Stokes 2 match ban...

[Hibs90]

Hibs striker Anthony Stokes faces starting next season with a two-match ban after the Scottish Football Association charged him with misconduct following a recent clash with Celtic. (The Express)]

What a ****ing joke :grr:

[down-the-slope]

Hibs striker Anthony Stokes faces starting next season with a two-match ban after the Scottish Football Association charged him with misconduct following a recent clash with Celtic. (The Express)]

What a ****ing joke :grr:

Fear not...will be recinded if Celtic sign him during summer

[steve75]

It was a pretty rash challenge, the ban will be for the potential damage he could have caused. If it was against us there would have been pages of 'how was he not sent off'

Edit: I'm not sure if he was charged, but he should have been. If not they realy need to have a look at themselves. Though as they say, two wrongs don't make a right :wink:

[Leith Green]

I seem to remember Kyle Lafferty doing Andreas Hinkel at parkhead earlier in the season in a similar but much higher challenge, shocker and shoud have been red, was he charged after the match??

If not ****ing disgracefull...

[K.Marx]

I seem to remember Kyle Lafferty doing Andreas Hinkel at parkhead earlier in the season in a similar but much higher challenge, shocker and shoud have been red, was he charged after the match??

If not ****ing disgracefull...

Restrospective bans can only be dished out if no action was taken by the ref during the match. IIRC Laugherty got a yellow, so no further action can be taken. Since Stokes didn't get booked the incident can be reviewed again. Pish rule IMO

[Sir David Gray]

Restrospective bans can only be dished out if no action was taken by the ref during the match. IIRC Laugherty got a yellow, so no further action can be taken. Since Stokes didn't get booked the incident can be reviewed again. Pish rule IMO

:agree: He did.

[Westie1875]

Why is it 2 matches when red would only be a one match ban?

They only looked at this because Lennon made such a fuss as well :grr:

What about Boyd's elbow on Zemmama at Ibrox then?

[Bristolhibby]

Why is it 2 matches when red would only be a one match ban?

They only looked at this because Lennon made such a fuss as well :grr:

What about Boyd's elbow on Zemmama at Ibrox then?

Was that not also dealt with a yellow. If so case closed. No further action needed. Tw@s

J

[Sir David Gray]

Was that not also dealt with a yellow. If so case closed. No further action needed. Tw@s

J

:agree: Yep.

Any incident that the referee sees at the time, cannot be dealt with retrospectively by the authorities, even if the referee does not give out any cards.

The only time that this rule is not enforced is in exceptional circumstances, such as Ben Thatcher's shocking challenge on Pedro Mendes a couple of years back, which the referee felt only merited a yellow card but the FA looked at it because of the severity of the incident and banned him for a long time.

[lapsedhibee]

Any incident that the referee sees at the time, cannot be dealt with retrospectively by the authorities, even if the referee does not give out any cards.

The only time that this rule is not enforced is in exceptional circumstances, such as Ben Thatcher's shocking challenge on Pedro Mendes a couple of years back, which the referee felt only merited a yellow card but the FA looked at it because of the severity of the incident and banned him for a long time.

So they can't deal with it retrospectively except when they do.

[Westie1875]

:agree: Yep.

Any incident that the referee sees at the time, cannot be dealt with retrospectively by the authorities, even if the referee does not give out any cards.

The only time that this rule is not enforced is in exceptional circumstances, such as Ben Thatcher's shocking challenge on Pedro Mendes a couple of years back, which the referee felt only merited a yellow card but the FA looked at it because of the severity of the incident and banned him for a long time.

Didn't the ref award a free kick against Stokes at the time?

[steve75]

Didn't the ref award a free kick against Stokes at the time?

Don't think so. I'm sure they just stopped play because they were all having a go at each other.

[Sir David Gray]

So they can't deal with it retrospectively except when they do.

As a general rule, the authorities cannot review incidents on video evidence if the referee has seen the incident at the time but if something extraordinary occurs, they may choose to ignore that rule.


Didn't the ref award a free kick against Stokes at the time?

I can't actually remember to be honest. If he did then as far as I'm led to believe, I don't think the SFA can do anything.

[JimBHibees]

Why is it 2 matches when red would only be a one match ban?

They only looked at this because Lennon made such a fuss as well :grr:

What about Boyd's elbow on Zemmama at Ibrox then?

Yep another of the many reasons to hate the kok. He won the game why feel the need to drop someone else in it, ironic give the amount of times he got anway with murder on the football pitch in Scotland. Can remember clearly the 2-2 game at ER when McCurry (surprise, surprise) allowed Lennon to miraculously avoid a 2nd booking.

