PDA

View Full Version : Media SFA farce: Derek Adams banned for six matches, Huns get off scot free (merged)



Greentinted
12-04-2011, 04:37 PM
STV reporting Derek Adams hit with a 6 week ban.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/hibernian/243301-hibs-assistant-adams-given-lengthy-touchline-ban/

Hibbie_Cameron
12-04-2011, 04:44 PM
He should have attacked a member of the other teams coaching staff or started a riot on the pitch. He would have escaped punishment

Golden Bear
12-04-2011, 04:45 PM
For once I agree with the QC (Paul Mcbride I think?) who represents Celtic.

He has stated that the SFA are biased and disfunctional following their decisions today re the Old Firm games.

Derek Adams ban just reinforces what he said.

just_joe
12-04-2011, 04:45 PM
He should have attacked a member of the other teams coaching staff or started a riot on the pitch. He would have escaped punishment

Amen mate! :agree:

JimBHibees
12-04-2011, 04:45 PM
Yet McCoist gets his 2 match ban overturned and Diouff and Bougherra get £2k and £5k fines (that will show them), one of whom was physically stopping the ref from raising a red card in a match. Seems fair enough. :rolleyes:

Geo_1875
12-04-2011, 04:49 PM
McCoist said he was glad the committee listened to what he had to say. I wonder if they got to hear what he said to Lennon? What a complete farce. I wonder if the First Minister has something to say about this.

Greentinted
12-04-2011, 04:50 PM
I initially deferred expressing an opinion but frankly its a nonsense, particularly in light of the latest episodes in the soap(dodging) opera involving the bigots.

derek1875hfc
12-04-2011, 04:53 PM
http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/hibernian/243301-hibs-assistant-adams-given-lengthy-touchline-ban/

Adams further ban of six games while rancid trio get off

Baldy Foghorn
12-04-2011, 04:53 PM
Yet McCoist gets his 2 match ban overturned and Diouff and Bougherra get £2k and £5k fines (that will show them), one of whom was physically stopping the ref from raising a red card in a match. Seems fair enough. :rolleyes:

SFA what a national joke

Baldy Foghorn
12-04-2011, 04:54 PM
McCoist said he was glad the committee listened to what he had to say. I wonder if they got to hear what he said to Lennon? What a complete farce. I wonder if the First Minister has something to say about this.

Maybe wee jambo Salmond will waste another half a million pounds, having a summit between Hibs and Hearts.....

HibsMax
12-04-2011, 04:58 PM
I saw this story on the Scotsman website earlier today, they were suggesting he might get an 8-match ban. Compared with other bans handed down recently this seems a little cock-eyed to me. But I'm not surprised.

SteveHFC
12-04-2011, 05:06 PM
What are joke. Adams gets banned but McCoist doesn't.

Pretty Boy
12-04-2011, 05:06 PM
The SFA yet again showing they are a professional, fit for purpose, modern, impartial and progressive governing body with the best interests of our nnational sport at heart.:rolleyes:

The fact it has taken them this long to rule on an incident that happened in January says it all for me.

Westie1875
12-04-2011, 05:09 PM
Did I miss Derek Adams physically attacking an opposition player, manager or an official? What on earth has he allegedly done to get a 6 match ban?

The SFA are an utter joke and yes, they are biased in the extreme - can Hibs do anything further to fight this and make a point? I thought we had a lawyer on the board?

Black Kyle
12-04-2011, 05:16 PM
Just proves the pro-Rangers bias of the SFA and their anti-green agenda. All brothers together down the ML or OL?

Let's become paranoid and deluded just like the wee team we helped start all those years ago. :wink:

bingo70
12-04-2011, 05:16 PM
The SFA yet again showing they are a professional, fit for purpose, modern, impartial and progressive governing body with the best interests of our nnational sport at heart.:rolleyes:

The fact it has taken them this long to rule on an incident that happened in January says it all for me.

Great point....shambles



Did I miss Derek Adams physically attacking an opposition player, manager or an official? What on earth has he allegedly done to get a 6 match ban?

The SFA are an utter joke and yes, they are biased in the extreme - can Hibs do anything further to fight this and make a point? I thought we had a lawyer on the board?

