Stokes

**Mikey09** · 15-08-2017 11:52 AM

Expecting him to be cited for grabbing Jack by the throat. If so, fair enough. Think he was lucky there. However. If that is the case will Dorrans be cited for doing exactly the same thing to Slivka for the tackle that led to the whole incident?

**Future17** · 15-08-2017 11:55 AM

Think the chat is he can't be as it was dealt with by the ref at the time.

**Fergos** · 15-08-2017 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Mikey09

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Expecting him to be cited for grabbing Jack by the throat. If so, fair enough. Think he was lucky there. However. If that is the case will Dorrans be cited for doing exactly the same thing to Slivka for the tackle that led to the whole incident?

Good point Mikey09, I would certainly hope so.......but wouldn't hold my breath.......

GGTTH

**madabouthibs** · 15-08-2017 11:55 AM

I don't think Stokes will be cited, if he is, then there's gonna be a lengthy queue on the naughty step at Hampden from just one game.

**madabouthibs** · 15-08-2017 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Future17

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Think the chat is he can't be as it was dealt with by the ref at the time.

Yes he was booked for flooring Tavernier, but that was a separate incident.

***lapsedhibee*** · 15-08-2017 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Future17

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Think the chat is he can't be as it was dealt with by the ref at the time.

That bit wasn't.

***Billy Whizz*** · 15-08-2017 11:57 AM

When is Jack's hearing
Think also Hearts are appealing Concalves sending off

***CallumLaidlaw*** · 15-08-2017 11:59 AM

From what I can work out, Stokes was booked for the incident with Tavernier, but wasn't punished for the incident with Jack. I think he'll get pulled up for that.

Dorrans was booked in that incident wasn't he? In which case I cant see any further action taken against him.

And then there's Jack, Rangers have appealed but I honestly can't see how they'll win it. They probably will tho

**Mikey09** · 15-08-2017 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

From what I can work out, Stokes was booked for the incident with Tavernier, but wasn't punished for the incident with Jack. I think he'll get pulled up for that.

Dorrans was booked in that incident wasn't he? In which case I cant see any further action taken against him.

And then there's Jack, Rangers have appealed but I honestly can't see how they'll win it. They probably will tho

Not sure if Dorrans was booked for that Callum.

***Billy Whizz*** · 15-08-2017 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

From what I can work out, Stokes was booked for the incident with Tavernier, but wasn't punished for the incident with Jack. I think he'll get pulled up for that.

Dorrans was booked in that incident wasn't he? In which case I cant see any further action taken against him.

And then there's Jack, Rangers have appealed but I honestly can't see how they'll win it. They probably will tho

I know you can give a retrospective red, but can you give a retro yellow?
Jack committed 2 fouls in the same incident, hands round McGeough and then head butt on Stokes

If you look again at the 1st incident with Stokes early doors where he was booked, Cardosa practically stamps on him, then grabs him round the neck, and didn't get booked for the incident.
If they cite Stokes, Cardosa should get the same

**makaveli1875** · 15-08-2017 12:05 PM

jacks red card will stand and stokes will get banned for grabbing him

***Billy Whizz*** · 15-08-2017 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Mikey09

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure if Dorrans was booked for that Callum.

He was along with Dylan

***Heisenberg*** · 15-08-2017 12:10 PM

So, did Dorrans get booked for his part in the Ryan Jack incident? If he did then fair enough. But then surely that means that Stokes can only get a retrospective yellow for doing exactly the same thing? They wouldn't be able to justify a longer ban than one game for him if Dorrans only got off with a yellow.

***CallumLaidlaw*** · 15-08-2017 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So, did Dorrans get booked for his part in the Ryan Jack incident? If he did then fair enough. But then surely that means that Stokes can only get a retrospective yellow for doing exactly the same thing? They wouldn't be able to justify a longer ban than one game for him if Dorrans only got off with a yellow.

Doesn't tend to work like that unfortunately. If you are caught diving in a game, you get a booking. If you get cited retrospectively for diving you get a match ban.

**Smartie** · 15-08-2017 12:21 PM

I have no idea where you start and where you finish punishing folk for these skirmishes.

By the letter of the law, should you not get into big trouble as soon as you raise your hands? If so, it should have ended up about 3 a side.

That was a difficult game to referee. The referee called it as he saw it at the time, but with the benefit of multiple replays from multiple angles you can see he got some decisions wrong.

Stokes will be very lucky to avoid punishment though imo.

***brog*** · 15-08-2017 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Smartie

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I have no idea where you start and where you finish punishing folk for these skirmishes.

By the letter of the law, should you not get into big trouble as soon as you raise your hands? If so, it should have ended up about 3 a side.

That was a difficult game to referee. The referee called it as he saw it at the time, but with the benefit of multiple replays from multiple angles you can see he got some decisions wrong.

Stokes will be very lucky to avoid punishment though imo.

I posted earlier this is one of those sayings that lazy pundits ( no criticism of you intended ) regularly trot out & has become a "fact". There is no basis for this at all & there is no definition for what constitutes "violent conduct". Re Stokes I don't believe there's any mechanism to award a retrospective yellow. He either gets a red or nothing. If he gets a red then so does Dorrans, Jack gets 2 & even the other guy who squared up to Stokes in the initial incident could be in trouble. Maybe the police team still searching for criminals who ran on a pitch could be diverted to the important task of analysing every gesture by NL & every tackle by a Hibs player!

