craig 5,199 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 How do you know what Loovens' intentions were? You can't say for sure and you can always make up excuses...as Loovens has attempted to do. I've said what i believe happened. You have tried to come up with another explanation. I don't believe he should be given the benefit of the doubt because he put in a potentially very dangerous challenge in his follow-through. Surely you don't believe that the fact that an SFA committee agrees with you gives your argument more weight? As you say, we'll need to agree to disagree. Somehow I expected you to say that about Loovens The difference is that with Loovens there is absolutely NO WAY that the movement of his leg is natural and there was no force of motion to change his direction. In McDonald's instance his foot clearly catches the ground and when that happens it is plausible that his foot springs off the turf (otherwise it gets caught in the turf and twists beneath him). His follow through could not be prevented given the playing surface. Of course I dont think that the committee agreeing with me adds more weight to it - was just winding you up - did it work ? And don't get me wrong - I can see how ANYONE would think McDonald's deserved a red card - I just know that IF (and yes it is an IF) that was me making that tackle and my explanation above (surely you can see it is plausible ?) then I would be mightily unimpressed at getting a red card for it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 They've appealed the Loovens 1 match ban & will have him for their Aberdeen game. Dirty bassas. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 They've appealed the Loovens 1 match ban & will have him for their Aberdeen game. Dirty bassas. Sporting integrity - the Celtic Way Unbe-fucking-lievable. In situations like this the SFA should increase the ban should the original punishment be upheld. It is a blatant ploy to ensure that they are not without a 1st choice player for the opening game of the season. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Sporting integrity - the Celtic Way Unbe-fucking-lievable. In situations like this the SFA should increase the ban should the original punishment be upheld. It is a blatant ploy to ensure that they are not without a 1st choice player for the opening game of the season. If the SFA had any balls..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,710 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Sporting integrity - the Celtic Way Unbe-fucking-lievable. In situations like this the SFA should increase the ban should the original punishment be upheld. It is a blatant ploy to ensure that they are not without a 1st choice player for the opening game of the season. Indeed it is the MOPE way...........win anyway we can.......PATHETIC shower of cretins 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 The sneaky barstewards have done it, because Caldwell is out for their 1st game. - http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/CurrentSuspensions/Season2009/10/August2009/PlayerSuspensions/LOS03(06Aug).pdf 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Were ever really going to be surprised Shroomz. This is exactly why the SFA should INCREASE a ban if the original punishment is upheld after an appeal. And that goes for ANY player, including Gers players. Because it is a manipulation of the rules to ensure you have your strongest team out. Currently there is no deterrent to appealing judgements. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Were ever really going to be surprised Shroomz. This is exactly why the SFA should INCREASE a ban if the original punishment is upheld after an appeal. And that goes for ANY player, including Gers players. Because it is a manipulation of the rules to ensure you have your strongest team out. Currently there is no deterrent to appealing judgements. Exactly mate. If they hadn't been able to wangle it with the Loovens appeal, they'd have been without Caldwell, McManus & Loovens for their 1st SPL fixture. It's just another example of why John Hughes went ballistic last season about the system being flawed. It is flawed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Exactly mate. If they hadn't been able to wangle it with the Loovens appeal, they'd have been without Caldwell, McManus & Loovens for their 1st SPL fixture. It's just another example of why John Hughes went ballistic last season about the system being flawed. It is flawed. The laws of a game are largely reliant on sportsmanship of the member clubs and their players and employees. Unfortunately the Tims seem to be particularly deficient in this area and highlights this "flaw". If they had any integrity or sportsmanship it would not be such an issue. Only appeal if you genuinely feel you have a case, not just manipulating the laws for your own benefit. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 (edited) The laws of a game are largely reliant on sportsmanship of the member clubs and their players and employees. Unfortunately the Tims seem to be particularly deficient in this area and highlights this "flaw". If they had any integrity or sportsmanship it would not be such an issue. Only appeal if you genuinely feel you have a case, not just manipulating the laws for your own benefit. Disagree (although I see where you are coming from). In ALL walks of life the law is the law. Which is why criminals get off, because there are loopholes. Do I agree with it ? No. But if there are loopholes then it is fair enough for a team to manipulate them. It is up to the SFA/SPL and NOT the clubs to create the laws of the game. If they introduced an increase in punishment for situations like this where it is obviously a ploy to ensure a player isnt missing for a game then it would, at least, act as a potential deterrent. The other way in which the SFA/SPL could deal with these situations is simply have the appeal before the next game. FFS should it be that hard to sit and make judgement on an incident they have already seen time after time after time ? Edited August 8, 2009 by craig 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.