I think the argument is that this is Mccoists first offence while Adams was in bother a lot least season and had already been given a few warnings.

Not saying that makes it alright but think that'd be the SFA's logic, forgetting the old firm for a second though if he does have a problem with his discipline on the touchline lets hope he learns from this punishment and cuts it out, last thing i want is any of our management team behaving like Neil Lennon on the touchline, used to do my head in when Mixu lost the plot arguing with managers and officials, lacks class, expect that sort of thing from FJK.

Hibbyradge
12-04-2011, 05:22 PM
Adams is a serial offender against referees, I'm afraid.

I don't know any other manager or assistant who has been in as much trouble as often he has.

bingo70
12-04-2011, 05:24 PM
Adams is a serial offender against referees, I'm afraid.

I don't know any other manager or assistant who has been in as much trouble as often he has.

I thought the same but STV news just said he's been sent to the stand four times in three seasons so a six game ban seems awful harsh for that sort of a record.

Argylehibby
12-04-2011, 05:27 PM
What are joke. Adams gets banned but McCoist doesn't.

Certainly dont want to appear as pro either of the OF but what exactly did McCoist do wrong? I dont think there is any rule that says you cant whisper sweet nothings in the opposition managers lug. If Lennon didn't react there was no offence so why is there one just because he did react?

On Adams it is strange that there is a large report in the papers saying he doesnt swear yet he is found guilty of that very crime. Either his "I don't swear" story is bending the truth or the officials are making it up. Does anyone know what the previous 3 offences were for?

bingo70
12-04-2011, 05:30 PM
Certainly dont want to appear as pro either of the OF but what exactly did McCoist do wrong? I dont think there is any rule that says you cant whisper sweet nothings in the opposition managers lug. If Lennon didn't react there was no offence so why is there one just because he did react?

On Adams it is strange that there is a large report in the papers saying he doesnt swear yet he is found guilty of that very crime. Either his "I don't swear" story is bending the truth or the officials are making it up. Does anyone know what the previous 3 offences were for?

Provocation :dunno:

I suppose unless they knew or could prove exactly what he said then there wouldn't be a lot the could do.

The_Sauz
12-04-2011, 05:31 PM
I remember Bobby Thompson (in the 80's) got sent off for touching the linesman and got banned for 4 weeks (I think)
The SFA are a disgrace to Scottish football (except the OF)

Hibs Class
12-04-2011, 05:36 PM
Great point....shambles




I think the argument is that this is Mccoists first offence while Adams was in bother a lot least season and had already been given a few warnings.

Not saying that makes it alright but think that'd be the SFA's logic, forgetting the old firm for a second though if he does have a problem with his discipline on the touchline lets hope he learns from this punishment and cuts it out, last thing i want is any of our management team behaving like Neil Lennon on the touchline, used to do my head in when Mixu lost the plot arguing with managers and officials, lacks class, expect that sort of thing from FJK.

I don't think that's the case. If it was then McCoist would have still been found guilty but then shown leniency in the punishment. As far as I can see he has been found not guilty of misconduct.

I'm_cabbaged
12-04-2011, 05:37 PM
I remember Bobby Thompson (in the 80's) got sent off for touching the linesman and got banned for 4 weeks (I think)
The SFA are a disgrace to Scottish football (except the OF)

Was it no more like 4 months?

Dunbar Hibee
12-04-2011, 05:50 PM
F*** the SFA

Pretty Boy
12-04-2011, 05:54 PM
Certainly dont want to appear as pro either of the OF but what exactly did McCoist do wrong? I dont think there is any rule that says you cant whisper sweet nothings in the opposition managers lug. If Lennon didn't react there was no offence so why is there one just because he did react?

On Adams it is strange that there is a large report in the papers saying he doesnt swear yet he is found guilty of that very crime. Either his "I don't swear" story is bending the truth or the officials are making it up. Does anyone know what the previous 3 offences were for?

Because thats never happened before has it? Maybe Dougie MacDonald can answer that for us.

