Serving bans concurrently

[macca70]

Lennons currently serving a 4 match ban for his behaviour, he rec'd another 4 match ban for his altercation with Super Sally.

Celtic have now released an official statement stating he will serve the bans concurrently.

What a complete farce, who's running Scottish football? Celtic or SFA?

SFA should be making it very clear that the bans must be served separately.

Celtic and Lennon ought to be getting hammered for this, what gives th the right to release an official statement, totally taking the Mickey out of the SFA.

And Rangers appeal McCoists 2 match ban, that was about the minimum he could get!! I'm guessing SFA now have to increase it for wasting there time as they did with Lennon!!

[easty]

Celtc are behaving exactly how you'd expect them to.

[Green_one]

What a complete farce, who's running Scottish football? Celtic or SFA?



Pretty clear it is probably the OF. Has been that way for a long time. The GFA does what suits the big boys in the West.


Its a conspiracy!!!

[CallumLaidlaw]

What an absolute farce!!
So, he is only serving one 4 match ban then, rather than both.

What a joke of a league we really are in!!:rolleyes:

[Part/Time Supporter]

Lennons currently serving a 4 match ban for his behaviour, he rec'd another 4 match ban for his altercation with Super Sally.

Celtic have now released an official statement stating he will serve the bans concurrently.

What a complete farce, who's running Scottish football? Celtic or SFA?

SFA should be making it very clear that the bans must be served separately.

Celtic and Lennon ought to be getting hammered for this, what gives th the right to release an official statement, totally taking the Mickey out of the SFA.

And Rangers appeal McCoists 2 match ban, that was about the minimum he could get!! I'm guessing SFA now have to increase it for wasting there time as they did with Lennon!!

The problem is that the SFA rules are ambiguous at best. They don't mention consecutive or concurrently anywhere. A literal interpretation of their rule book would support Celtic's view.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/DisciplineExplained/DisciplinaryProcedures/2%20DP-Club%20Officials%20(July%202010).pdf


7.0 Starting Date of Suspension
A suspension will be imposed from the 14th day following the date of the match when the misconduct
occurred.

[PeeKay]

The problem is that the SFA rules are ambiguous at best. They don't mention consecutive or concurrently anywhere. A literal interpretation of their rule book would support Celtic's view.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/DisciplineExplained/DisciplinaryProcedures/2%20DP-Club%20Officials%20(July%202010).pdf

:agree: The problem lies with the SFA and their outdated rule book. They are a bunch of amateurs who have not been fit for the job for quite a while now.

[Seveno]

Irrespective of the rules being badly framed or not, everyone knows how they are meant to operate. This is tantamount to cheating and has no place in sport.

Celtic clearly have no self-respect and deserve no respect from anyone with any interest in football.

[Pretty Boy]

:agree: The problem lies with the SFA and their outdated rule book. They are a bunch of amateurs who have not been fit for the job for quite a while now.

:agree:

I don't really blame Celtc at all. They are only interpreting an outdated, badly worded rule book in a way that suits them.

[JimBHibees]

:agree:

I don't really blame Celtc at all. They are only interpreting an outdated, badly worded rule book in a way that suits them.

Yep that guy McBride the Advocate they have now got working for them seems to be playing a blinder. Completely out of order though in terms of natural justice.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Yep that guy McBride the Advocate they have now got working for them seems to be playing a blinder. Completely out of order though in terms of natural justice.

Hibs have been doing something similar with Derek Adams' ban, presumably using Amanda Jones' expertise. Just it's not all over the papers because it's not the OF.

[s.a.m]

Irrespective of. rules being badly framed or not, everyone knows how they are meant to operate. This is tantamount to cheating and has no place in sport.

Celtic clearly have no self-respect and deserve no respect from anyone with any interest in football.

Completely with you here. It's a game, and when clubs start hunting through small-print for loop-holes, to avoid punishment for misdemeanours, then the game's in bother. If he had been hard-done by, then appealing an incorrect decision would be fair enough. But he wasn't. As far as the rules go, they obviously need tightenening, but they were written for the governance of a sporting activity, not the criminal justice system, and presumably could be said to operate under an assumption of consensus that the game needs rules, which are to be enforced with a set of sanctions. If the clubs don't like the wording of the rules, then they should work with the SFA to improve them

So there.

Celtc are bursting ma heid.:grr:

[JimBHibees]

Hibs have been doing something similar with Derek Adams' ban, presumably using Amanda Jones' expertise. Just it's not all over the papers because it's not the OF.

Yep agree.

[s.a.m]

Hibs have been doing something similar with Derek Adams' ban, presumably using Amanda Jones' expertise. Just it's not all over the papers because it's not the OF.

From what I can gather - and I admit I don't know much other than what I have read here - Derek Adams punishment was bizarre and disproportionate. If so, appealing that is a reasonable course of action, and doesn't seem contrary to sporting principles. If D.A. is actually guilty as charged, then my opinion would be that he should get on with doing the time. I would also want the club to make clear to him that they expected him to behave within the laws of the game.