[lapsedhibee]

As a general rule, the authorities cannot review incidents on video evidence if the referee has seen the incident at the time but if something extraordinary occurs, they may choose to ignore that rule.

So ... they can review incidents even if the referee has seen it.

[Danderhall Hibs]

So ... they can review incidents even if the referee has seen it.

In England they did that. That's not the general rule though. As FH says if it's "dealt" with at the time the FA can't get involved. Unless it's someone running 20 yards at full pelt to KO a boy into the advertising boards.

[lapsedhibee]

In England they did that. That's not the general rule though. As FH says if it's "dealt" with at the time the FA can't get involved. Unless it's someone running 20 yards at full pelt to KO a boy into the advertising boards.

But once the principle's been established that the ref's view is not always final, there's no reason to keep implying that it is. The Fat Hun's forearm smash on Zemmama was as clear a red as you'll ever see on video. No reason whatsoever not to upgrade his yellow to a red, since that's allowed (so far in Engand only) in unusual/exceptional/whatever circumstances!

Different question now though: Did the ref see the Stokes incident, or was he looking the other way? If he saw it and decided not to book, shirley he could be said to have already 'dealt with the incident'? :dunno:

[fordie2]

FFS! It was a mistimed challenge, are they gonna review all mistimed challenges from now on! I could understand it it was an off the ball incident or a punch/headbutt/kick!

[HibbyKeith]

same old same old.

If they are looking at stuff missed by officials how about chalking off celtic's 3rd goal for Offside and giving us a point :greengrin

[Danderhall Hibs]

But once the principle's been established that the ref's view is not always final, there's no reason to keep implying that it is. The Fat Hun's forearm smash on Zemmama was as clear a red as you'll ever see on video. No reason whatsoever not to upgrade his yellow to a red, since that's allowed (so far in Engand only) in unusual/exceptional/whatever circumstances!

Different question now though: Did the ref see the Stokes incident, or was he looking the other way? If he saw it and decided not to book, shirley he could be said to have already 'dealt with the incident'? :dunno:

They've over ruled in England but I don't think they have in Scotland. Maybe they apply the principle correctly?

[lapsedhibee]

They've over ruled in England but I don't think they have in Scotland. Maybe they apply the principle correctly?

Be interesting to know what the actual "principle" here is though. In England they've accepted the principle that even if the ref sees and deals with an incident, he is not always right. In Scotland, so far, apparently, everything that the ref sees he sees right (unless he himself decides on the basis of video evidence that he saw something wrong) - but what he doesn't see, a bunch of other people can rule on retrospectively. In Stokes' case, none of the four officials saw the incident (or maybe some of them did and didn't notify the ref, or maybe the other three all saw it and notified the ref and he didn't trust their views).

I struggle to see any rational principle which would justify a decision to ban Stokes yet not to (for example) retrospectively upgrade the Fat Hun's card.

[MacBean]

why has the boy for st mirren not been given a hind-sight red card for his hand ball on the line v St johnstone?!?!?
cant punish one and not the others!?

[seanraff07]

Was that not also dealt with a yellow. If so case closed. No further action needed. Tw@s

J

Yep he was booked for 'obstruction' laughable really.

But the thing is, if he was booked then the ref or linesman clearly saw the incident, if i remember correctly the linesman was right beside it, therefore why did they not send him off if they clearly saw what he done? I know he plays for the Huns but standing still and sticking your elbow it aimed at his face AND he made contact with Zemmama's face, that shouldve been a ****in red and we might have not been beaten 3-0 :grr:.. rant over.

[seanraff07]

why has the boy for st mirren not been given a hind-sight red card for his hand ball on the line v St johnstone?!?!?
cant punish one and not the others!?

Yep, and he was able to do that as the player wasn't booked.

[The_Sauz]

What about the player from Hamilton who hand balled on the line against Hibs (2-0 game)and was not booked or sent off, but the ref gave a penalty!
Will he now get a 1 game suspension :confused:

[SneakersO'Toole]

Another prime example of balloons that run our national governing body.

The entire system is flawed in so many ways.

[matty_f]

It was never a red card tackle in the first place, IMHO.

[Tyler Durden]

It was never a red card tackle in the first place, IMHO.

I actualy thought it was a red, but its a joke that's its been referred to this panel.

If Hibs are forced to present some case for defense, we should cite the example of Scott McDonald. Last season he was referred to this panel after his shocking challenge on Lee Wilkie (the one where Dougal told the injured Wilkie to simply get up!). However despite all the evidence the panel decided he had no case to answer. If he got away with it, so should Stokes. What are the chances though....