CropleyWasGod
12-04-2011, 05:55 PM
F*** the SFA

Thank you for that comment, Derek. :greengrin

Rougier45
12-04-2011, 05:55 PM
Ridiculous Huns get 3sent off-manhandle the referee and all walk away-no action on sectarian singing -it stinks-the Huns stink scotlands sectarian shame_

Future17
12-04-2011, 05:58 PM
Certainly dont want to appear as pro either of the OF but what exactly did McCoist do wrong? I dont think there is any rule that says you cant whisper sweet nothings in the opposition managers lug. If Lennon didn't react there was no offence so why is there one just because he did react?

On Adams it is strange that there is a large report in the papers saying he doesnt swear yet he is found guilty of that very crime. Either his "I don't swear" story is bending the truth or the officials are making it up. Does anyone know what the previous 3 offences were for?

I was curious about this as well.

On the Adams issue, it was Calderwood who has been saying DA doesn't swear and apparently the comment was made about a Motherwell player, not directed at any officials. Seems strange but that's the SFA for you - not fit for purpose.

Westie1875
12-04-2011, 06:04 PM
I was curious about this as well.

On the Adams issue, it was Calderwood who has been saying DA doesn't swear and apparently the comment was made about a Motherwell player, not directed at any officials. Seems strange but that's the SFA for you - not fit for purpose.

Alan Preston has just said exactly the same thing on radio Scotland, seemed very confident in what he was saying as well.

3pm
12-04-2011, 06:15 PM
Register him as a player and put him on the bench! :o)

CropleyWasGod
12-04-2011, 06:21 PM
Devil's Advocate smiley.... was DA actually banned for swearing?

One can be pretty offensive without swearing. "Your mother performs fellatio on donkeys" for one.... :greengrin

Simply calling someone a cheat, particularly a ref, is enough to get you sent off.

gorgie_harp
12-04-2011, 07:30 PM
Just proves the pro-Rangers bias of the SFA and their anti-green agenda. All brothers together down the ML or OL?

Let's become paranoid and deluded just like the wee team we helped start all those years ago. :wink:

:agree: Why not?
****ing joke

Part/Time Supporter
12-04-2011, 07:43 PM
Devil's Advocate smiley.... was DA actually banned for swearing?

One can be pretty offensive without swearing. "Your mother performs fellatio on donkeys" for one.... :greengrin

Simply calling someone a cheat, particularly a ref, is enough to get you sent off.

That's what CC said after the game in question.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/hibernian/9372058.stm


But Calderwood said: "The frustration is for him, because what he's been accused of doing, he hasn't done."

Former Ross County manager Adams was ordered to the stand by referee Alan Muir on the advice of fourth official Kevin Clancy for what Calderwood was informed was foul and abusive language towards the referee.

But Calderwood pointed out that Adams does not swear and that his comments were directed towards a Motherwell player.

There was no reason for him to be sent off on Saturday and that's the thing that is irritable

"It backs on to what has happened to him before," explained the Hibs boss.

"There was no reason for him to be sent off on Saturday and that's the thing that is irritable.

"It's the wrong call. It wasn't an instant, instant decision. There was plenty of time to have a thought process about it.

"It's not something that happens in the heat of the moment. It was the fourth official's decision to bring the referee over and then tell him what he's alleged to have said."

Something doesn't add up here.

Biggie
12-04-2011, 08:44 PM
The balls burst with scottish football....absolute joke decision...as others have said the old firm cause riots, sing sectarian songs, manhandle refs and next to nothing gets done. Our man allegedly says something the 4th official hears and suddenly a 6 game ban ?!..wtf ?....scottish fa rotten to the core.

Bishop Hibee
12-04-2011, 08:45 PM
The lack of transparency from the SFA is what annoys me. The reason Adams was sent to the stand was foul and abusive language. Doesn't mean he swore imo but the SFA should make a statement telling everyone what Adams said.

The lack of consistency from the SFA is nothing new. Bobby Thomson, Hibs striker, got a 6 month ban for pushing over a linesman. Bougherra gets a small fine for manhandling the official twice. Surely a longer match ban is justified as he has had numerous suspensions already. Farce.

As for McCoist getting off with it, why can't they tell us what he said, what Lennon said and what they both say each other said!

SFA, not just incompetent and corrupt but also condoning bigotry by inaction for over 100 years.

