Compliance officer/Bans/Reports

[007]

The defence is usually that the arm was up and the movement of the elbow is because it is a natural action when trying to get extra leverage whilst jumping. Lafferty's feet don't leave the ground when he's assaulting Ambrose.

[eastcoasthibby]

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

I agree with you that it's completely ridiculous. However, at the time that retrospective punishment was being considered, they were determined to hang on to the principle that the referee's decision is final. So, if he's dealt with it, his decision has to be deemed to be correct. Even if it's not. Things he hasn't seen at the time are 'fresh evidence', as it were, and can be considered by him after the match. It seem a bit like principle for the sake of it, though.
I don't see why the referee can't be allowed to say that, in the light of television evidence and a better view of the incident, he would have made a different decision.

Am I right in believing that a straight red can be reduced to a yellow on appeal, so if thats the case how does the retrospective review process not work in the reverse, if the ref has made a decision to only give a yellow and on review it should have been a red ...or does this happen and I am missing it ?

[lord bunberry]

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

Am I right in believing that a straight red can be reduced to a yellow on appeal, so if thats the case how does the retrospective review process not work in the reverse, if the ref has made a decision to only give a yellow and on review it should have been a red ...or does this happen and I am missing it ?

The team who’s player was red carded has to appeal the red card. I’m guessing it’s never happened, but I suppose in theory a team could contact the compliance officer and ask for a yellow card offence to be looked at.

[Eyrie]

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

The defence is usually that the arm was up and the movement of the elbow is because it is a natural action when trying to get extra leverage whilst jumping. Lafferty's feet don't leave the ground when he's assaulting Ambrose.

Lafferty had a good long look as well before flinging his arm out.

100% intentional, but his manager will be proud that Lafferty was "brave enough" to attack a player physically on the pitch as opposed to simply responding to the taunts of opposing fans on Twitter.

[eastcoasthibby]

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

Lafferty had a good long look as well before flinging his arm out.

100% intentional, but his manager will be proud that Lafferty was "brave enough" to attack a player physically on the pitch as opposed to simply responding to the taunts of opposing fans on Twitter.

Lafferty did similar in the first half to Hanlon with an arm you could.see him look over hus shoulder see Hanlon and then put his arm out across his face ..just as ball was arriving ..intent was there but not same connection

[eastcoasthibby]

On the way to the game.on Tuesday I was listening to the discussion on Sportsound about the Vaughan incident and apparently the difference.between violent conduct and.reckless is about the intent, with it being referred to that there was no evidence.to say Vaughan did it with intent example given was did not look to see if the the RAnkgers.player was there before using his elbow it wasn't violent,, but it was reckless in the way he used his elbow !! As the pundits stated at the time, that rational thats being used by the compliance officer is nonsense as any and.almost all players know and can feel/sense.where.there opponent is when that close they don't need to look ....so if we.take.that explaination from the compliance.side.of the.SFA the Lafferty is gulity as sin of violent conduct ...the real point I am making is if the compliance officer is making decisions on that basis how naive is he ?? And.it.leaves the opportunity open to players to do what.they want as long as they aren't looking and eyeing.up the.victim !!

[Conj]

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

On the way to the game.on Tuesday I was listening to the discussion on Sportsound about the Vaughan incident and apparently the difference.between violent conduct and.reckless is about the intent, with it being referred to that there was no evidence.to say Vaughan did it with intent example given was did not look to see if the the RAnkgers.player was there before using his elbow it wasn't violent,, but it was reckless in the way he used his elbow !! As the pundits stated at the time, that rational thats being used by the compliance officer is nonsense as any and.almost all players know and can feel/sense.where.there opponent is when that close they don't need to look ....so if we.take.that explaination from the compliance.side.of the.SFA the Lafferty is gulity as sin of violent conduct ...the real point I am making is if the compliance officer is making decisions on that basis how naive is he ?? And.it.leaves the opportunity open to players to do what.they want as long as they aren't looking and eyeing.up the.victim !!

I've been saying that for years, commentators and pundits are forever going on about the vision and, more importantly, the peripheral vision of players when they want to talk about good football but as soon as it comes to criticising a player for assault, if the player isn't looking in the direction of an opponent then all of a sudden they can't see roundabout themselves so couldn't have meant it.

[Eyrie]

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

Lafferty did similar in the first half to Hanlon with an arm you could.see him look over hus shoulder see Hanlon and then put his arm out across his face ..just as ball was arriving ..intent was there but not same connection

I posted a link to that earlier in this thread.

Meanwhile, the compliance officer does nothing which will only encourage thugs like Lafferty in their attempts to deliberately injure an opponent.