[GreenPJ]

Irrespective of the rules being badly framed or not, everyone knows how they are meant to operate. This is tantamount to cheating and has no place in sport.

Celtic clearly have no self-respect and deserve no respect from anyone with any interest in football.

Rules and constitutions are written by the authorities to keep control, provide consistency and lay down the law. If they are not written well enough to allow Celtic to exercise a loop-hole then the problem lies with the authorities not Celtic.

Also I think that Rangers attempt to appeal McCoist's 2 game ban is far worse.

[s.a.m]

Rules and constitutions are written by the authorities to keep control, provide consistency and lay down the law. If they are not written well enough to allow Celtic to exercise a loop-hole then the problem lies with the authorities not Celtic.

Also I think that Rangers attempt to appeal McCoist's 2 game ban is far worse.

Indeed, and surely member clubs sign up to those rules? They're free to seek to change them, if they don't like them.:dunno: As it happens, I think the SFA could be a much better organisation than it is, but it's a game, and the rules - you would guess - would have been written with an assumption that they would be interpreted with sporting integrity, and not with intent to stick one up to the authorities, or to allow players and managers to subvert the rules.

I agree that Rangers have no business appealing McCoist's ban, but I'm struggling to see how it is far worse than the Lennon one?

[Removed]

Rules and constitutions are written by the authorities to keep control, provide consistency and lay down the law. If they are not written well enough to allow Celtic to exercise a loop-hole then the problem lies with the authorities not Celtic.

Also I think that Rangers attempt to appeal McCoist's 2 game ban is far worse.

Why? Sally is a coward but what did he actually do to justify a ban?

[Jim44]

Why? Sally is a coward but what did he actually do to justify a ban?

Difficult to prove unless both were questioned on their exact behaviour and what exactly was said, but I think it was clearly obvious that McCoist was the instigator of the incident and should have got a longer ban or at least the same as Lennon.

[IFONLY]

This kind of thing happens in the law courts every day they sit. People convicted of multiple crimes are given sentences on each count and then told that they will run concurrently. So what is the problem here.

[marinello59]

Difficult to prove unless both were questioned on their exact behaviour and what exactly was said, but I think it was clearly obvious that McCoist was the instigator of the incident and should have got a longer ban or at least the same as Lennon.

All he did was have a quiet word in Lennon's ear. Is that worthy of any punishment at all? If Lennon can't handle that it's not McCoist's fault.

[Removed]

Difficult to prove unless both were questioned on their exact behaviour and what exactly was said, but I think it was clearly obvious that McCoist was the instigator of the incident and should have got a longer ban or at least the same as Lennon.

Don't agree. So he said something. So what. It was Lennon that reacted angrily. Who knows apart from them what was said. What next, getting a ban for a funny look?

Now we all know that McCoist was being clever and looking for a reaction, and it worked. Lennon took the bait. If that was a Hibs member of staff we would be going radge and rightly so imo.

[Woody1985]

This kind of thing happens in the law courts every day they sit. People convicted of multiple crimes are given sentences on each count and then told that they will run concurrently. So what is the problem here.

They should both run consecutively so both are wrong from a morale perspective.

[Removed]

They should both run consecutively so both are wrong from a morale perspective.

:agree:

[s.a.m]

Difficult to prove unless both were questioned on their exact behaviour and what exactly was said, but I think it was clearly obvious that McCoist was the instigator of the incident and should have got a longer ban or at least the same as Lennon.

Is Lennon's ban length not longer because he's been done already this season?

[Jim44]

Is Lennon's ban length not longer because he's been done already this season?

I'm not so sure that they take your 'previous' into account when applying a fresh ban.

[Westie1875]

I'm not so sure that they take your 'previous' into account when applying a fresh ban.

They do, this is why Yogi was banned for something stupid like 6 or 8 games last season.

[Removed]

I'm not so sure that they take your 'previous' into account when applying a fresh ban.

Logical that they do imo. Previous sanction obviously hasn't worked.

[s.a.m]

I'm not so sure that they take your 'previous' into account when applying a fresh ban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9421620.stm

[clerriehibs]

Yep that guy McBride the Advocate they have now got working for them seems to be playing a blinder. Completely out of order though in terms of natural justice.

Seems like this McBride QC wants it to kick off when the ref tries to send Lennon to the stand next time they think he should be in the dug out. Hardly responsible lawyer speak.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/celtic/9427235.stm

[Part/Time Supporter]

This kind of thing happens in the law courts every day they sit. People convicted of multiple crimes are given sentences on each count and then told that they will run concurrently. So what is the problem here.

Normal practice in football is that the total suspension is served.

eg if a player was suspended for yellow card accumulation, under SFA rules that would take 14 days to kick in. If he was then sent off in a game in the meantime the suspension from the red card would be tacked on to the original suspension, he wouldn't serve two suspensions at the same time.

