ian1964 10,626 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 TAKE three men who are experts in their game and sit them down to watch exactly the same action. How can it be that they will see things differently and make different calls? That issue â?? supposed inconsistency â?? has been at the heart of the Sone Aluko furore. Rangers were entitled to fight their corner but to rage about inconsistency in the Scottish Football Association's decision-making process made no sense. Deciding whether someone took a dive isn't an exact science. Two rival supporters will see an incident and have totally different views of what happened. The guys on SFA panels are the same as everyone else: they watch a bit of play and have their own opinions on it. It's part of what makes sport such an addiction in the first place. The SFA was pilloried for arriving at two different verdicts on Garry O'Connor and Aluko, as if the two of them had been brought to the dock in absolutely identical circumstances. However, different "judges" watched different sets of evidence on different incidents, and listened to different defence cases from different people, on pieces of play which happened several weeks apart. The uproar over them reaching two different outcomes was exaggerated. Two nights ago Amir Khan lost his world titles on a split decision. In other words, three expert judges sat at ringside, watched the same fight, and saw different things. It happens. The SFA were far more consistent with O'Connor and Aluko than Rangers acknowledged. In both cases the compliance officer, Vincent Lunny, did exactly the same thing: he looked at media coverage, watched the incidents several times, and on each occasion decided there was a case to answer. He offered Hibernian and Rangers exactly the same thing: they could take a two-game suspension for their player or else try to defend him in front of a Judicial Panel. Both clubs gambled on getting their man off the hook. O'Connor was running from left to right across the box, heading into the centre, attacking one defender rather than several when he was "brought down" by an outstretched leg. Aluko was on the other side, sprinting towards the line, and had wriggled into a pocket of space when he claimed he was brought down by a defender touching him on the arm. Three men looked at O'Connor's incident, listened to Hibs, and decided he was innocent. Three different men watched Aluko again on television, listened to Rangers, and judged that he should be punished. Every single week two managers blether away at a post-match press conference and sound as if they've both just watched two totally different games. Where the SFA does leave itself open to criticism is on the severity of the punishment. An offence is an offence. If Aluko's dive was spotted by referee Steve Conroy at the time he'd have received a booking. But because the referee missed it he received a two-game suspension which he would otherwise have needed 12 yellow cards to reach. This should be consistent. Let's be clear, the decision not to punish O'Connor was astonishing. The one thing he and Aluko had in common â?? in my opinion â?? was that they both dived to get a penalty and should both have been done for it. But who's to say Hibs didn't go into the Judicial Review Panel and present an outstanding, well-argued defence of their player? Who's to say McCoist and Aluko didn't go into Hampden and come across poorly? Certainly, if Rangers' defence relied too heavily on that photograph showing Martin Hardie's hand on Aluko's arm, it's no wonder they were unsuccessful. If a player really was "entitled to go down" at contact like that, football is finished. Every touch between two players would see them both collapse as if electrocuted. Pitches would look like the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. One other thing the SFA could address is who sits on high-profile cases, as the Aluko one was sure to be. With all due respect to them, involving the gentlemen from Threave Rovers and the Scottish Schools FA gives out the wrong message. Scottish Premier League figures cannot sit on SPL cases (a sensible rule which prevents conflicts of interest) but the next best thing would be to have, say, a couple of first division men sitting on the "bigger" cases. McCoist's statement of "rules for some and rules for others", implying that Rangers get punished when others don't, was out of character. That's not a claim that can be taken seriously when it's based on only two or three examples. Let's see at the end of the season if Rangers players have been hammered time and time again while Celtic have gotten away with things. Let's not dignify the idea that all these folk will be out to get Rangers. Decision making is subjective and inconsistency is unavoidable. But the SFA's new disciplinary process looks faster and more transparent than the confused, ponderous mess which preceded it. It looked so impressive that it was voted through unanimously at the SFA's annual general meeting in June. And, in full knowledge of its inevitable imperfections, Rangers voted for it too. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...-made.16126797 Edit/Delete Message 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Very cleverly written and oh so level-headed and fair, not. Rangers fans worry about who the members of the panel really support, and that is the main trouble with this rotten, poorly thought out and untransparent new system. I was looking at this article from STV, and although it's not proof of anything, septic are at the bottom after whinning about refs being biased against them. http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/287208-spl-disciplinary-watch/ Somethings certainly changed in the last year. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