Removed
12-04-2011, 08:48 PM
The balls burst with scottish football....absolute joke decision...as others have said the old firm cause riots, sing sectarian songs, manhandle refs and next to nothing gets done. Our man allegedly says something the 4th official hears and suddenly a 6 game ban ?!..wtf ?....scottish fa rotten to the core.

You mean he never grabbed someone by the throat on the field of play, attacked an opposing manager or came out in the papers calling the SFA corrupt :confused:

J-C
12-04-2011, 08:53 PM
What are joke. Adams gets banned but McCoist doesn't.



Although I don't agree with Adam's 6 games, McCoist on the other hand did nothing apart from whisper in radge Lennon's ear, no one knows what he said but it was Lennon's reaction that got his ban, McCoist was only fending off Lennon.

Jonnyboy
12-04-2011, 08:58 PM
I remember Bobby Thompson (in the 80's) got sent off for touching the linesman and got banned for 4 weeks (I think)
The SFA are a disgrace to Scottish football (except the OF)

Technically correct if lacking a bit in detail :wink: He nearly put the guy over the wall into the enclosure


Was it no more like 4 months?

:agree:

Hibs Class
12-04-2011, 09:01 PM
Technically correct if lacking a bit in detail :wink: He nearly put the guy over the wall into the enclosure



:agree:

That was just his momentum - he went across to query a decision and as he'd run from the opposite side of the pitch just couldn't stop. :greengrin

Tyler Durden
12-04-2011, 09:03 PM
To go back only 5 years or so, Mikolauinis got a 5 game ban for shoving the lino. Bougherra gets zip for a double offence in one game. Justice is served.

The SFA system of punishments rolling over from season to season to increase penalties is ridiculous. But it only gets any media attention when it impacts an OF player and the papers go daft for a few weeks.

I'm_cabbaged
12-04-2011, 09:04 PM
Technically correct if lacking a bit in detail :wink: He nearly put the guy over the wall into the enclosure



:agree:

For not giving an offside decision when Arthur Duncan was lying sparkled against Partick if IRC.

Jonnyboy
12-04-2011, 09:04 PM
That was just his momentum - he went across to query a decision and as he'd run from the opposite side of the pitch just couldn't stop. :greengrin

:greengrin

Sir David Gray
12-04-2011, 09:05 PM
I can understand why McCoist has had his appeal upheld if I'm being honest. OK, he's obviously said something a bit cheeky to Lennon for Lennon to have reacted like that but it's really a case of McCoist's word against Lennon's and no-one else really knows what was said.

Everyone saw what Lennon did in response, he can't hide that.

As for Bougherra, however, he should have had the book thrown at him for manhandling the referee. His behaviour that night was disgraceful and I can't believe that he's been let off with a token fine and a stern warning.

Diouf should also have been banned for failing to leave the pitch when he was red carded after the full time whistle.

PC Stamp
12-04-2011, 09:12 PM
Who are the witnesses here? Or is it simply the Asst Refs word against Derek Adams?

Probably a kangaroo court.

Seanair
12-04-2011, 09:16 PM
Maybe wee jambo Salmond will waste another half a million pounds, having a summit between Hibs and Hearts.....


Eh?:confused:

FranckSuzy
12-04-2011, 09:16 PM
Can Hibs not get the hot-shot lawyers involved who sorted out the last ban :confused:

Manxhibs
12-04-2011, 09:46 PM
I know I shouldn't be shocked by this because it's been standard practice since the dawn of time but this absolutely stinks of corruptness and even to outsiders it must look odd to say the least. SFA are quickly overtaking both of the bigot brothers as my most hated organization, mild rant over!

greenginger
12-04-2011, 09:54 PM
The 4th official was a Kevin Clancy. I can't think it was anything we've done to p!ss him off. I wonder if there's been previous with him and Adams. :confused:

Kato
12-04-2011, 10:01 PM
For not giving an offside decision when Arthur Duncan was lying sparkled against Partick if IRC.

...we were only four-nil up. He had every right to be angry.

