Flanagan charged!!

[craig 5,199]

3 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

That's likely to be depicted as bringing the game into disrepute.

It can’t be because it’s a question, not a statement

[JFK-1 1,693]

6 minutes ago, craig said:

It can’t be because it’s a question, not a statement

Questioning the integrity of the ruling authority. Given all that has come before I'm confident they can portray it any way they want to. Just as they're doing with Flanagan right now and just as they did when there was NO referee action in the game where Cordoso had his nose broken and no retroactive action either.

Aside from the colour of the jersey what's the difference between a Motherwell player holding an opponent off and breaking a nose and Flanagan doing exactly the same thing while injuring no one.

 

 

[Doc 280]

16 hours ago, barca72 said:

" ... and have also asked for full transparency on what matters are brought forward for retrospective action. Are those decisions being made even-handedly?”

The nub of the matter. Just how exactly does she choose which incidents to review and act upon and is there any kind of outside influence being brought to bear.

Other than it being endlessly replayed and analysed on the BBC and Sky while the elbow on Defoe and all the others involving Scott Borwn barely get a mention. The media are utterly conniving in this unbalanced playing field. If they did their fucking job and highlighted all the other incidents just as much as the hammer Rangers then it would be fairer. The fact is is they sweep all the other incidents under the carpet and just focus on us. We'll get no justice under these journo's, with BBC Scotland as currently construed, and certainly not with a CO hand picked by our bitter rivals. It's a joke!

[craig 5,199]

13 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Questioning the integrity of the ruling authority. Given all that has come before I'm confident they can portray it any way they want to. Just as they're doing with Flanagan right now and just as they did when there was NO referee action in the game where Cordoso had his nose broken and no retroactive action either.

Aside from the colour of the jersey what's the difference between a Motherwell player holding an opponent off and breaking a nose and Flanagan doing exactly the same thing while injuring no one.

 

 

You can't (or shouldn't would be a more appropriate term) charge a club with bringing the game into disrepute for asking a question.  If the club is charged any half-ways decent lawyer would drive a horse and cart through the SPFL's/SFA's charge.

 

The examples you've given are completely irrelevant to a disrepute charge for asking a question

[DMAA 3,658]

Clear as day from the replays it wasn't his elbow it was his lower arm, and although we don't have a front view it looks very much like it wasn't his face it was his neck area.

 

Blatant inconsistency if he gets a 2 match ban for that.

[craig 5,199]

I am clearly biased.  However, in looking at the two incidents I felt that if EITHER of them warranted retrospective action it was Simunovic's - and here is why :

 

Flanagan  

• Ref saw it, dealt with it, deemed it a yellow card
• It wasn't an elbow, it was his forearm
• It wasn't a deliberate act of violence, he was attempting to block Brown's run with his arm

Simunovic

 

• Ref didn't see it.  Exactly what the CO role came in for
• It was a deliberate sweep of the arm aimed in Defoe's direction.  No rational person can defend it as a "natural" movement of the arm.
• It appeared to me, to be deliberate - he was chasing back, threw his arm across Defoe at a height which was almost guaranteed to be head height to Defoe.  Some will defend this, no problem.  The first two bullet points show why it should have been cited though.  

[cooponthewing 1,139]

1 hour ago, craig said:

I am clearly biased.  However, in looking at the two incidents I felt that if EITHER of them warranted retrospective action it was Simunovic's - and here is why :

 

Flanagan  

• Ref saw it, dealt with it, deemed it a yellow card
• It wasn't an elbow, it was his forearm
• It wasn't a deliberate act of violence, he was attempting to block Brown's run with his arm

Simunovic

 

• Ref didn't see it.  Exactly what the CO role came in for
• It was a deliberate sweep of the arm aimed in Defoe's direction.  No rational person can defend it as a "natural" movement of the arm.
• It appeared to me, to be deliberate - he was chasing back, threw his arm across Defoe at a height which was almost guaranteed to be head height to Defoe.  Some will defend this, no problem.  The first two bullet points show why it should have been cited though.  

Completely agree with this summary. My first instinct on Sunday from my viewpoint in BR suggested it was a reverse forearm smash! That is what it clearly is and Defoe is lucky to avoid a really sore one.

 

However, we say time after time how corrupt the system and Scottish society is in general , we then become habituated by it and we accept it. They stopped giving a toss a long time ago. I suspect they know the tide has turned and their days are numbered. They will inflict as much damage as they can while burning the city on the way out.

[onevision 1,571]

So what course of action can the club take if let's say the appeal is lost and the 2 match ban stands?

What if the club just says we are not excepting the ban and ask the powers where do we go from here then?

[barca72 440]

7 minutes ago, onevision said:

So what course of action can the club take if let's say the appeal is lost and the 2 match ban stands?

What if the club just says we are not excepting the ban and ask the powers where do we go from here then?

10 point reduction next season. ?

[craig 5,199]

8 minutes ago, barca72 said:

10 point reduction next season. ?

May need to make it 20 just for Celtic, and their Compliant Officer, to be safe