SFA likely to review Sone Aluko penalty award in Rangers win

[GovanAllan 0]

Well ban upheld they don't want us winning 4iar do they.

[Danny 0]

In your opinion, I think I'll leave it at that.

 

 

 

Throw away I'm sure I can handle it but you don't seem to if someone disagrees with you

 

You have absolutely NO SENSE of HUMOUR!

[Gazza_8 233]

Two game ban it is then?

 

Correct decision by the SFA although what was the difference between Aluko's dive and O'Connor's dive to merit a further match ban?

 

Pete, being touched by someones arm doesn't merit someone falling to the ground. Let's get real about this. He's a grown man, not a 2 year old kid.

[metlika 0]

Not surprised but a disgraceful inconsistency again from the SFA.

[Darthter 542]

So, if the ban has been upheld...what happens to Jim McIntyre????

 

The SFA panel have shown that his opinion was in fact the correct one & the the ref got it wrong....so is it right that he still gets a 2 match ban as well???

 

As for consistency...the system is on consistent in its inconsistency!!!

[Guest Dutchy]

It's hardly surprising the appeal fell down, has anyone seen and heard the language used by the press and radio pundits?

 

McIntyre's fate is yet to be decided, but samerarse didn't seem to have any case to answer when the red card for a challenge on him was rescinded.

 

The only one to get away scott free in this scenario is the ref that gave the penalty.

[calscot 0]

It does seem strange that even if Aluko is guilty, he is suffering badly from a refereeing error. Had the referee got it right he wouldn't have a ban. Seems like a massive anomaly to me.

 

However, if Aluko really didn't dive but actually lost his footing due to the mildest of contacts then you have to question what he did wrong and why he deserves a ban...

 

Perhaps it wasn't a penalty objectively but Aluko feels he should have had one.

 

I again appeal to those who play the game: how many times have you, without lying or cheating, wanted a free-kick or penalty or by-kick or corner or throw in and both the opposition and referee disagreed? You probably even know yourself it's not cut and dried but in the balance think you deserve the decision. Perhaps even viewing from cameras will disagree with you - doesn't mean your 100% wrong from your own point of view - however, you'd probably go with the ref's decision.

 

I think Aluko BELIEVES that he was knocked off balance by contact and so deserves the penalty. Had he not been given it he probably wouldn't have protested too much and played on - just like the defender in the incident. However, he's accepted the penalty kick that he felt he deserved and by doing so has received four times the punishment than if he was booked at the time - IF he even deserved it then. The correct decision may easily have been to just play on.

 

There is also a moronic belief these days that if a guy goes down and it's not a penalty then it must be a dive. That is such an illogical point of view. It's a contact sport and so a level of tussling is allowed - players can easily lose their feet involuntary but the interpretation is that it's not enough for a foul.

 

IF you received a sending off and a two match ban at the time, then it might be a bit more fair enough but to massively increase the punishment because the ref didn't agree with the review panel is just ludicrous.

 

BTW not only has Aluko possibly been innocently punished, he's also been branded as a cheat into the bargain...

 

And they call this justice? The SFA are a laughing stock which is incredibly damnable considering Scotland gave the world the Enlightenment.

[ian1964 10,858]

It is now up to Rangers FC to call for an investigation into every decision that goes against them

[johnnyk 158]

You have absolutely NO SENSE of HUMOUR!

 

You are always right so I won't argue with you caps and all (isn't that a huffy kid thing to do ), there was a smiley after the sentance, sorry if you didn't like/see the funny side, I must've hit a nerve