EasterRoad4Ever
13-04-2011, 05:06 AM
Yet McCoist gets his 2 match ban overturned and Diouff and Bougherra get £2k and £5k fines (that will show them), one of whom was physically stopping the ref from raising a red card in a match. Seems fair enough. :rolleyes:

It was the ref's own fault. Should have gone down :wink:

Smiggy 7-0
13-04-2011, 06:16 AM
What about Lennon's rant on the touchline/pitch and use of choice language as mentioned by the ESPN commentator on last night's match.

Danderhall Hibs
13-04-2011, 06:58 AM
It was the ref's own fault. Should have gone down :wink:

:agree: :greengrin The referee should know - if you don't fall down you don't get the foul. I mean "he had every right to do down, there was slight contact" after all. :rolleyes:

hibeeleicester
13-04-2011, 07:13 AM
Maybe this is a decision agreed by Hibs.

His ban was supposed to be something ridiculous (18 games?), Hibs obviously wanted rid of this, but maybe the SFA were not budging.

So Hibs come back with a proposal to the SFA to reduce it to 6 games. SFA agree then Hibs are winners.

The 6 games that DA will miss are all pretty pointless games. This may also give DA a chance to have a look at a few players/U19's before the season finishes.

Jim44
13-04-2011, 08:53 AM
Now that the SFA in it's infinite wisdom, has declared that McCoist was the innocent party in the feud with Lennon, I trust they will reconsider Lennon's role and slap another 4 or 8 match ban on the person they have (wrongly) judged to be the sole villain of the peace. :devil:

johnrebus
13-04-2011, 09:17 AM
To an outsider this looks like a tit for tat decision against Celtic for their smartarse response to the Lennon ban - digging up the rule book to insist the suspensions ran concurrently (5 game ban), not consecutivly (8 game ban), and for that reason I'm quite happy that the Tims are wound up about it all.

On the other hand it does prove once and for all that there is a bias in favour of the Huns.

It really is depressing.

:brickwall

Exiled Hibby
13-04-2011, 09:30 AM
they've obviously done it because Lennon managed to manipulate the rules to serve his bans at the same time and make the SFA look like the eejits they are.
what is even worse is the tiny slap on the wrist that Bhougera and Diouf got.:confused:

Keith_M
13-04-2011, 09:38 AM
Maybe this is a decision agreed by Hibs.

His ban was supposed to be something ridiculous (18 games?), Hibs obviously wanted rid of this, but maybe the SFA were not budging.

So Hibs come back with a proposal to the SFA to reduce it to 6 games. SFA agree then Hibs are winners.

The 6 games that DA will miss are all pretty pointless games. This may also give DA a chance to have a look at a few players/U19's before the season finishes.


Good theory, but you've missed out the SFA conspiracy part, so can only give you 4 out of 10.


:wink:

Groathillgrump
13-04-2011, 09:46 AM
To an outsider this looks like a tit for tat decision against Celtic for their smartarse response to the Lennon ban - digging up the rule book to insist the suspensions ran concurrently (5 game ban), not consecutivly (8 game ban), and for that reason I'm quite happy that the Tims are wound up about it all.

On the other hand it does prove once and for all that there is a bias in favour of the Huns.

It really is depressing.

:brickwall

Have to disagree with that statement. Celtic have made a rod for their own back with their conspiracy theories and their constant challenging of any perceived injustice. The SFA have taken the opportunity to slap Celtic down to show them that the they run Scottish football, not Celtic. Yesterday's decisions certainly looked like a big GIRFUY from the SFA.

It's a question that's been asked before but I'll ask it again - how could Celtic have won nine titles in a row during the 60s and 70s if the SFA and the referees were biased against them? And how many times have we left a match against Celtic (or Rangers for that matter) feeling robbed after dodgy refereeing decisions in their favour? It's human nature to think that the world is against you when things don't go your way but Celtic have taken that sense of injustice to new levels.

bod
13-04-2011, 10:07 AM
super sally was quite clever in whispering in gingers ear then not reponding.
Its not seltics fault the SFA cant word things correctly if it was hibs disputing the same ban i would be quite pleased they got 1 over on the beaks.

johnrebus
13-04-2011, 10:10 AM
Have to disagree with that statement. Celtic have made a rod for their own back with their conspiracy theories and their constant challenging of any perceived injustice. The SFA have taken the opportunity to slap Celtic down to show them that the they run Scottish football, not Celtic. Yesterday's decisions certainly looked like a big GIRFUY from the SFA.

