor is found then then I genuinely wonder if its a fat Rangers hater with previous. If its not, who is it and how equipped are they? Doubt we'll ever find out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
esquire8 42,607 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 1 minute ago, Robmc1 said: Someone’s in a position to refer incidents to these referees, who shoulders these decisions now the CO is no more?... Walker and Stewart do it directly now..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,720 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 1 minute ago, tom1780 said: Who’s this panel hartson,Sutton and derek whyte ???? fucking clowns man 3 ex refs selected from a list of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSuedeSambas 53,781 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 It’s fine having a panel of three ex referees to review it, but if there is no CO anymore then who cites players to begin with? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenv 2,125 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 7 minutes ago, Siam69 said: There is no CO anymore - Rangers forward Kemar Roofe faces a two-match ban after being charged retrospectively with violent conduct. Roofe, 28, was booked for a lunge at St Johnstone's Murray Davidson in the Scottish Premiership leaders' 1-0 win on Wednesday. But a panel of three former referees have deemed the tackle breached Scottish FA disciplinary rule 200. But who gets to tell that panel to review a particular incident now, and why? (not that having a single CO made sense to me - I'm fully of the belief that it's trial by media pressure, pushing the CO to pass it on, rather than the CO forensically reviewing each and every tackle, push, fall, trip and dive from all angles after every game on their own) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,149 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 9 minutes ago, Siam69 said: There is no CO anymore - Rangers forward Kemar Roofe faces a two-match ban after being charged retrospectively with violent conduct. Roofe, 28, was booked for a lunge at St Johnstone's Murray Davidson in the Scottish Premiership leaders' 1-0 win on Wednesday. But a panel of three former referees have deemed the tackle breached Scottish FA disciplinary rule 200. I don’t see why the sfa (fans) should be paying three former refs when a match day refs fee should include reviewing the full game and only then the ref match day ref then decides if it was missed or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
esquire8 42,607 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 2 minutes ago, DBBTB said: It’s fine having a panel of three ex referees to review it, but if there is no CO anymore then who cites players to begin with? There is a CO. Whyte said she would stay until a successor was in place to ensure a smooth transition but her aim was to leave the post in the new year. It's either her or her successor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robmc1 4,741 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 26 minutes ago, Lord Lockin said: I appreciate that's not the problem - the point I'm making it looks a terrible tackle and if it was on one of our players there would be no one on here making excuses for the tackle Think there’s no dispute re the tackle potentially causing injury, the frustration is borne from the ‘co’ process having no transparency, statistically penalising our team more than any other and ignoring just as bad if not worse incidents from other teams... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenv 2,125 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 I've no idea how you make this a fair or justifiable system short of asking every manager for a list of up to three 'incidents' they want reviewed by the panel the following morning per match, giving them up to 36 incidents to re-referee each week, then sending that to some panel of foreign refs who will simply laugh at us for being such a shit joke of a footballing nation that we feel this makes any sense. Then Alfie gets a three match ban. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
folkestoneger 8,135 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 Just now, Bad Robot said: I don’t see why the sfa (fans) should be paying three former refs when a match day refs fee should include reviewing the full game and only then the ref match day ref then decides if it was missed or not. The ref is simply going to lie when stuff like this is put to him. If they didn’t they would then be slated as incompetent for seeing it fully but not dealing with it properly. Its far easier for them just to claim they didn’t see it because a leg or a blade of grass was blocking their view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenv 2,125 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 1 minute ago, esquire8 said: There is a CO. Whyte said she would stay until a successor was in place to ensure a smooth transition but her aim was to leave the post in the new year. It's either her or her successor. Ah yes - I forgot her plate was still full of her reviewing the photos from Dubai. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastEnclosureBear 2,919 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 There’s tackles every single week that “breach SFA disciplinary rule” Cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,149 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 22 minutes ago, Drunk and disorderly. said: Nobody does mate, including the compliance officer. Trial by TV as far as I can see. There was no malice in the tackle imo. Roofe can score wonder goals but is dire at tackling as are most strikers. If he is given a red card it will only go to highlight that the system does not work. Strikers are the best tacklers in the whole team with their skill, grace and accuracy 😁 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,149 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 20 minutes ago, TEFTONG said: I can only speak for myself here and yes if it was reversed I would be saying the exact same thing as I originally posted. 50/50 Zero Intent. Football is still a contact sport. These collisions happen. The comments from the St Johnstone manager have been ignored. And he was a player who never shirked a 50/50 tackle. Endangerment and not intent seems to be the new charge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.