**Smartie** · 15-08-2017 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by brog

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I posted earlier this is one of those sayings that lazy pundits ( no criticism of you intended ) regularly trot out & has become a "fact". There is no basis for this at all & there is no definition for what constitutes "violent conduct". Re Stokes I don't believe there's any mechanism to award a retrospective yellow. He either gets a red or nothing. If he gets a red then so does Dorrans, Jack gets 2 & even the other guy who squared up to Stokes in the initial incident could be in trouble. Maybe the police team still searching for criminals who ran on a pitch could be diverted to the important task of analysing every gesture by NL & every tackle by a Hibs player!

Thanks for correcting me.

I genuinely didn't know.

So - the raising of hands and "handbags" (which happens from time to time) is ok - it must be deemed violent conduct for a red card to be shown?

**Onion** · 15-08-2017 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Future17

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Think the chat is he can't be as it was dealt with by the ref at the time.

Exactly, the ref was within 3 feet of the incident, looking right at it. Dealt with it. Nothing will happen - simply after-shock noise from the Huns.

Very different if it was off the ball and out of sight.

**~~Iggy Pope~~** · 15-08-2017 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by brog

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I posted earlier this is one of those sayings that lazy pundits ( no criticism of you intended ) regularly trot out & has become a "fact". There is no basis for this at all & there is no definition for what constitutes "violent conduct". Re Stokes I don't believe there's any mechanism to award a retrospective yellow. He either gets a red or nothing. If he gets a red then so does Dorrans, Jack gets 2 & even the other guy who squared up to Stokes in the initial incident could be in trouble. Maybe the police team still searching for criminals who ran on a pitch could be diverted to the important task of analysing every gesture by NL & every tackle by a Hibs player!

Spot on. Someone in a frenzy comes at you, the least you are going to do is lift your arms (your hands being on the end of each) to fend him off. A long time since I seen any footballer worth his salt play the game with his arms fixed to his sides (although.....there was one notable exception that a lot of Leithers may recall from a particularly good amateur and his prosthetic arm back in the mists....and he would have had Dorrans head off).

***brog*** · 15-08-2017 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Smartie

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thanks for correcting me.

I genuinely didn't know.

So - the raising of hands and "handbags" (which happens from time to time) is ok - it must be deemed violent conduct for a red card to be shown?

There are 7 offences for which you could receive a red card, including a 2nd yellow, spitting & denying a clear goal scoring opportunity. Violent conduct & serious foul play are the only 2 which could possibly apply in this instance & serious foul play, as it says, tends to be for really bad tackles. I'm not saying raising hands is acceptable but like me I'm sure you've seen many English games where a mass brawl has broken out & the ref has given yellows only ( unless someone's really been banjoed

) to the original protagonists. As you said originally we could end up with games being abandoned if refs didn't apply some common sense.

***superfurryhibby*** · 15-08-2017 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Iggy Pope

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Spot on. Someone in a frenzy comes at you, the least you are going to do is lift your arms (your hands being on the end of each) to fend him off. A long time since I seen any footballer worth his salt play the game with his arms fixed to his sides (although.....there was one notable exception that a lot of Leithers may recall from a particularly good amateur and his prosthetic arm back in the mists....and he would have had Dorrans head off).

Now that jogs the memory a bit. I remember the guy and think i played against him, late 80's maybe. Very good player indeed.

As for the Stokes thing. You're right, it's human nature to want to protect oneself against someone coming at you like raging bull. No further punishment for Stokes. All seem by the ref during the course of the game.

***lord bunberry*** · 15-08-2017 01:33 PM

If they were going to be pulled up for it then it would've happened by now surely.

***CallumLaidlaw*** · 15-08-2017 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by lord bunberry

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If they were going to be pulled up for it then it would've happened by now surely.

They are dealing with the fast track appeals first. Jack, Goncalves and 2 of the Motherwell players have all appealed.

**Robinho08** · 15-08-2017 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They are dealing with the fast track appeals first. Jack, Goncalves and 2 of the Motherwell players have all appealed.

Motherwell wasting their time with the keeper. He was outside his box. Should never have been a penalty though, so that appeal should be upheld.

**JDT** · 15-08-2017 02:02 PM

After the initial tussle between Stokes and Taviener you can see Ryan Jack getting involved and grabbing Stokes by the throat on the BBC highlights. Its exactly on the 56 second mark. Jack got involved first and thats why Stokes and him came together the second time. Nobody has commented on the from The Rangers side have they......imbeciles!

***tamsonsbairn*** · 15-08-2017 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Iggy Pope

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Spot on. Someone in a frenzy comes at you, the least you are going to do is lift your arms (your hands being on the end of each) to fend him off. A long time since I seen any footballer worth his salt play the game with his arms fixed to his sides (although.....there was one notable exception that a lot of Leithers may recall from a particularly good amateur and his prosthetic arm back in the mists....and he would have had Dorrans head off).

Is the guy you are talking about, first name Franny, i can't for the love of me remember his second name. was at school with the guy and when playing against him if you got the stump of his arm in your back you would know all about it, Ahh, franny martin seems to ring a bell.

**Ozyhibby** · 15-08-2017 05:22 PM

Doesn't he have to be cited by Tuesday if it's going to happen?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Borderhibbie76** · 15-08-2017 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They are dealing with the fast track appeals first. Jack, Goncalves and 2 of the Motherwell players have all appealed.

It said in EEN earlier that if Stokesy was cited it had to be lodged by 3pm this afternoon..so I guess he is clear now hopefully??

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

***CropleyWasGod*** · 15-08-2017 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Doesn't he have to be cited by Tuesday if it's going to happen?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Borderhibbie76

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It said in EEN earlier that if Stokesy was cited it had to be lodged by 3pm this afternoon..so I guess he is clear now hopefully??

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

That's for fast-track cases, whatever they are. They have until Thursday, AFAIK.