It's a question that's been asked before but I'll ask it again - how could Celtic have won nine titles in a row during the 60s and 70s if the SFA and the referees were biased against them? And how many times have we left a match against Celtic (or Rangers for that matter) feeling robbed after dodgy refereeing decisions in their favour? It's human nature to think that the world is against you when things don't go your way but Celtic have taken that sense of injustice to new levels.


So why then, if there is no bias in Rangers favour, was Bougheera given a derisory fine and no ban, for manhandling a referee?

:confused:

zlatan
13-04-2011, 10:27 AM
they've obviously done it because Lennon managed to manipulate the rules to serve his bans at the same time and make the SFA look like the eejits they are.

I remember reading an article from some Celtic fan saying Hibs had got a lawyer to go over all Adams discipline at Ross County and managed to get a huge chunk of bans quashed through SFA incompetence being exploited. Wonder if that's how he ended up with the recent ban he got as well.

The_Sauz
13-04-2011, 10:34 AM
Was it no more like 4 months?
Found this
"Hibs striker Bobby Thomson was banned for six months for hitting a linesman during a match against St Johnstone in the 1980s,

6 MONTHS :grr:
And the Rangers pair are ask to handover their loose change!!

GreenPJ
13-04-2011, 10:40 AM
So why then, if there is no bias in Rangers favour, was Bougheera given a derisory fine and no ban, for manhandling a referee?

:confused:

I think yesterday's farce did not prove bias, it just showed very poor judgement. Bias would have been proven if Lennon had appealed and failed. He didn't because they were using the loophole of running the ban concurrently with an existing ban so until he asks for an appeal of a ban that has already been served I think it can't be defined as bias.

I do wonder if part of the issue is that they realise after Grandpa Broon (who is a good Largs man) had his wee hissy fit at Firpark he too would have been subject to a ban if they had kept the McCoist ban in place.

As for Bougherra and Diouf maybe the SFA have just realised how bad their referees are (even although they were both sending off's) and decided they would wave the ban :devil:

Matty_Jack04
13-04-2011, 10:42 AM
So why then, if there is no bias in Rangers favour, was Bougheera given a derisory fine and no ban, for manhandling a referee?

:confused:

exactly what im mystified about, the yam lith got taken to the cleaners for his manhandling of a linesman quite correctly aswel IMO but where does our game sit when punishments for offences differ to what team ur playing for?

and another thing that peeves me right off is how come wayne rooney can be dragged in front of the FA banned appeal heard and decision made regarding his tv camera outburst in the same week as the offence takes place but our mob are still on about this game that happened over a month ago??

not fit to run our game IMO all thats bad with it aswell

The_Sauz
13-04-2011, 10:43 AM
Technically correct if lacking a bit in detail :wink: He nearly put the guy over the wall into the enclosure



:agree:
Well you are a lot older than me, so you will remember better :na na:

millarco
13-04-2011, 10:45 AM
Only Celtc can claim a conspiracy despite their own finance director being the vice chairman of the SFA disciplinary committee.

Aldo
13-04-2011, 11:12 AM
Was listening to some of sportsound last night and Allan Preston was making comment about Adams ban for swearing at the ref/4th Official. Preston stated that Adams does not swear and is probably the only member of management or their staff that doesnt.

Sorry buut is their a conspiracy theory??? I would say a different rule for each of the OF and one for the rest.
Break away from the SFA and form our own assoc.

Dinkydoo
13-04-2011, 11:28 AM
Getting really ****ing fed up with the SFA and thier OF bias.

Does anyone know of an official channel that fans can complain through?

soproni1
13-04-2011, 11:30 AM
Have to disagree with that statement. Celtic have made a rod for their own back with their conspiracy theories and their constant challenging of any perceived injustice. The SFA have taken the opportunity to slap Celtic down to show them that the they run Scottish football, not Celtic. Yesterday's decisions certainly looked like a big GIRFUY from the SFA.