26th of foot 6,001 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Who penned the article? I have clicked on the link and I am receiving the generic sports page with no link to the piece presented. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,626 Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 Who penned the article? I have clicked on the link and I am receiving the generic sports page with no link to the piece presented. Micheal Grant 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) After reading this I can't see what the offence was - Aluko didn't ask for the penalty but in HIS opinion it was one. If, as according to the author, it's just about opinions Aluko did absolutely NOTHING wrong. To PROVE Aluko was just acting would take a lot more evidence than there was and require NO contact. He has done less cheating than someone who claims for a decision but the referee decides against him. Shouldn't Lunny get a ban for getting the O'Connor decision "wrong"? By getting it wrong was he cheating? For me the Aluko cheating offence doesn't exist - and as I've said before if you want to punish someone you have to set the rules accordingly rather than making them up subjectively after the fact. All it would need is cement the rule is to have the referee to ask the player if he believed he was fouled and whether the evidence would pass muster. If he says he was but the evidence does not correlate then a punishment is due to prevent players from lying and cheating. Aluko didn't have that luxury. He thought he was felled, the referee agreed and so he accepted the ref's decision. It happens all the time in all areas of the pitch from throw-in to free kick. Keepers touch the ball round post and then accept the goal kicks etc. THAT is cheating but goes unpunished. We were once put out of the world cup when our player was fouled, yet Italy received the free kick and scored from it. What punishment does that player deserve? With Aluko he is being punished for two immensely subjective assessments - the first is that there was not enough contact to send him to the floor and the second huge leap of imagination - that his motives were to gain a penalty by cheating. That is an incredibly difficult conclusion to come to at the best of times, but almost impossible given the evidence. Where is the professional benefit of the doubt as it is nowhere near beyond reasonable doubt that Aluko was guilty? Having seen it, to me it is all inconclusive and the best decision at the time would be to wave play on. However, I think the problem they have here is that you can't go back and undo a penalty when it is scored. However, we told time and time again that that is football and these decisions even out, which is why they won't introduce tv evidence during a game. I don't get the argument that you can't use it in a game but can use it so cavalier-like afterwards. If TV cameras were used at the time, I think they would agree with my assessment of play on and at worst a yellow card. Yet in their wisdom to misuse technology, they instead give him the same punishment as he would receive for being caught diving in twelve games... All I can say is that, even if he did deliberately dive, he's been totally shafted. Edited December 12, 2011 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Just to add to my argument. I know a guy who can twist and turn really well but to do so he's always really off balance and it takes the merest touch to send him over. Most of the time I would say the bumps are completely legal either as a good challenge for the ball with the foot or a legitimate shoulder tackle and sometimes because he's the one that bumps into the defender. He claims a free kick every time he goes over - if the touches are legit, does that make him a cheat? Should be banned for two games every time? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Well said Calscot. Maybe write an article about it & get it on the site? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
26th of foot 6,001 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Michael Grant originates from Dingwall and like all his fellow Aberdeen fans, regularly levels criticism at Rangers supporters passing their hometown ground to get to Ibrox. Michael does not do irony. Michael fits right in at ra Herald, indulging in the competition with his Sports Editor, Donal Cowey(former Editor of ra Sellik View) and Chief Sports Writer, Hugh MacDonald("we gathered in the toilets at St Mungos to sing rebel songs on the afternoon of a big European tie at Celtic Park"); to see who really hates Rangers the most. Remember, those Dandy Dons love visiting ra Stydome and belting out, 'we hate Rangers more than you'. For the articulation of hatred, ra Herald has real credentials and established provenance. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Read the first paragraph or two. Bizarre logic to try and justify why it is okay to ban a Ger and let others off. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Why doesn't he just call the story " We Hate You Huns " and be done with it. 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.