Rangers Football Club 0 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 KYLE out of action until September More... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Not surprised by this and I think it is fully justified. Any news on what the Tims got, if anything ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Loovens got one game, for assault. No surprises... McDonald ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jum Spence Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Rangers forward Kyle Lafferty and Celtic defender Glenn Loovens are hit with bans by the Scottish Football Association. More... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,612 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 While simulation cannot be condoned and a 2 game ban is possibly correct, it seems wrong that it gets a bigger ban than when you deliberately try and hurt somebody. Letting mcdonald off is laughable, but totally expected. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,405 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 When we allow a scummy director to be heavily involved in the disciplinary committee, making friendships with other committee members etc, what sort of outcomes do you expect for scummy players getting caught out for acts that the referees "missed". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I never saw the McDonald tackle but it seemed that by all acocunts it was career-threatening. Malice involved or just clumsy ? I cant comment on whether he should have got a ban or not. But the comparison between Loovens and Lafferty is unbelievable. Yes, Lafferty deserved his ban for simulation. He was stupid, he owned up to it, apologised etc. Loovens on the other hand had a crafty kick out at Edu - one which, if connected, could easily have either broken Edu's leg or put him out the game for at least a year (it was high enough to do damage to the cruciate). So a 2 game ban for diving - CORRECT decision And a 1 game ban for malicious intent to injure a fellow pro - SHOCKING decision. Seems McDonald's warranted being put in there aside Loovens. However, fuck them - we welcome the chase. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Yet again we seem to have come off worst. Laffertys suspension is correct. I'm surprised he only got a 2 game ban right enough but 2 is fair game. Loovens only getting a one game ban is baffling. If he'd have broken Edu's leg would the ban have been longer? Seems to me that the length of ban depends on the players injury. As Edu started at Tannadice the SFA have probably looked at it and thought the "tackle" by Loovens wasn't that bad. Terrible, terrible decision. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 For Craig and anyone else who missed it: And the worst offence of the three: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Hard helmet time...... If I were McDonald I would be disappointed to get a ban. Yes he came sliding in, but he got the ball. You can clearly see that his foot catches the turf and there is simply no saying that the momentum of the slide, plus the foot catching the turf, could cause his foot to jolt up off the ground causing the collision. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.