It's a question that's been asked before but I'll ask it again - how could Celtic have won nine titles in a row during the 60s and 70s if the SFA and the referees were biased against them? And how many times have we left a match against Celtic (or Rangers for that matter) feeling robbed after dodgy refereeing decisions in their favour? It's human nature to think that the world is against you when things don't go your way but Celtic have taken that sense of injustice to new levels.


Not sure how that becomes relevant when its a different club's disciplinary hearing (regardless who their opponents/rivals are).

I always wanted to dismiss the thought of bias within the SFA (towards any club/player/manager), but I think they have now shown that this is wishful thinking. A bit sad that this goes on anywhere let alone in a league as underfunded and generally uninteresting as ours

IanM
13-04-2011, 11:32 AM
Adams is a serial offender against referees, I'm afraid.

I don't know any other manager or assistant who has been in as much trouble as often he has.

exactly - lead by example.. hibs should be fining him too

Hibs Class
13-04-2011, 11:37 AM
I think yesterday's farce did not prove bias, it just showed very poor judgement. Bias would have been proven if Lennon had appealed and failed. He didn't because they were using the loophole of running the ban concurrently with an existing ban so until he asks for an appeal of a ban that has already been served I think it can't be defined as bias.

I do wonder if part of the issue is that they realise after Grandpa Broon (who is a good Largs man) had his wee hissy fit at Firpark he too would have been subject to a ban if they had kept the McCoist ban in place.

As for Bougherra and Diouf maybe the SFA have just realised how bad their referees are (even although they were both sending off's) and decided they would wave the ban :devil:

Would that be right? It seemed to me that it was Boyle who behaved like McCoist (a wee cuddle and a quiet word) whilst it was Brown who behaved like Lennon (lost it). I'd reckon on Brown still getting a ban.

GreenPJ
13-04-2011, 11:47 AM
Would that be right? It seemed to me that it was Boyle who behaved like McCoist (a wee cuddle and a quiet word) whilst it was Brown who behaved like Lennon (lost it). I'd reckon on Brown still getting a ban.

If I was a betting man I would wager they will both get a ticking off and that will be it.

As I say I think the issue here is ultiametly for Lennon to appeal (even although he has served the ban) and that way it will prove if there is bias and at least then set a precedent for future offences.

Jones28
13-04-2011, 12:47 PM
Proof (if any more were needed) that they are all Huns in disguise :agree:

Adams says a few nasty sweary words and gets 6 games, Boogera (not wirth the effort of trying to spell it right :wink:), Diouf and Mccoist get nothing for assault?

GIUY Scottish (most) Farcical Association

Hibernia Na Eir
13-04-2011, 02:33 PM
Whats the use in complaining??

Rangers are the SFA. The SFA are Rangers. :agree:

End of.

discman
13-04-2011, 05:42 PM
Getting really ****ing fed up with the SFA and thier OF bias.

Does anyone know of an official channel that fans can complain through?


You could try our chairman whose been on the board of the SFA for the last 10 years. He also been on various working parties one in march 2007 was: Disciplinary Procedures Working Party fourth item on the agenda: A Review of the Procedures for managers and coaches misconduct.

In 2010 attended 7 out of possible 9 board meetings, 3General Purpose meetings
and 3 meetings as Chaiman of the licensing committee.

My point is hes in with the bricks and would know why DA got the ban,however am guessing were going to hear zip as transparency isnt one of the SFA'S strong points! :greengrin

EasterRoad4Ever
13-04-2011, 05:47 PM
Now the refs are threatening strike action because of the brazen idiocy of the SFA. No right-minded individual, fan or media commentator can fathom the decision - it is wrong on so many levels. SFA and scottish football are a laughing stock and arguably more corrupt than Italian Football. The SFA have brought the game into disrepute and have added themselves to the shame of the OF.

Sadly, it just means that when the next "provincial" club steps out of line, the SFA will flex their corrupt muscle and throw the book at them - just show how toigh they can be.

High time UEFA were brought in to run our game, and foreign refs reintroduced.

The Harp Awakes
13-04-2011, 08:35 PM
Whats the use in complaining??

Rangers are the SFA. The SFA are Rangers. :agree:

End of.

Yes, and they are about to be found out big time.

