Lafferty Banned By SFA

[Super_Ally 0]

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.

 

Didn't expect the post to necessarily meet with approval. Currently reading a book regarding the formation of a Football Assoaciation on Robben Island during apartheid. For those unaware this is where black "political" prisoners like Mandela were incarcerated during apartheid.

 

Anyway, in reading this book there was a lot made of the sporting values and integrity with which the league was formed and intended to be run by. Of course all sporting competition has moved on, in this instance, not necessarily for the better and many true sporting values have been eroded from elite competition. You still see it in some instances with golfers calling shots on themselves or snooker players calling fouls against themself. Are many cricketers honest enough to call themselves out now?

 

I guess it all comes down to money. Too much at stake. Was a "naive" post by myself of romantic ideals that have largely left modern sport.

 

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 ?

 

I made a post regarding this in lounge I think and how efficient they are in rugby. Will see if I can find it.

 

Edit: That was easy: http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=12073&highlight=rugby

[craig 5,199]

I wish sport were more honest and money has a large bearing on that stuff. I just watched Derek Jeter (who is he.... plays for the Yankees) trying to convince the umpire he was struck on the shoulder by a pitch - and it was obvious that he hadnt been. Yankees were beating the Red Sox 2-0 at the time. I hate it.

 

Yes, there is no reason why they couldnt be efficient - that would have prevented them listening to this case because Celtic would not have bothere with the appeal. So it also saves them time as well as being more efficient.

[Super_Ally 0]

I wish sport were more honest and money has a large bearing on that stuff. I just watched Derek Jeter (who is he.... plays for the Yankees) trying to convince the umpire he was struck on the shoulder by a pitch - and it was obvious that he hadnt been. Yankees were beating the Red Sox 2-0 at the time. I hate it.

 

Yes, there is no reason why they couldnt be efficient - that would have prevented them listening to this case because Celtic would not have bothere with the appeal. So it also saves them time as well as being more efficient.

 

As ever with the SFA the word shambles springs to mind.

[ascender 352]

If McDonald had meant his one, he wouldn't have raised his leg up so high as he'd just lose power by doing that. It almost looks like his boot catches on the turf sending his leg up. If he was going to do Wilkie deliberately, imo, he'd have just kept both feet down and followed through with the force of his momentum.

 

Crazy how Lafferty gets a harsher sentence than Loovens though.