Celtic are trying to wriggle out of Lennon's suspension early by applying a literal interpretation of the rulebook. There are other ways of interpreting it, that will be up to the judge who decides one way or the other. Celtic are sounding uber-confident because the rulebook, taken literally, is on their side, but it will be up to the judge. That is assuming both sides pursue the case as far as possible, as seems likely now.

Literal interpretation is the primary way of following law, but only if the law is clear. The SFA will point out in any case that the rulebook does not specify whether bans should be served concurrently or consecutively (which it doesn't) and therefore isn't clear.

http://legal-directory.net/english-law/interpretation-literal-rule.htm


The literal rule is strongly criticised by many lawyers. It has been said to be ‘….a rule against using intelligence in understanding language. Anyone who in ordinary life interpreted words literally, being indifferent to what the speaker or writer meant, would be regarded as a pedant, a mischief-maker or an idiot’.

Sentiments that could be applied to Celtic this season.

:greengrin

[snooky]

This kind of thing happens in the law courts every day they sit. People convicted of multiple crimes are given sentences on each count and then told that they will run concurrently. So what is the problem here.

Brilliant! I'm going down to the store and buy a loaf of bread (£1) and a bottle of milk (£1) and pay for them concurrently.
Here's my £1, Mr Shopkeeper.
:wink:

[lapsedhibee]

Brilliant! I'm going down to the store and buy a loaf of bread (£1) and a bottle of milk (£1) and pay for them concurrently.
Here's my £1, Mr Shopkeeper.
:wink:

I think you may have hit on how the yams continue to stay afloat (although in their case it's not paying for things concurrently, rather than paying for them concurrently). :agree:

[Moulin Yarns]

Normal practice in football is that the total suspension is served.

eg if a player was suspended for yellow card accumulation, under SFA rules that would take 14 days to kick in. If he was then sent off in a game in the meantime the suspension from the red card would be tacked on to the original suspension, he wouldn't serve two suspensions at the same time.

Celtic are trying to wriggle out of Lennon's suspension early by applying a literal interpretation of the rulebook. There are other ways of interpreting it, that will be up to the judge who decides one way or the other. Celtic are sounding uber-confident because the rulebook, taken literally, is on their side, but it will be up to the judge. That is assuming both sides pursue the case as far as possible, as seems likely now.

Literal interpretation is the primary way of following law, but only if the law is clear. The SFA will point out in any case that the rulebook does not specify whether bans should be served concurrently or consecutively (which it doesn't) and therefore isn't clear.

http://legal-directory.net/english-law/interpretation-literal-rule.htm



Sentiments that could be applied to Celtic this season.

:greengrin


Agree totally with that. I think when the SFA rules on suspension were written it was assumed that the punishment would be enough to discourage the constant misbehaviour that is now common place.

Celtic also have used the appeal system to delay the ban, which if it had occurred when it was meant to, would now have passed and the 'concurrent' argument would not have been an issue.

Lennon should take his punishment like a man, except he is just wee boy.

[CallumLaidlaw]

It is the whole arrogance of the piece. You can almost hear the smugness of the lawyer when he says that the ban will start after 14 days.

And as previously said, the way he is trying to incite a scene by advising Lennon to take to the dugout when they feel the ban is up, is shoddy. Totally disrespectful.

Ok, maybe the rules arent written in a great way, BUT, it is quite obvious that any ban would tag on to the current one, and I think if previous managers bans have been served like this, that sets a precedant, does it not?

[Danderhall Hibs]

Is Lennon's 2nd 4 match ban for reacting angrily to McCoist's comments? Seems a bit harsh to me if it is - no wonder they're appealing it.

[CallumLaidlaw]

Is Lennon's 2nd 4 match ban for reacting angrily to McCoist's comments? Seems a bit harsh to me if it is - no wonder they're appealing it.

They're not appealing it. And it would only be a 2 match ban like McCoists, but he is getting a stronger punishment as he has obviously not learned his lesson.
Thing is, Lennon had an incident with Diouf during the game as well, so that may also be included.

[Danderhall Hibs]

They're not appealing it. And it would only be a 2 match ban like McCoists, but he is getting a stronger punishment as he has obviously not learned his lesson.
Thing is, Lennon had an incident with Diouf during the game as well, so that may also be included.

I'd appeal it if I was them - managers and players react angrily every week. We'll have no managers in the dugouts if we "apply the rules".

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Logical that they do imo. Previous sanction obviously hasn't worked.

Logical but then again oftenthe law is an ass

[Seveno]

Brilliant! I'm going down to the store and buy a loaf of bread (£1) and a bottle of milk (£1) and pay for them concurrently.
Here's my £1, Mr Shopkeeper.
:wink:

Aberdeen have asked if the goals scored against them in the 9-0 defeat can be taken concurrently, so they only really lost 1-0. Ouch, bit sore on the Goal Difference.