Their decision not to issue bans to Bougherra and Diouff will be the final nail in their coffin. That decision is an absolute disgrace and basically signals to everyone playing schoolboy, amateur or professional football in Scotland that manhandling a referee carries the same punishment (a red card) as a tackle denying a goalscoring opportunity.

What a bunch of muppets.

Iggy Pope
13-04-2011, 08:46 PM
You could try our chairman whose been on the board of the SFA for the last 10 years. He also been on various working parties one in march 2007 was: Disciplinary Procedures Working Party fourth item on the agenda: A Review of the Procedures for managers and coaches misconduct.

In 2010 attended 7 out of possible 9 board meetings, 3General Purpose meetings
and 3 meetings as Chaiman of the licensing committee.

My point is hes in with the bricks and would know why DA got the ban,however am guessing were going to hear zip as transparency isnt one of the SFA'S strong points! :greengrin

If my experience of SAFA hearings is much to go by (and the principle is the same), Petrie would have to step down from the dealings in the Derek Adams case.
Thats not to say he won't know about it, but he will never be in a position to go public.

Iggy Pope
13-04-2011, 08:50 PM
Technically correct if lacking a bit in detail :wink: He nearly put the guy over the wall into the enclosure



:agree:

That's nowhere near accurate Jonny. It was a bit of finger in his face at best and the punishment never came close to matching the crime.

weecounty hibby
13-04-2011, 08:57 PM
That's nowhere near accurate Jonny. It was a bit of finger in his face at best and the punishment never came close to matching the crime.
My recollection of that incident is the same as Jonnyboy in that Bobby ran from one side of the pitch to the other and shoved the linesman. Was definitely more than a finger wagging and deserved a red card but his ban was rediculous. We were winning easy at the time as well and was just Thomson at his maddest.

Dinkydoo
14-04-2011, 09:23 AM
You could try our chairman whose been on the board of the SFA for the last 10 years. He also been on various working parties one in march 2007 was: Disciplinary Procedures Working Party fourth item on the agenda: A Review of the Procedures for managers and coaches misconduct.

In 2010 attended 7 out of possible 9 board meetings, 3General Purpose meetings
and 3 meetings as Chaiman of the licensing committee.

My point is hes in with the bricks and would know why DA got the ban,however am guessing were going to hear zip as transparency isnt one of the SFA'S strong points! :greengrin

I was more or less thinking over and above the SFA.........UEFA?

I doubt we'd ever hear (no matter who you went to at the SFA) anything near to the truth around why DA has been given such a lengthy ban in contrast to the wee slap on the wrist both sides of the OF enjoy year after year for what appears to be, much more serious incidents.

It's become tiresome; and blatently obvious that there are a set of rules for the OF and another for the rest of the league.

Phil MaGlass
14-04-2011, 12:39 PM
Maybe this is a decision agreed by Hibs.

His ban was supposed to be something ridiculous (18 games?), Hibs obviously wanted rid of this, but maybe the SFA were not budging.

So Hibs come back with a proposal to the SFA to reduce it to 6 games. SFA agree then Hibs are winners.

The 6 games that DA will miss are all pretty pointless games. This may also give DA a chance to have a look at a few players/U19's before the season finishes.

It might give him time to take a look at himself, WTF is he getting banned all the time for, bit of a dick if u ask me. Yi cannae assist if yir in the stand.

Golden Bear
14-04-2011, 12:53 PM
I wonder what constitutes swearing in the eyes of the SFA?


He seems to have been banned on this latest occasion for swearing at Officials but on the other hand we've all heard stories that Derek Adams does not swear and is in fact of a holier than thou persuasion (Free Church of Scotland)

:confused:

jdships
14-04-2011, 01:17 PM
Wondered how long it would be before this clown "came out in support"

" Gordon Smith, the SFA's former chief executive, had earlier also refuted any accusation of bias, saying in his own interview with BBC Scotland: "To say bias in favour of anybody, I don't think so. But it's hard to get that across. People have that mindset."

"I never saw any evidence of any bias whatsoever in almost three years."

If truth be known he was one of the main perpetrators of BIAS in the SFA - why doesn't he remember the old saying " If a fool opens his mouth he usually confirms he is one "

:rolleyes: