O'Connor cleared of diving

[hibsboy90]

In relation to an incident of alleged simulation involving Garry O’Connor in the recent match between Hibernian FC and St Johnstone FC, Hibernian were issued with a complaint from the Compliance Officer offering a standard two-match suspension. The club have chosen to refer the matter to a Fast Track Tribunal, which will be convened on Thursday.

Flatmate pasted this off Follow Follow.

GOC out for 2 games for diving, seems harsh.

[Sylar]

Flatmate pasted this off Follow Follow.

GOC out for 2 games for diving, seems harsh.

Do all yellow cards carry a 2 game ban these days then, as the punishment for simulation is a yellow card and nothing more!

[Twa Cairpets]

Flatmate pasted this off Follow Follow.

GOC out for 2 games for diving, seems harsh.

Suspect this is total bollox as simulation is not a sending-off offence and therefore is not punishable by an automatic suspension.

[frazeHFC]

How many players dive. Naismith does it all the time for one. Why are we being punished after this dive. JOKE!!!

[Hibs Class]

Smells like a wind up to me

[Onceinawhile]

looks true

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15160202.stm

[frazeHFC]

Did Freddie Ljungberg get suspended after his penalty was awarded at Darkhead last season........no!

[R'Albin]

looks true

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15160202.stm

If true what a load of ****ing *****, that **** Laugherty did it last week and does he get a two game ban?

****ing ridiculous :bitchy:

[SteveHFC]

Absoulte F****** joke.

[grunt]

Well he's not banned yet, according to your post. Reads as though Hibs are appealing

[R'Albin]

Well he's not banned yet, according to your post. Reads as though Hibs are appealing

Yeah but that's not the point, are Rangers being threatened with a two match ban for Laugherty diving?

[Sylar]

Suspect this is total bollox as simulation is not a sending-off offence and therefore is not punishable by an automatic suspension.

Mikolunas was given a hefty ban from UEFA after he dived vs Scotland at Hampden a couple of years ago.

In the SPL, Kyle Lafferty was also given a 3 match ban when he feigned injury and got Charlie Mulgrew sent off at Ibrox 2 years ago - I'm aware this isn't a "dive", but it's still covered under the law of "simulation", so there is precedent.

[staunchhibby]

Does this carry on mean they have no faith in the refs.He gave the penalty.Did not book G O.Its getting to the stage where refs are being over ruled:rolleyes:

[SaulGoodman]

Mikolunas was given a hefty ban from UEFA after he dived vs Scotland at Hampden a couple of years ago.

In the SPL, Kyle Lafferty was also given a 3 match ban when he feigned injury and got Charlie Mulgrew sent off at Ibrox 2 years ago - I'm aware this isn't a "dive", but it's still covered under the law of "simulation", so there is precedent.

Aye, but it's funny when it happens to a Hearts bassa and Hun players.


When it happens to our top goalscorer it's a different matter. SFA are biast! :greengrin

[Westie1875]

Mikolunas was given a hefty ban from UEFA after he dived vs Scotland at Hampden a couple of years ago.

In the SPL, Kyle Lafferty was also given a 3 match ban when he feigned injury and got Charlie Mulgrew sent off at Ibrox 2 years ago - I'm aware this isn't a "dive", but it's still covered under the law of "simulation", so there is precedent.

When you look at the O'Connor incident it is something that happens all the time though and isn't comparable to the two incidents highlighted above. Defender sticks out a leg and player falls over at slight contact (and there was contact). If they are going to start dishing out bans for this because the ref awarded the penalty or a free kick instead of dishing out a yellow card then they'll be doing it every 2nd week.

[Golden Bear]

They may as well go the whole way , disallow the penalty and call the game a draw

A dangerous precedent has been set.

[Gatecrasher]

Well whatever has happened in the past the standard has now been set, i hope any of the OF cheats get the same treatment, though i doubt the SFA have the balls :rolleyes:

[Jones28]

That wee prick Naismith gets 2 games for elbowing someone in the face, a red card offence, and GOC gets 2 games for diving? I despair at Scottish football :rolleyes:

[frazeHFC]

At our next game when an opposition players dives or is even fouled we should sing "banned in the morning" or just point and shout "ban" over and over again. :greengrin

[frazeHFC]

On twitter i have just posted videos of OF players diving and saying "why wasn't he banned." I better get a response because i genuinely am bewildered at how they can do this.

[Sas_The_Hibby]

If Hibs were a serious threat to the OF (if only! :grr:) I'd say this was part of a conspiracy but as we're not it's presumably more c*c*-up. I wasn't sure at the time, and I'm still not sure, that it was a penalty; but I've seen an awful lot of much more definite dives go unpunished.

Is Rezek whose dive effectively put Scotland out of Euro 2012 being given similar treatment? No, I don't think so.

I long ago lost any faith in footballing authorities anywhere to get very much right.

[JimBHibees]

Absolutely staggering decision. No doubt the no marks at the SFA who have been desperate to get anyone after Naismith got done last week will be patting themselves on the back for this. I am assuming that Laughable will have been seen to have been dealt with at the game with a yellow however how can GOC be given a 2 game ban when the normal punishment is yellow, completely nonsensical and IMO a decent lawyer will get this thrown out.

[FranckSuzy]

He hasn't been banned yet. From the STV website 'Hibernian though have declined to accept a fixed two-game ban for the incident and a case will be heard into the matter on Thursday'.

[Sas_The_Hibby]

Absolutely staggering decision. No doubt the no marks at the SFA who have been desperate to get anyone after Naismith got done last week will be patting themselves on the back for this. I am assuming that Laughable will have been seen to have been dealt with at the game with a yellow however how can GOC be given a 2 game ban when the normal punishment is yellow, completely nonsensical and IMO a decent lawyer will get this thrown out.

I'm presuming GOC maybe has a lawyer.................. :greengrin

[JimBHibees]

I'm presuming GOC maybe has a lawyer.................. :greengrin

The guy will be sick of the sight of him at the moment. :greengrin

[grunt]

STVRaman (http://twitter.com/#!/STVRaman) Raman Bhardwaj



New SFA rules means a player can be given two match ban for simulation if found to have caused ref to make incorrect decision.

[Twiglet]

When you look at the O'Connor incident it is something that happens all the time though and isn't comparable to the two incidents highlighted above. Defender sticks out a leg and player falls over at slight contact (and there was contact). If they are going to start dishing out bans for this because the ref awarded the penalty or a free kick in.stead of dishing out a yellow card then they'll be doing it every 2nd week.

Yep, just watched it again and the St Johnstone player left his leg out behind him. It was a soft penalty, O'Connor could have probably missed the leg, but he did what hundreds have done before him and fell over the leg. As others have said this would set a precendent for the future and they could end up with a load of players out with suspension.
McInnes has obviously kicked up a big enough fuss to get it this far, but I hope that Hibs be equally forceful when appealling and are successful.

[Tyler Durden]

This is a total joke. Hibs appeal should highlight similar incidents that went unpunished - start with Naismiths dive to win a penalty at ICT.

Another unsurprising element of these new procedures is that referees who apparently call decisions wrongly (Brines for the Naismith elbow) completely escape punishment or demotion, unlike the EPL. *****ing amateurs.

[PaulSmith]

Posted earlier that something like this was going to happen.

Anyone, and it is anyone, can ask the SFA to look at sn incident from a game.

Get looking at the whole 90mins of the game whom your going to play next and look for anything to get one if their players banned!

[frazeHFC]

STVRaman (http://twitter.com/#!/STVRaman) Raman Bhardwaj



New SFA rules means a player can be given two match ban for simulation if found to have caused ref to make incorrect decision.

So whenever a player dives now but is not caught at the time, we have the right appeal and get them banned? I want to cut out diving but it is going to turn into a farse with teams always trying to get players banned.

[Borderhibbie76]

Just when you think the SPHell can't get any worse...no wonder Scottish Football is a laughing stock!!!

[Bishop Hibee]

It was a foul albeit a soft one. The SFA are an utter disgrace. Watch for the next diving cheat for the OF get away with it next time we play them.

Utter joke of a stuffed shirt blazer wearing jobs for the boys jobs-worth toadying to the OF crap national stadium building pandering to the media pile of pish organisation.

[DaveF]

If he's banned for that, then I really am speechless.

I fully expect Hibs (and every other team)to be reporting every opposition player who feigns injury to get a home player booked or for any dive in a game where the referee is taken in and something given against them.

[frazeHFC]

If he's banned for that, then I really am speechless.

I fully expect Hibs (and every other team)to be reporting every opposition player who feigns injury to get a home player booked or for any dive in a game where the referee is taken in and something given against them.

And away. :wink: I completely agree though, if not then it is totally bias. :agree:

[Bishop Hibee]

If he's banned for that, then I really am speechless.

I fully expect Hibs (and every other team)to be reporting every opposition player who feigns injury to get a home player booked or for any dive in a game where the referee is taken in and something given against them.

:agree: Hibs.tv with the boards' approval to send video footage of every dubious challenge where the opposition team gains an 'unfair' advantage to the Scottish FA's Compliance Officer (whatever the bleep that ridiculous title means).

[Feed McGraw]

I honestly think the defender tries to illegaly block him and by turning away he tries to disguise his trip. I mean why would the defender turn and face his own goal like he did ? Anyway, as I posted on another thread yesterday, it was a similar incident to Berra`s in the Scotland game, do you think they`ll try and ban him for that ? No chance. He would have been a national hero if Scotland had got and scored a penalty.

[frazeHFC]

I honestly think the defender tries to illegaly block him and by turning away he tries to disguise his trip. I mean why would the defender turn and face his own goal like he did ? Anyway, as I posted on another thread yesterday, it was a similar incident to Berra`s in the Scotland game, do you think they`ll try and ban him for that ? No chance. He would have been a national hero if Scotland had got and scored a penalty.

Never thought of that. If they want their rule to be un-bias then surely there would have been repurcussions for Berra? Or would that be up to FIFA? :confused:

Don't want him banned but it is a fair point.

[RIP]

From what I've read, the authorities were unwilling to press the case until the new Hibs Assistant Manager admitted it on television over the weekend. Apparently that was seen as a direct admission of guilt by Hibernian FC. If nothing else, it makes the prospect of a successful appeal extremely unlikely.

[Sir David Gray]

I don't understand how he can be banned.

This has only happened because the referee didn't spot it at the time. If he had thought that O'Connor had dived, he would have given him a yellow card and that would have been it.

If he's going to be retrospectively punished at all then it should be a yellow card that is added to his record.

I know Mikoliunas got a ban for diving against Scotland to win a penalty but you can't give a retrospective red card for something that would have been worthy of a yellow card, if it had been spotted during the game.

If they want to hand out bans for diving then the authorities have to make it a sending off offence.

Or better still, how about actually bringing professional football into the 21st century and allow video technology to be used during games. St Johnstone were clearly adamant that O'Connor had dived, even when it happened, so they could have asked for the incident to be reviewed. The referee would have presumably reversed his decision and then he could have booked O'Connor for diving.

What they absolutely cannot do is hand out a suspension for a bookable offence.

[BarneyK]

From what I've read, the authorities were unwilling to press the case until the new Hibs Assistant Manager admitted it on television over the weekend. Apparently that was seen as a direct admission of guilt by Hibernian FC. If nothing else, it makes the prospect of a successful appeal extremely unlikely.

BB can admit what he likes, simulation is a yellow card offence, and unless this decision is reversed it opens up a whole can of worms the SFA really don't want to be bothered with.

[PaulSmith]

:agree: Hibs.tv with the boards' approval to send video footage of every dubious challenge where the opposition team gains an 'unfair' advantage to the Scottish FA's Compliance Officer (whatever the bleep that ridiculous title means).

Doesn't need the boards approval, just do it yourself.

[grunt]

It seems they've changed the rules this season.

[BarneyK]

It seems they've changed the rules this season.

I say we take them to the Swiss courts :greengrin

[frazeHFC]

It seems they've changed the rules this season.

Yeah i got a reply on twitter from the SFA saying this.

"Fair enough, but hopefully this rule actually applies to the Old Firm aswell" was my response. :wink:

[HibeeMcGinn1]

@Scottish_FA just tweeted me this:

"Player hasn't been banned, case is going to Fast Track Tribunal on Thursday".

[hibsbollah]

**** right off. Bin Laden basturts.

[Alfred E Newman]

There is no doubt the authorities have to try and stamp out diving but the SFA have dug a huge hole for themselves with this decision.

[HibeeMcGinn1]

@Scottish_FA

"decision will be made by independent Judicial Panel at Tribunal"

[frazeHFC]

@Scottish_FA just tweeted me this:

"Player hasn't been banned, case is going to Fast Track Tribunal on Thursday".

For me though it is more the fact they are punishing him/Hibs when it has been going on unpunished before.

[Bishop Hibee]

Doesn't need the boards approval, just do it yourself.

Yes i've nothing better to do with my time :rolleyes: Still I'm pleased you think I have the same influence on the SFA as the Hibs board. I'll put a good word in for the Scottish Cup draw.

Is it just me reading more into the postings on this thread or are some on here happy to see O'Connor punished :confused: There will be some squealing on here the next time someone from rantic gets away with the same.

[hibbysam]

STVRaman (http://twitter.com/#!/STVRaman) Raman Bhardwaj



New SFA rules means a player can be given two match ban for simulation if found to have caused ref to make incorrect decision.

So only good divers get banned whereas the poor divers that arent very good at diving get away with a mere yellow card?

[hibbysam]

And has anyone got footage of the hearts game yesterday? first half i think it was when mrowiec started taking tumbles under no contact whatsoever.. its gonna get to the stage where there will be footage getting sent in for every incident in a game to get people banned, OK if it was actually a dive then do something about it, but how can anyone prove that O'Connors was a clear dive to gain an advantage is beyond me..

[Future17]

Posted earlier that something like this was going to happen.

Anyone, and it is anyone, can ask the SFA to look at sn incident from a game.

Get looking at the whole 90mins of the game whom your going to play next and look for anything to get one if their players banned!

:agree:

I've been reading about this since I heard about the Naismith incident and, if I understand it correctly, there is no disclosure of who made the complaint or of the name of the "Compliance Officer" who decides whether to invoke a ban.

Only the SFA could find a way of using modern technology to produce such an antiquated system and varnish it with zero transparency or accountability.

[Future17]

**** right off. Bin Laden basturts.

Aye, they gied him the full whack! :greengrin

[nortonhibby]

:agree:

I've been reading about this since I heard about the Naismith incident and, if I understand it correctly, there is no disclosure of who made the complaint or of the name of the "Compliance Officer" who decides whether to invoke a ban.

Only the SFA could find a way of using modern technology to produce such an antiquated system and varnish it with zero transparency or accountability.

This is not right we should protest mass e mails to SFA DO IT:flag:Mines has been sent.

[Jonnyboy]

STVRaman (http://twitter.com/#!/STVRaman) Raman Bhardwaj



New SFA rules means a player can be given two match ban for simulation if found to have caused ref to make incorrect decision.

WTF Raman??? So the referee makes a decision and a penalty is awarded. Ref clearly thought a foul had been committed and acted accordingly. Can we now expect that ref to suffer some sort of punishment for failing to spot a dive from five yards away?

SFA can GTF as far as I'm concerned.

[The_Horde]

Disgrace of a decision from the SFA. Fair enough banning Naismith for a blatant assault the ref didn't see but to ban a player for diving when the referee had already made his decision is a complete farce. If a dive is a 2 game ban then Naismith should be locked up for that elbow.

SFA = sweet f*** all

[son of haggart]

I don't understand how he can be banned.

This has only happened because the referee didn't spot it at the time. If he had thought that O'Connor had dived, he would have given him a yellow card and that would have been it.

If he's going to be retrospectively punished at all then it should be a yellow card that is added to his record.

I know Mikoliunas got a ban for diving against Scotland to win a penalty but you can't give a retrospective red card for something that would have been worthy of a yellow card, if it had been spotted during the game.

If they want to hand out bans for diving then the authorities have to make it a sending off offence.

Or better still, how about actually bringing professional football into the 21st century and allow video technology to be used during games. St Johnstone were clearly adamant that O'Connor had dived, even when it happened, so they could have asked for the incident to be reviewed. The referee would have presumably reversed his decision and then he could have booked O'Connor for diving.

What they absolutely cannot do is hand out a suspension for a bookable offence.

Totally agree and it would be a nonsense if this is true. They would have to analyse every game afterwards to reverse bookings and award yellows and reds. For example Zaliukas sending off against Aberdeen after being hit by Lee Miller (Brines justified it as "making a butting motion") would be rescinded and Miller sent off - do you reverse the game result?

Video evidence or nothing

[frazeHFC]

This is not right we should protest mass e mails to SFA DO IT:flag:Mines has been sent.

Address?

[The_Horde]

I would quite like to see the footage they've been looking at because the only footage of the incident I've seen is inconclusive.

[swazzie]

The timing is bizarre too. We've already played a game since the alleged dive. Does this mean any anonymous complainant can wait to lodge their protest until just before the offender plays their team?

And as others have already said, how on earth can an on-pitch bookable offence translate into an off-pitch 2 game ban

Yet more ill-advised bungling from the joke of an SFA, just like the consecutive/concurrent embarrassment with Lennon last year. Self-serving, ignorant, amateur fools

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Surely Skacel will get a ban for that dive over the advertising hoardings yesterday, the advert never touched him!

[bob12345]

I actually think this should be the punishment for a player caught diving. But it's such a grey area. If you make it a red card offence in the game the referee has a hugely difficult decision to make every time a player goes down. There are clear dives and there are penalties, but there is also an awful lot inbetween. From minimal contact that is exaggerated to coming together of players.

My only suggestion would be that is continues to carry a yellow card for in game, but all players found to be clearly diving - whether dealt with or not at the time - are given the two match ban. I'm sure it'll never happen but I welcome a better suggestion. What's for sure is that the current sanctions aren't working as diving has never been more rife.

[God Petrie]

This has got to be some sort of joke.

[Wotherspiniesta]

How do you get a 2 game ban for simulation? SFA GTF.

[Sir David Gray]

I actually think this should be the punishment for a player caught diving. But it's such a grey area. If you make it a red card offence in the game the referee has a hugely difficult decision to make every time a player goes down. There are clear dives and there are penalties, but there is also an awful lot inbetween. From minimal contact that is exaggerated to coming together of players.

My only suggestion would be that is continues to carry a yellow card for in game, but all players found to be clearly diving - whether dealt with or not at the time - are given the two match ban. I'm sure it'll never happen but I welcome a better suggestion. What's for sure is that the current sanctions aren't working as diving has never been more rife.

I agree. I hate diving, there's far too much of it in the modern game and it's spoiling things. If players thought that there would be tough punishments for diving then they may think twice about doing it.

However, as it stands, the punishment for taking a dive is a yellow card and that's all that should happen with players who are retrospectively punished as well. You can't have two different punishments for the same offence. That is just ludicrous.

[Delboy4]

Can GOC not just wear his t-shirt when he goes through to the SFA, Tell the barstewards that "God can only Judge". Sheemples!!!

[blueisthecolour]

If anyone seen sportscene last night, I don't think Billy Brown done GOC any favours by being so honest about the situation, he would now look silly when hibs appeal.

[BEEJ]

McInnes has obviously kicked up a big enough fuss to get it this far, but I hope that Hibs be equally forceful when appealling and are successful.
Plus various BBC pundits at the weekend.

[snooky]

It's only Billy Brown's opinion that he dived. The ref was in a far better position to judge therefore BB's comments are irrelevant, IMO.
If not they should provide options for "Phone a friend" and/or "Ask the Audience (crowd)"
As an audience member, can I register a "It was a penalty" vote just to start the ball rolling and to even up BB's 'dive' comment.
Scottish football authorities have as much organisation as the Keystone Cops.

Here's their new logo ....
":asshole: :asshole: :asshole: R Us"

[SanFranHibs]

It's only Billy Brown's opinion that he dived. The ref was in a far better position to judge therefore BB's comments are irrelevant, IMO.
If not they should provide options for "Phone a friend" and/or "Ask the Audience (crowd)"
As an audience member, can I register a "It was a penalty" vote just to start the ball rolling and to even up BB's 'dive' comment.
Scottish football authorities have as much organisation as the Keystone Cops.

Here's their new logo ....
":asshole: :asshole: :asshole: R Us"

Thought it was a well established tradition of Scottish football !

Hibs really need to be firm on this ! Perhaps dig out numerous examples of Old and Infirm players diving. In fact I'm sure a couple of Rangers players including Lafferty got told to get lost by the ref when they went down easiliy. And the SFA will have to clarify if it is only a 2 game ban offence if you are not caught on the day by the officials, who then surely must be held accountable !

That said....I think this is a wind up !

Time for the SFA to be reconstituted.

[Carheenlea]

It was interesting to hear former ref Willie Young on the radio a couple of weeks ago discussing video evidence.
His view was that video evidence could only be used for "matters of fact", and could not be used for "matters of opinion"
In this instance, and reading the differing opinions on this thread on whether O'Connor dived or not, we are dealing with a matter of opinion. In the case of Naismith's off the ball elbowing, that was a matter of fact, and Rangers can't have too many complaints.

So it appears some blazered nonentity is going to have some kind of casting vote on what is a matter of opinion, and could cost us the services of our most dangerous player for two matches, you couldn't make this up. An absolute joke.

[Scott Allan Key]

The BBC showed bias on a matter of opinion whether it was Richard Gordon or Rob McLean. Personally, I think I probably had a better view than Derek McInnes and Billy Brown on the touchline. It looked like contact was made and impeded Garry O'Connor on his progress into the box from where I was sat in the East Stand. I understand the new rules for a two-match ban are about incorrect decisions by refs being made as a result of alleged dive. What I don't understand is why Billy Brown agreed with Rob McLean when asked if it is a dive, given the possible consequences. Otherwise, I would've been confident of GO' being cleared.

[KiddA]

Did Allan Mcgregor get a ban for his stupid Lafferty like dive with Deek? if not then If I was Hibs I would remind the SFA about this and every other dive they have done.

If he gets a ban it will open a can of worms

[TrickyNicky]

The BBC showed bias on a matter of opinion whether it was Richard Gordon or Rob McLean. Personally, I think I probably had a better view than Derek McInnes and Billy Brown on the touchline. It looked like contact was made and impeded Garry O'Connor on his progress into the box from where I was sat in the East Stand. I understand the new rules for a two-match ban are about incorrect decisions by refs being made as a result of alleged dive. What I don't understand is why Billy Brown agreed with Rob McLean when asked if it is a dive, given the possible consequences. Otherwise, I would've been confident of GO' being cleared.

This is the bit that annoys me the most,you really couldn't make it up !
Due to " the bag o' sweets affair ", we now have an assistant manager willing to step up to the plate and take on the responsibility of being spokesman for the gaffer sometimes then claim our best player is a diving cheat !

I think the fans should play a part in all this and start singing against ouselves!

Imagine how much fun the East would be bouncin tae " Hearts, Glorious Hearts " or when The Huns come, we can sing about being up to our knees in Fenian blood, goose-stepping, nazi salutes, pointing at ourselves with vicious disdain then get ootside and run at each other, smashin mah ane face against a waw, yellin " moan then wee man, is that the best ah've goat " !!

Ah'm away tae book mah flight hame, hope it's cancelled and they charge me anyway !!!

[Beefster]

If there is any contact before he went down, they have to clear O'Connor. Simple as that.

[Beefster]

Due to " the bag o' sweets affair ", we now have an assistant manager willing to step up to the plate and take on the responsibility of being spokesman for the gaffer sometimes then claim our best player is a diving cheat !

If you're trying to blame Calderwood for what Brown said, that's the most twisted logic I've read/heard for a long, long time.

[Cropley10]

STVRaman (http://twitter.com/#!/STVRaman) Raman Bhardwaj



New SFA rules means a player can be given two match ban for simulation if found to have caused ref to make incorrect decision.

Complete and utter balls. Every word.

[EasterRoad4Ever]

That wee prick Naismith gets 2 games for elbowing someone in the face, a red card offence, and GOC gets 2 games for diving? I despair at Scottish football :rolleyes:

:agree: Hibs need to defend this vigorously. Had GOC been picked up by the ref for "simulation", the VERY worst it would have been was a yellow card.

If this goes ahead, we'll get to the point where players will be ASKING the ref for yellow cards on the basis that they risk being BANNED by video evidence later on. It is totally ridiculous - but in keeping with Scottish Football. We are a joke of a footballing nation !

[3pm]

2 game ban for Kris Commons for a potential leg breaker at Tynecastle on Sunday.

Same punishment? Hmmm. Not sure I agree with that.

[Brooster]

I think Goc is going to appeal the ban saying that someone else dived for him.

[matty_f]

I think Goc is going to appeal the ban saying that someone else dived for him.

:tee hee:

[Barney McGrew]

I think Goc is going to appeal the ban saying that someone else dived for him.

:hilarious

:top marks

[Kaiser1962]

It's only Billy Brown's opinion that he dived. The ref was in a far better position to judge therefore BB's comments are irrelevant, IMO.


Spot on. Do the SFA always agree with BB's opinions? He's had a few strong one's over the years and usually gets fined.

[TrickyNicky]

If you're trying to blame Calderwood for what Brown said, that's the most twisted logic I've read/heard for a long, long time.

Why thank-you, it was indeed my intent!

Sorry, forgot to put a :wink: at the end!

Non-smiley-winky- twisty-logicky folk ken whit's gaun oan likes !

[Beefster]

Why thank-you, it was indeed my intent!

Sorry, forgot to put a :wink: at the end!

Non-smiley-winky- twisty-logicky folk ken whit's gaun oan likes !

Ah right! Apologies - right over my head!

[basehibby]

Joke decision - there WAS contact from what I saw at the time (V good view) and from what I see on replays. GOC knocks the ball behind the dfender who instinctively sticks his heel out to try and get it. There is then clearly contact - GOC makes a bit of a meal of it but technically it's a foul - which GOC managed to draw from the defender with a combination of skill and quick thinking.
The appeal should hopefully be successful - if not it's a ****ing travesty!

PS - Billy Brown!!! Unbe***king-lievable! no coincidence that this action occurs AFTER he makes his OPINION known on live TV IMO

[Gettin' Auld]

Address?

sfa@heids_buried_in_the_sand.com

[Golden Bear]

So can we presume that it was Derek McInnes who made the complaint to the "Compliance Officer?" I seem to remember that the same guy did a lot of moaning about the legitimacy of a goal Hibs scored up at Perth last season. Apparently the goal should have been disallowed for offside, obstruction or whatever none of which were borne out by the footage.

Maybe this latest complaint will be his swan song as I see he's one of the favourites for the job with Bristol City.





http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15160202.stm

[mim]

I don't know whether GO was entitled to go down in that particular incident or not, but anything that makes some inroads into stamping out diving (cheating) has got to be a good thing, imho.

I also have no problems with BB's honesty - in his opinion it was a dive.
Wenger et al could do with following BB's example of honesty.

[Golden Bear]

Like other posters I'm not convinced it was a dive and I'm not convinced it wasn't a dive.

The video footage is inconclusive so I fail to comprehend how Garry O can be found guilty.

[basehibby]

Just watched the highlights again (and again!) and it's incredible that there's any argument at all. I had a perfect view of the incident at the time from the East stand and it was 100% obvious that the St Js defender left a trailing leg which made contact with GOC. GOC went down pretty easily (as most strikers tend to do) but there was no doubt in my mind that there was contact and that he had won the penalty legitamately.

The St Js defender left his trailing leg out in the hope of diverting the ball - which he failed to do - he made contact with the attacker instead - a penalty in anyone's language.

Careful examination of the highlights footage confirms this for me.

RE BB - when he agreed with the BBC presenter's opinion that there was simulation, did he mean that there was no contact from the defender or that GOC made a meal of it? Because from what I could see (from a much better angle) if he thought there was no contact then he was wrong. Either way, he should be more aware of the rules and be more diplomatic in future - he's now a Hibs employee and his comments in the media should be mindful of that.

[Hibs7]

To make this fair, every SPL game should be monitored for events like this and Naismiths, otherwise it is a case of discrimination.

[brog]

The BBC showed bias on a matter of opinion whether it was Richard Gordon or Rob McLean. Personally, I think I probably had a better view than Derek McInnes and Billy Brown on the touchline. It looked like contact was made and impeded Garry O'Connor on his progress into the box from where I was sat in the East Stand. I understand the new rules for a two-match ban are about incorrect decisions by refs being made as a result of alleged dive. What I don't understand is why Billy Brown agreed with Rob McLean when asked if it is a dive, given the possible consequences. Otherwise, I would've been confident of GO' being cleared.

Agreed, but you have to ask why were the BBC on a weekend programme suddenly going into great detail about a game that was played days earlier. Anyone think they would have done the same for the uglies??!!! They defend the incompetent refs to avoid trial by TV but it's ok to try the players. If DM, then BBC had not kicked this off then nothing would have happened. I hate diving but this was what every player does, leaves a leg in to make contact & IMO there was clear contact. At best it's dubious & to be fair to BB I'm sure he never considered any consequences.

[Kato]

I don't know whether GO was entitled to go down in that particular incident or not, but anything that makes some inroads into stamping out diving (cheating) has got to be a good thing, imho.

I also have no problems with BB's honesty - in his opinion it was a dive.
Wenger et al could do with following BB's example of honesty.

Or we could be radical and have a managerial team that come out and back our players up like professional clubs do.

I wouldn't mind seeing in an instance of blatant diving punished, this isn't such an instance.

[jdships]

If this is now the "punishment" for diving so be it .
All I ask is that a "level playing field " ( excuse the pun) is maintained re these incidents .
If it is there are going ro be a number of clubs short of players over the season :greengrin.
Also what is the punishment to be for a " second offence " ?

:confused:

[Moulin Yarns]

Imagine the implications of this.

A manager says that an opposition player cheats by diving, even though the referee is 5 yards away, compared to the manager who is 50 yards away. The referee' is being undermined by said manager. We are likely to get another strike by refs (no bad thing :wink: ) but then why bother having refs in the first place if they are no longer able to uphold the laws of our game without constantly being questioned. Why bother with refs, let's just play the games without them, after all the outcome will be questioned by whoever loses, so we can just decide results by a panel. Next step, don't bother playing, just have a panel sit each Saturday and decide the outcome of each game and have the results read out at tea time.

The older ones amongst you will probably have seen where I'm going with this....





Let's just call it the Pools Panel :greengrin

[Posh Swanny]

They don't like to make things easy for the refs do they? This apparent difference in punsihment for the same offence, depending on the ref's actions will lead to fun, games and conspiracy theories galore if a player from either of the Old Firm is involved in a diving row a game or two before a derby.

"He only booked him because he knew he'd get banned for the derby otherwise"

"He gave the penalty because he knew he'd get banned for the derby otherwise"

Guaranteed!

[silverhibee]

If and its a big if Hibs were to lose the appeal, can the the SFA add anything on to the two match ban.

[Sir David Gray]

If and its a big if Hibs were to lose the appeal, can the the SFA add anything on to the two match ban.

I think if O'Connor lost his appeal, they would only increase his ban if the SFA felt the appeal was "frivolous".

So losing the appeal doesn't necessarily mean that he will have his suspension increased.

[Spike Mandela]

Accept our punishment and keep quiet but we know what to do next time someone dives against us. Let's face it we won't have to wait long.

Also it will be open season on Goc now. Everytime he is fouled in the box the defenders will complain long and loud that he dived.

[Andy74]

It's a bit bizarre when the original incident if seen and judged a dive by the ref would have just got a yellow card at the worst could be a two game ban just because the ref may have been wrong.

It's not the most blatant dive I've ever seen and seems a strange one to start this on. What on earth is cauing the referee to make a wrong decision all about? no one excpet the referee himself can make the referee do anything.

I laughed when I first heard about the possibility of a ban being talked about last week and am stunned its come close to this.

It's going to be a difficult line to go back across once they do this.

I was right in line with this one and thought he made the most if it but it was a penalty.

Falling in any way unnaturally now must be a two game ban whether its a penalty or not, it is simulation - and is it really limited to being in the box? A defender can chuck himself over when a striker is applying pressure as well potnetially saving a goal. Centre halfs are murder for it. Will they get bans as well?

Football in all sorts of ways has just lost the place. There isn't much to look at when Hibs are involved these days and do they really want the likes of O'Connor not playing for the paying punters over something like this?

[Spike Mandela]

The thought of this current Hibs team playing without GOC is not a very appetising one.:rolleyes:

[basehibby]

The thought of this current Hibs team playing without GOC is not a very appetising one.:rolleyes:

If O'Connor does get banned over this then the SFA need to be taken out and shot :gun:

[James70]

Some things which have crossed my mind.

Firstly the video evidence is not convincing, it's not exactly Sky HD close up with views from all angles.

Secondly has GOC's off field reputation and background had a bearing on this decision, ie seen as a bad guy off the park so he must be a cheat on the park.

Is he too much of a threat to Naismith finishing up top scorer for the season? Laughable I know but then again.

Unless the player has admitted to his own boss or assistant boss that he took a dive and word has spread then I see no justifiable reason for this matter to be pursued. Much more visible acts of cheating have occurred without punishment so without the benefit of clear video footage or an open admission by the player then this ban should not be put in force.

[Golden Bear]

If O'Connor does get banned over this then the SFA need to be taken out and shot :gun:

Win or lose the damage has been done and Garry O will already be a marked man by SPL defenders, Referees and rival fans. Give a dog a bad name and all that.

[ancient hibee]

Perhaps the SFA should look at his goal against United.When he rounded the keeper it was still no certainty he would score -had he wanted to he could easily have collided with the keeper -got a penalty and had the keeper sent off-he didn't.

[nortonhibby]

Just watched the highlights again (and again!) and it's incredible that there's any argument at all. I had a perfect view of the incident at the time from the East stand and it was 100% obvious that the St Js defender left a trailing leg which made contact with GOC. GOC went down pretty easily (as most strikers tend to do) but there was no doubt in my mind that there was contact and that he had won the penalty legitamately.

The St Js defender left his trailing leg out in the hope of diverting the ball - which he failed to do - he made contact with the attacker instead - a penalty in anyone's language.

Careful examination of the highlights footage confirms this for me.

RE BB - when he agreed with the BBC presenter's opinion that there was simulation, did he mean that there was no contact from the defender or that GOC made a meal of it? Because from what I could see (from a much better angle) if he thought there was no contact then he was wrong. Either way, he should be more aware of the rules and be more diplomatic in future - he's now a Hibs employee and his comments in the media should be mindful of that.

BB Was an RP Appointment BB Is after the big chair when CC Goes BB Wil hope to slip in to CCs Shoes with RPs backing, DA thought he would be the big cheese but gave up waiting.

IMO BB Will be gone before CC.:flag:

[R'Albin]

BB Was an RP Appointment BB Is after the big chair when CC Goes BB Wil hope to slip in to CCs Shoes with RPs backing, DA thought he would be the big cheese but gave up waiting.

IMO BB Will be gone before CC.:flag:

:rolleyes:

[frazeHFC]

IMO BB Will be gone before CC.:flag:

If this is a serious post then why be happy? Things have started to improve since he came in?

[nortonhibby]

If this is a serious post then why be happy? Things have started to improve since he came in?

Could they have got any worse ? granted i agree there has been a minor improvement we draw games now that we would have previously lost.

Its only my opinion but when heads have to roll BB Will go before CC Or both together i cant see BB Getting the No 1 Job.

[frazeHFC]

Could they have got any worse ? granted i agree there has been a minor improvement we draw games now that we would have previously lost.

Its only my opinion but when heads have to roll BB Will go before CC Or both together i cant see BB Getting the No 1 Job.

No i cannot see that happening, regarding number 1 spot.

[jdships]

BB Was an RP Appointment BB Is after the big chair when CC Goes BB Wil hope to slip in to CCs Shoes with RPs backing, DA thought he would be the big cheese but gave up waiting.

IMO BB Will be gone before CC.:flag:

And the source of this information is ?
Surely not Greggs :greengrin:wink:

[Kaiser1962]

BB Was an RP Appointment BB Is after the big chair when CC Goes BB Wil hope to slip in to CCs Shoes with RPs backing, DA thought he would be the big cheese but gave up waiting.

IMO BB Will be gone before CC.:flag:


This makes very little, if any, sense whatsoever.

[clerriehibs]

The video evidence is inconclusive ... but the St J player didn't raise his hands because he DIDN'T touch GO'C.

But someone's had a look, and decided to go for it.

Why? To take the focus away from how nothing is ever done about the old firm poison? That nothing is ever done about the homofc copycat poison? To try and defuse the constant rants from romanov?

Whatever the reason, whoever the someone is will also have access to bring pressure to bear on the result. And you can bet your bottom dollar that GO'C is facing a ban. It's a total sham.

[R'Albin]

This makes very little, if any, sense whatsoever.

A bit like his other 'in the know' posts that always seem to involve rp being at fault for something.

[AlbertK86]

Not had a chance to read right thro thread so apologies if already mentioned.

When Eduardo got banned for 2 matches for simulation against Celtic he successfully turned over the ban as there was minimal contact.

To me there was more contact on O'Connor than Eduardo. The guy turned his back and stuck out his left foot which caught Gaz. Yep he made a meal of it but so do all players these days.... Berra against Czech R the other week is a prime example.... Dinnae see the SFA banning him

[snooky]

I think Goc is going to appeal the ban saying that someone else dived for him.

The word is that he's been charged with "diving without due care or attention" :coffee:

[capitals_finest]

The inconsistency and incompetency of the people that run our game in this country is astounding.

[brog]

I don't understand why this is not a 40 page thread. Are we so defeated now that we just accept this garbage that SPL choose to send down on us? Any other team, OF especially would be outraged by this. Seriously, does anyone know the time limit for disciplining someone after an offence? This was our first pen of the season, if GOC is suspended we should review every other pen awarded & scrutinise for diving. Naismith will play about 3 games a season!

[thebakerboy]

It's no coincidence that the authority that runs Scottish Football has the initials SFA because what they know about common sense is exactly that SFA.

[plhibs]

Cant wait to see how they handle the O.F.divers. Theres been lots of them in the past.

[Moulin Yarns]

I think the outcome of the meeting tomorrow will set the tone for the rest of the season. Rangers rightly had to accept the ban on Naismith as tv evidence was clear. In Garry's case the tv evidence is less clear IMHO so it will depend on a number of factors, ref's report, tv evidence, and the defence put up by Hibs.Lose and we will see the appeals panel or whatever they call themselves, being swamped with appeals.

[brog]

I think the outcome of the meeting tomorrow will set the tone for the rest of the season. Rangers rightly had to accept the ban on Naismith as tv evidence was clear. In Garry's case the tv evidence is less clear IMHO so it will depend on a number of factors, ref's report, tv evidence, and the defence put up by Hibs.Lose and we will see the appeals panel or whatever they call themselves, being swamped with appeals.

You're correct!! Hopefully somebody by now will be reconsidering their stance & thinking what have we got ourselves into! By all means clamp down on diving but it needs to be a clear cut case otherwise, as you say, there will be dozens of cases to review.
It will also be interesting to see if # of penalties awarded drops off now, refs are on a hiding to nothing.

[plhibs]

Has the ref. said anything about this or is it the usual " keep quiet and do as your told". I know they were never allowed to comment before, just wondered if this might have changed in the new all open and above board SFA.:wink:

[Golden Bear]

So who the hell is the "Compliance Officer?"

Is it an idividual who acts as a spokesperson for a panel?

Does this person act as judge, jury & executioner?

What is the criteria before a case can be referred to the "Compliance Officer"

Who can refer a case to the Compliance Officer? - an opposition manager? a player? a fan?

Apologies if these questions have been asked before but it's turning into a fairly lengthy thread - and rightly so.

[Saorsa]

So who the hell is the "Compliance Officer?"

Is it an idividual who acts as a spokesperson for a panel?

Does this person act as judge, jury & executioner?

What is the criteria before a case can be referred to the "Compliance Officer"

Who can refer a case to the Compliance Officer? - an opposition manager? a player? a fan?

Apologies if these questions have been asked before but it's turning into a fairly lengthy thread - and rightly so.you may or may not find some answers in here if you can be ersed trawling through it, I certainly cannae.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/football_document_libraries.cfm?page=855

[Golden Bear]

you may or may not find some answers in here if you can be ersed trawling through it, I certainly cannae.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/football_document_libraries.cfm?page=855

Gee thanks. Well I did ask.!

I'll let you know what it says in about a fortnight's time when I've had time to take it all in.

:whistle:

[greenginger]

Someone posted that O'Connor made a meal of it and he could probably avoided the defenders trailing leg.

How can anyone say he saw the leg ? A striker in that position should have been looking for an overlapping team mate or checking the goalies positioning not looking for outstretched legs of defenders he has just beaten.

I hope Hibs put some thought into the defence and allow for the probability that " Independant Panel " is SFA speak for people who hav'nt got a clue.

[Moulin Yarns]

Someone posted that O'Connor made a meal of it and he could probably avoided the defenders trailing leg. How can anyone say he saw the leg ? A striker in that position should have been looking for an overlapping team mate or checking the goalies positioning not looking for outstretched legs of defenders he has just beatenI hope Hibs put some thought into the defence and allow for the probability that " Independant Panel " is SFA speak for people who hav'nt got a clue. What I don't understand is thedefender, instead of trying to tackle Garry actually turns his back on him. Which is how Garry goes over (or not) the trailing leg.

[ancient hibee]

What I don't understand is thedefender, instead of trying to tackle Garry actually turns his back on him. Which is how Garry goes over (or not) the trailing leg.

He turned his back to con the ref that he was doing nothing-backfired(little play on words there).

[Saorsa]

He turned his back to con the ref that he was doing nothing-backfired(little play on words there).That's exactly it IMO, instead of making a proper challenge he turned his back, stuck his leg out behind hoping tae catch him but without it being noticeable. Contact may have been minimal and O'connor might have made a bit of meal of it but contact there was and defo a penalty IMO.


Would be an absolute farce if GOC gets a ban because of this nonsense.

[CapitalHibs]

How can they question the referee's decision when he was 5 yards away from the incident with an unobstructed view????

[Kaiser1962]

How can they question the referee's decision when he was 5 yards away from the incident with an unobstructed view????

Setting a dangerous precedent IMO.

[matty_f]

How can they question the referee's decision when he was 5 yards away from the incident with an unobstructed view????

If they take the tv evidence which is IMHO totally inconclusive, over the view of the ref, who as you rightly say, was a few yards away with nothing obstructing his view, then they are morons.

[Hermit Crab]

How can they question the referee's decision when he was 5 yards away from the incident with an unobstructed view????



:agree::worms:

[Hibby D]

http://www.scotsman.com/hibernianfc/Stuart-Bathgate-Sadly-some-cheats.6848382.jp?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

:rolleyes: Stuart Bathgate is already of the belief the ref got it wrong

[Kato]

http://www.scotsman.com/hibernianfc/Stuart-Bathgate-Sadly-some-cheats.6848382.jp?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

:rolleyes: Stuart Bathgate is already of the belief the ref got it wrong

It's maybe time someone from the club other than BB to say something in GOC's defence.

[James70]

http://www.scotsman.com/hibernianfc/Stuart-Bathgate-Sadly-some-cheats.6848382.jp?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

:rolleyes: Stuart Bathgate is already of the belief the ref got it wrong

Disgraceful article, he is basically calling GOC a cheat in advance of the appeal being held but based on what evidence?

Methinks the player's off field reputation is having a lot to do with this because as someone else said he does not have a reputation as a diver.

[Part/Time Supporter]

How can they question the referee's decision when he was 5 yards away from the incident with an unobstructed view????

Fair do's if the TV evidence was of a high quality and maybe showed an angle of the incident that the referee didn't see. But that isn't the case here, most of the so-called journalists are making their minds up based on footage from the main camera, which is in the upper deck of the main stand!

Which basically proves the point that TV evidence is useless, because only a minority of the games have the additional camera angles that are needed to make it worthwhile.

[Leithenhibby]

http://www.scotsman.com/hibernianfc/Stuart-Bathgate-Sadly-some-cheats.6848382.jp?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

:rolleyes: Stuart Bathgate is already of the belief the ref got it wrong


Poor show Mr Bathgate. :rolleyes:

If the Ref sees it, it's a yellow. If the Ref misses it, it's a two game ban .. :confused:

My take on this is, if a player dives and gets a yellow on the park, then he MUST receive the same punishment off it!!

I'm hoping that this is going to be HFC's claim. You cannot give a two match ban because the Ref misses the incident which is a yellow offence...

[Hibby D]

Poor show Mr Bathgate. :rolleyes:

If the Ref sees it, it's a yellow. If the Ref misses it, it's a two game ban .. :confused:

My take on this is, if a player dives and gets a yellow on the park, then he MUST receive the same punishment off it!!

I'm hoping that this is going to be HFC's claim. You cannot give a two match ban because the Ref misses the incident which is a yellow offence...

Agreed :agree:

[H18sry]

Poor show Mr Bathgate. :rolleyes:

If the Ref sees it, it's a yellow. If the Ref misses it, it's a two game ban .. :confused:

My take on this is, if a player dives and gets a yellow on the park, then he MUST receive the same punishment off it!!

I'm hoping that this is going to be HFC's claim. You cannot give a two match ban because the Ref misses the incident which is a yellow offence...

But the "dive" led to us scoring a penalty that resulted in winning 3 point's so do we issue a retrospective yellow card and take 2 points of us and call it a draw?

[Hibee87]

Poor show Mr Bathgate. :rolleyes:

If the Ref sees it, it's a yellow. If the Ref misses it, it's a two game ban .. :confused:

My take on this is, if a player dives and gets a yellow on the park, then he MUST receive the same punishment off it!!

I'm hoping that this is going to be HFC's claim. You cannot give a two match ban because the Ref misses the incident which is a yellow offence...

I think the reason it is resulting in a ban is that we went on to the win a game which could have turned out differently had the ref seen it and only booked him at the time.


can you image hibs v hearts 1-1 i nthe 89th min and a hearts player dives, wins a pen and scores winning the game 2-1 then after its clear he dived do you think a booking for that player is fair in that scenario? we would all be shouting for bans, public hanging etc. but you see where im coming from the cheating effecrtivly changed the outcome of the game so therefore a ban seems the only resonable punishment.

im still not convinced that gaz dived or didnt dive the only replays I have seen seem inconclusive, but from where i was sitting at the time looked a stone waller

[hibsbollah]

Theres no doubt in my mind that our appeal will fail today. Its a political decision, tied up with the current administrations need to be seen to be doing domething about 'sectarianism'. The blazers are being pressurised not to be seen to victimising Rangers, so will want to be seen as equally tough on all other teams, whether the offence is singing about the pope, alleged diving or anything else.

And what better fall guy than alleged cocaine user/ fraudster OConnor?


A stitch up.

[basehibby]

Poor show Mr Bathgate. :rolleyes:

If the Ref sees it, it's a yellow. If the Ref misses it, it's a two game ban .. :confused:

My take on this is, if a player dives and gets a yellow on the park, then he MUST receive the same punishment off it!!

I'm hoping that this is going to be HFC's claim. You cannot give a two match ban because the Ref misses the incident which is a yellow offence...

I'm hoping HFC's claim is going to be that there was contact made by the defender's trailing leg and therefore no dive took place - cos that's what happened - as anyone who shared my view of the incident will testify.

[Hibee87]

Theres no doubt in my mind that our appeal will fail today. Its a political decision, tied up with the current administrations need to be seen to be doing domething about 'sectarianism'. The blazers are being pressurised not to be seen to victimising Rangers, so will want to be seen as equally tough on all other teams, whether the offence is singing about the pope, alleged diving or anything else.

And what better fall guy than alleged cocaine user/ fraudster OConnor?


A stitch up.

Im not convinced though, if the 'authorites' are trying to even things up do you think stack would have got off with his slap on laughtery? I know it was handbags but if they were trying to even things up that was the perfect opertunity. Also the fact that the person who makes the decison is alowed to remain annomyones means it could be someone who hates the o/f as well :greengrin

[Golden Bear]

I think the reason it is resulting in a ban is that we went on to the win a game which could have turned out differently had the ref seen it and only booked him at the time.can you image hibs v hearts 1-1 i nthe 89th min and a hearts player dives, wins a pen and scores winning the game 2-1 then after its clear he dived do you think a booking for that player is fair in that scenario? we would all be shouting for bans, public hanging etc. but you see where im coming from the cheating effecrtivly changed the outcome of the game so therefore a ban seems the only resonable punishment.

im still not convinced that gaz dived or didnt dive the only replays I have seen seem inconclusive, but from where i was sitting at the time looked a stone waller

While agreeing with the sentiment that would be impossible to prove.

For instance if Hibs hadn't scored from the penalty then the game would not have been re-started from the centre spot and the pattern of play would have been totally different therefore St Johnstone may not have scored their second goal.

You could go on and on.

[Beefster]

Theres no doubt in my mind that our appeal will fail today. Its a political decision, tied up with the current administrations need to be seen to be doing domething about 'sectarianism'. The blazers are being pressurised not to be seen to victimising Rangers, so will want to be seen as equally tough on all other teams, whether the offence is singing about the pope, alleged diving or anything else.

And what better fall guy than alleged cocaine user/ fraudster OConnor?


A stitch up.

As someone has already said, if this conspiracy theory was true then Stack was the perfect opportunity to even things up.

[brog]

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest a conspiracy theory but I have no doubt that there's one overriding agenda in all the current hoo hah over legislation etc. That agenda ( IMO ) is to do everything possible to deflect from the fact that the OF are the cancer in our society & are responsible for 99% of the social problems in Scottish football. The police & all authorities have had full powers to deal with this for many years but have chosen to turn a blind eye, I still shudder when I recall my experiences of travelling to support Hibs at Parkhead, Ibrox & Hampden in the 60's/70's.
In the current climate some action has to be seen to be taken so we have Hibs & Dunfermline fans arrested & GOC hauled before the Compliance Officer ( ?? ) to ensure "fair" treatment all round. The SPL/SFA really are the only people who take Cameron at his word when he says " we're all in this together"!

[StevieC]

My take on this is, if a player dives and gets a yellow on the park, then he MUST receive the same punishment off it!!

To an extent I would agree, but if the boot was on the other foot and a player dived to win a penalty that allowed a team a late winner then I think that it's a different ball-game.

The trouble is that until refs are strong enough to give a penalty to players that will try to stay on their feet then there is no advantage to do so. Infact it could be argued that, in the professional game, they'd be stupid to do so.

In the case of GOC it WAS a dive, but I also think there may have been contact.

[hibsbollah]

Im not convinced though, if the 'authorites' are trying to even things up do you think stack would have got off with his slap on laughtery? I know it was handbags but if they were trying to even things up that was the perfect opertunity. Also the fact that the person who makes the decison is alowed to remain annomyones means it could be someone who hates the o/f as well :greengrin

You may have a point about Stack, id never considered that. Watching it again i dont think Stack has a case to answer, its difficult to prove any intent. But you could say the same about GOC as well.

Maybe its not a conspiracy, theyre just stupid bassas :greengrin

[Hamish]

To an extent I would agree, but if the boot was on the other foot and a player dived to win a penalty that allowed a team a late winner then I think that it's a different ball-game.

The trouble is that until refs are strong enough to give a penalty to players that will try to stay on their feet then there is no advantage to do so. Infact it could be argued that, in the professional game, they'd be stupid to do so.

In the case of GOC it WAS a dive, but I also think there may have been contact.


:agree: my view is the same, the defender has only himself to blame for a rubbish, half hearted attempt to stop the ball. GO'C uses this and there is contact.

Soft, etc., but the ref was correct.

[Moulin Yarns]

How can they question the referee's decision when he was 5 yards away from the incident with an unobstructed view???? Another question, why is Garry likely to be punished for the ref's incompetence for missing the original incident. Why not ban the ref??

[grunt]

So when is the tribunal? When do we get to hear? Anyone know?

[silverhibee]

So when is the tribunal? When do we get to hear? Anyone know?

Should be sometime today.

[Leithenhibby]

To an extent I would agree, but if the boot was on the other foot and a player dived to win a penalty that allowed a team a late winner then I think that it's a different ball-game.

The trouble is that until refs are strong enough to give a penalty to players that will try to stay on their feet then there is no advantage to do so. Infact it could be argued that, in the professional game, they'd be stupid to do so.

In the case of GOC it WAS a dive, but I also think there may have been contact.

:agree: It was, and the rule book states, a yellow.

How can the SFA decide that GOC & SN are worthy of the same punishment. :confused:
One offence is unsportsmanlike and the other is violent conduct, but the same ban applied. Crazy I say . Even if the SFA say "the ban stands", this will run until someone ends up in court like, "Bosman Rule"... :wink:

[patlowe]

:agree: It was, and the rule book states, a yellow.

How can the SFA decide that GOC & SN are worthy of the same punishment. :confused:
One offence is unsportsmanlike and the other is violent conduct, but the same ban applied.

I reckon it's because Hibs effectively got two points because of the decision, not sure if that's in the new rules though. Regardless, this sets a precedent and one that could potentially get pretty messy.

[dalkeith stu]

:agree: It was, and the rule book states, a yellow.

How can the SFA decide that GOC & SN are worthy of the same punishment. :confused:
One offence is unsportsmanlike and the other is violent conduct, but the same ban applied. Crazy I say . Even if the SFA say "the ban stands", this will run until someone ends up in court like, "Bosman Rule"... :wink:

I agree with the rule, i think a cheat should be given a 2 game ban.

The penalty was scored and the match was won. It would be interesting if anything would be said if the penalty was missed or the match was lost. Still cheating but would everyone at the bbc be greetin about it. Nothing was said by them last year when the Hamilton player stopped the ball on the line with his hand but the ref couldn't decide who it was.

IMHO i don't think GOC dived but it was a very soft penalty and if we are to ban every player for going down easy or looking to make contact before going down the 3 man committee will be very busy.

[basehibby]

Theres no doubt in my mind that our appeal will fail today. Its a political decision, tied up with the current administrations need to be seen to be doing domething about 'sectarianism'. The blazers are being pressurised not to be seen to victimising Rangers, so will want to be seen as equally tough on all other teams, whether the offence is singing about the pope, alleged diving or anything else.

And what better fall guy than alleged cocaine user/ fraudster OConnor?


A stitch up.

:agree: Agreed - the eagerness to pin something on a non-hun (coincidentally wearing a green shirt with no hoops!) is shameful in it's desperation.
The eagerness of the press and various so called experts is also obscene in it's level of vacillation to the extent that they appear to have lost all objectivity - as anyone who was sitting in the north end of the East stand will testify. From that vantage point it was blindingly obvious that there was contact between StJs defender and GOC - thus anyone who was sitting there was bemused and confused as to why the original decision has been questioned in the first place.

[grunt]

As with the Mikolunis ban the penalty was scored and the match was won. If you're talking about the Mikolunias dive when playing for Lithuania against Scotland, then although they scored the penalty, Lithuania did not win that game. 3-1 Scotland.

[dalkeith stu]

If you're talking about the Mikolunias dive when playing for Lithuania against Scotland, then although they scored the penalty, Lithuania did not win that game. 3-1 Scotland.
oops, should really start eating more fish.

[Leithenhibby]

I reckon it's because Hibs effectively got two points because of the decision, not sure if that's in the new rules though. Regardless, this sets a precedent and one that could potentially get pretty messy.


The Ref makes the mistake/decision and GOC gets the ban. Make no mistake this is going to run and run!!!
What does the Ref have to say/play in this mess :confused:

There have been numerous occasions that a player has tried to gain an advantage by diving, faking injury and the like for decades, and it has to stop. :agree: But we either use TV evidence or we don't. The SFA can't just pick and choose when they MAY, allow it. FARCE.

And that is why so many people can't be &rsed with it, and just give the game a wide berth ..

[Golden Bear]

I reckon it's because Hibs effectively got two points because of the decision, not sure if that's in the new rules though. Regardless, this sets a precedent and one that could potentially get pretty messy.



Impossible to prove!

[patlowe]

Impossible to prove!

I know! It's just I remember Gordon Smith saying "simulation resulting in a benefit for the team" or some nonsense when he was discussing this rule change as SFA chief.

[Geo_1875]

I take it that all the pundits who have claimed in the past that players are entitled to go down under the slightest contact will have to change their tune. I hope that every weeks OF love in on ESPN and Sky will receive the same scrutiny that Hibs and Garry O have been under. If they bring this in in Engerlund, Steven Gerrard can hang his boots up now.

[WhileTheChief..]

When the tribunal sit this afternoon they will need to hear from the ref and his assistant to get their views. Both of them awarded the penalty and were only a few yards away from the incident so I would very much doubt that anything is going to happen here. He will get off with no punishment.:thumbsup:

[Golden Bear]

When the tribunal sit this afternoon they will need to hear from the ref and his assistant to get their views. Both of them awarded the penalty and were only a few yards away from the incident so I would very much doubt that anything is going to happen here. He will get off with no punishment.:thumbsup:

Maybe not.

This is an excerpt from the SFA's Judicial panel protocol:-

"Where a player is alleged to have caused the match official to make an incorrect decision and/or supported an error of judgement on the part of a match official by an act of simulation then the incident shall be deemed to have not been seen by the match official for the purpose of this Paragraph 14.4."

So it seems as though the Match Officials opinions will not now count for much.

:rolleyes:

[Hibby K]

I know! It's just I remember Gordon Smith saying "simulation resulting in a benefit for the team" or some nonsense when he was discussing this rule change as SFA chief.

Should have guessed that this blue nosed balloon would be behind this!

For a player who will only be remembered for a miss in an English FA Cup final he seems to have had too much of a say in Scottish football, Bet he'll be the first to complain though when a Rangers player faces the same tribunal for diving.

[Hibby D]

This is a much better account of the situation than Bathgate's

http://3attheback.blogspot.com/2011/10/should-retrospective-punishment-of.html

[plhibs]

This is a much better account of the situation than Bathgate's

http://3attheback.blogspot.com/2011/10/should-retrospective-punishment-of.html

That's a great article and shows the slippery slope that the SFA are heading for if they uphold this ban. The ban for Naismith i can understand, striking another player, and i would have no problem even if it was one of our players.

[Moulin Yarns]

This is a much better account of the situation than Bathgate's

http://3attheback.blogspot.com/2011/10/should-retrospective-punishment-of.html

Well found Diane, that's definately how I see it. Punishment retrospectively should be the same as if it happened at the time.

[Hibby D]

Result - no punishment :thumbsup:

Sorry should say - news courtesy of Luke Shanley's twitter account :wink:

[patlowe]

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/hibernian/273629-hibernian-striker-garry-oconnor-cleared-over-diving-accusation/

[Twiglet]

Result - no punishment :thumbsup:

Sorry should say - news courtesy of Luke Shanley's twitter account :wink:

:thumbsup:Happy days!:thumbsup:

[matty_f]

:thumbsup:I really couldn't see how they could come to anything other than that decision, to be honest. The ref had a great view, and the tv pictures were inconclusive.

[Hamish]

Result - no punishment :thumbsup:

Sorry should say - news courtesy of Luke Shanley's twitter account :wink:

Oh dear, some BBC 'journalists' and 'presenters' will not be happy.

[Hibbyradge]

That will be a huge boost for him.

Onward and upward.

Mibbes...

[Geo_1875]

Common sense prevails at the SFA? I don't believe it!!!

I take it the BBC pundits and assorted others will take out a full page advert in the papers to make a full public apology to Garry? I won't hold my breath.

[Spike Mandela]

Let the moral outrage begin across the Scottish media:greengrin

[Hibby D]

Oh dear, some BBC 'journalists' and 'presenters' will not be happy.

Neither will other journos (Bathgate for e.g.) Jambos, Rankgers fans... We'll be more hated than Hertz now :hilarious

[Moulin Yarns]

Result - no punishment :thumbsup:

Sorry should say - news courtesy of Luke Shanley's twitter account :wink:

Cheers, Now going the office telling the sad Saints fans :thumbsup:

[Golden Bear]

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/hibernian/273629-hibernian-striker-garry-oconnor-cleared-over-diving-accusation/

Excellent news.

I hope the Club now have the balls to issue an official statement which severely criticises McInnes for the manner in which he has handled this sad episode.

It's all about opinions and in this case McInnes was wrong so I hope he issues an apology to Garry O. but there again pigs might fly.

[Golden Bear]

Cheers, Now going the office telling the sad Saints fans :thumbsup:

Tell them from me that they've turned themselves into a bunch of greetin faced saddos in recent years and I would be delighted to see them relegated once again.

[Sir David Gray]

Excellent news.

I hope the Club now have the balls to issue an official statement which severely criticises McInnes for the manner in which he has handled this sad episode.

It's all about opinions and in this case McInnes was wrong so I hope he issues an apology to Garry O. but there again pigs might fly.

That might be a tad difficult, given Billy Brown's comments on Sportscene last week. :wink:

Glad they've come to this decision, given the TV evidence, I don't see how they could have come to any other conclusion.

It's now time to scrap the rule that says you can be given a retrospective two match suspension for diving.

[joebakerforever]

Richard "Mutton Molester" Gordon & Pansy Preston : -






GIRUY :na na:

[blackpoolhibs]

Part of me did think they are that stubborn nothing would change their mind, and he'd be found guilty, but i think they must have had a word with their lawyers and seen this could never have worked.

Dont be surprised if Garry suddenly picks up some very soft booking in the near future, or even a sending off. :rolleyes:

[JimBHibees]

That might be a tad difficult, given Billy Brown's comments on Sportscene last week. :wink:

Glad they've come to this decision, given the TV evidence, I don't see how they could have come to any other conclusion.

It's now time to scrap the rule that says you can be given a retrospective two match suspension for diving.

Disagree think it should be used when players have clearly dived ala Mikolunias not in cases like this where it was much less clear that there was any dive.

[Golden Bear]

That might be a tad difficult, given Billy Brown's comments on Sportscene last week. :wink:

Glad they've come to this decision, given the TV evidence, I don't see how they could have come to any other conclusion.

It's now time to scrap the rule that says you can be given a retrospective two match suspension for diving.

McInnes was wrong when he directly accused another player's Club of cheating. The bad publicity will have inflicted some damage to both the player and Hibernian FC even although the player was found to be "not guilty". McInnes was up to the same tricks last year when he said that a legitimate Hibs goal at Perth should have been disallowed but the reason why remains a mystery to this day.

[YehButNoBut]

Really could not have reached any other decision without opening up a huge can of worms :worms: surprised it even got this far.

Boost for us and Gazza though so good news anyway. :thumbsup:

On the minus side however will be, if he goes down anytime soon for a blatant penalty we are very unlikely to get it.

[Sir David Gray]

Disagree think it should be used when players have clearly dived ala Mikolunias not in cases like this where it was much less clear that there was any dive.

I just don't see how one player gets a yellow card, if the referee spots him diving, and another player gets, what is effectively, a red card retrospectively just because the referee didn't see him dive. Two entirely different punishments for exactly the same offence just doesn't seem right to me.

It's time to get with the times and introduce video technology during games. If a team thinks that an opposition player has cheated and conned the referee then they should be able to refer it to video evidence straight away and if the referee sees that a dive has taken place then the decision can be reversed immediately and the rules changed so that all cheats and divers can be sent off.

How hard can that be to implement? :confused:

[Hibby D]

Really could not have reached any other decision without opening up a huge can of worms :worms: surprised it even got this far.

Boost for us and Gazza though so good news anyway. :thumbsup:

On the minus side however will be, if he goes down anytime soon for a blatant penalty we are very unlikely to get it.

On the contrary. Scottish Refs will be applauding this outcome as it upholds Conrad's initial decision!

[James70]

Richard "Mutton Molester" Gordon & Pansy Preston : -






GIRUY :na na:



:faf: :faf: :na na:

[YehButNoBut]

On the contrary. Scottish Refs will be applauding this outcome as it upholds Conrad's initial decision!

Hopefully the case. :aok:

[Don Giovanni]

I'm surprised (and delighted) with this outcome, not because I doubt Garrys integrity but that the SFA have contrived to come to a correct decision! Despite the evidence, I admit, I doubted their ability to do so.


[Gaun yersel Garry-boy!!]

[CallumLaidlaw]

On the contrary. Scottish Refs will be applauding this outcome as it upholds Conrad's initial decision!

Exactly. This shows that O'Connor DOESN'T dive, so if he goes down in the future, they can trust that there was a foul :greengrin

[HibbyAndy]

Excellent news for the best striker in the spl.

[Future17]

Excellent decision.

I couldn't care less about what McInnes said but I'm disappointed in what Brown said as a representative of the Club.

I still don't agree with the process the SFA has put in place as it lacks transparency and accountability, however, while I don't think it was a dive and I do think it was a penalty, I can accept that there was sufficient doubt about the penalty award to merit further scrutiny.

I haven't seen any wording of a decision from the Tribunal. Do they come out and say "the referee was correct" or "it wasn't a dive" or do they just say something like "there was insufficient evidence to justify finding the player guilty of simulation". The latter wouldn't really clear GOC of diving, although that may be impossible in some people's eyes anyway.

[hibs0666]

Hopefully this outcome will teach BB a wee lesson too.

[YehButNoBut]

Excellent decision.

I couldn't care less about what McInnes said but I'm disappointed in what Brown said as a representative of the Club.

I still don't agree with the process the SFA has put in place as it lacks transparency and accountability, however, while I don't think it was a dive and I do think it was a penalty, I can accept that there was sufficient doubt about the penalty award to merit further scrutiny.

I haven't seen any wording of a decision from the Tribunal. Do they come out and say "the referee was correct" or "it wasn't a dive" or do they just say something like "there was insufficient evidence to justify finding the player guilty of simulation". The latter wouldn't really clear GOC of diving, although that may be impossible in some people's eyes anyway.

All I can find is detailed below, not a very full explanation.

Hibs were offered a two-match ban for O’Connor by the Scottish FA’s Compliance Officer last Friday but instead chose to contest the decision, which was referred to a Fast Track Tribunal.
That tribunal however has upheld the referee's original decision, meaning O'Connor has been cleared of any wrongdoing.

O'Connor stood accused of having breached Scottish Fa rule 202, which states: "No player shall cause a match official to make an incorrect decision and/or support an error of judgement on the part of a match official by an act of simulation."

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/hibernian/273629-hibernian-striker-garry-oconnor-cleared-over-diving-accusation/

[grunt]

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/hibernian/273629-hibernian-striker-garry-oconnor-cleared-over-diving-accusation/That article looks as though they had written it in the clear expectation he would be found guilty. Apart from the very first sentence where they say "Garry O’Connor has been cleared of an act of simulation by a Scottish Football Association Fast Track Tribunal", the rest of the article espouses his guilt. On Twitter, the STV reporters are seething. But of course they are, they've been saying all week he was guilty, which is always a risky view to take in advance of any form of trial or tribunal. The media have not performed at all well with regard to this incident. Sadly, I suspect they will continue to bleat about it, and that will be all we will hear.

[Renfrew_Hibby]

***** YOU Richard Gordon :bye:

[grunt]

All I can find is detailed below, not a very full explanation.There's SFA on the SFA website!

[basehibby]

Common sense prevails at the SFA? I don't believe it!!!

I take it the BBC pundits and assorted others will take out a full page advert in the papers to make a full public apology to Garry? I won't hold my breath.

:agree: This :greengrin :top marks

They were all just jumping on a bandwagon and it would serve them right to eat humble pie for blowing their mouths off on the basis of inconclusive "evidence".

Like you say though - won't be holding my breath!

[HibbyAndy]

It would be an absolute cardinal sin if GOC was found guilty, That little Hun twat Naismith gets away with diving every other week along with using his elbows ( Like Weir), Back chat to the ref ( Like Weir)...And generally making an erse of himself with his idiotic goal scoring celebrations.

If you want to make an example of a player, Look no further forward than that little Nerd.

[hibee_girl]

That article looks as though they had written it in the clear expectation he would be found guilty. Apart from the very first sentence where they say "Garry O’Connor has been cleared of an act of simulation by a Scottish Football Association Fast Track Tribunal", the rest of the article espouses his guilt. On Twitter, the STV reporters are seething. But of course they are, they've been saying all week he was guilty, which is always a risky view to take in advance of any form of trial or tribunal. The media have not performed at all well with regard to this incident. Sadly, I suspect they will continue to bleat about it, and that will be all we will hear.

:agree: one has just told me it was 'a clear dive' :rolleyes:

[R'Albin]

:thumbsup:

Justice:agree:

[hibsbollah]

Theres no doubt in my mind that our appeal will fail today. Its a political decision, tied up with the current administrations need to be seen to be doing domething about 'sectarianism'. The blazers are being pressurised not to be seen to victimising Rangers, so will want to be seen as equally tough on all other teams, whether the offence is singing about the pope, alleged diving or anything else.And what better fall guy than alleged cocaine user/ fraudster OConnor?A stitch up.I am absolutely delighted, although stunned, to be proved wrong. I cant decide whether this is down to a) Garrys case being absolutely watertight, therefore the corrupt bassas had no leg to stand on, or b) theyre not really as corrupt as we like to pretend.Id love it to be b).

[Saorsa]

Excellent news.

I hope the Club now have the balls to issue an official statement which severely criticises McInnes for the manner in which he has handled this sad episode.

It's all about opinions and in this case McInnes was wrong so I hope he issues an apology to Garry O. but there again pigs might fly.well you never know :greengrin

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b168/jamie1971/flyingpig.gif

correct decision, any other would have been ridiculous :agree:

[CallumLaidlaw]

:agree: one has just told me it was 'a clear dive' :rolleyes:

Yip, sun reported says its "baffling".

Also Jody morris has just tweeted "to say I'm miffed/baffled is an understatement". Wonder if its about the decision. Good to see fellow pros wanting players banned :confused:


Wonder if they would all be as upset if it was Stokes/Jelavic getting cleared.

[euro Hibby]

strikes me as funny that they use TV to detect dives our foul play after the game is finished, yet they refuse to use TV evidence for off side or incidents where the ball crossed or did not cross the line.

Also like anyone else Billy Browns comment was an opinion and hats off to him for being so open.

[The Harp]

Part of me did think they are that stubborn nothing would change their mind, and he'd be found guilty, but i think they must have had a word with their lawyers and seen this could never have worked.

Dont be surprised if Garry suddenly picks up some very soft booking in the near future, or even a sending off. :rolleyes:

It's ironic that he'll be getting worse treatment for being cleared of this charge than if he'd been found guilty. I can see him being targeted, not just by referees, but by opposition players and fans, at least for a while after this.
That's two Hibs players cleared of charges in the space of a few days - cue conspiracy theories and accusations of us having friends in high places from certain quarters.:greengrin

[basehibby]

:agree: one has just told me it was 'a clear dive' :rolleyes:

Tell the muppet to get his glasses on and stop trying to see only what he wants to see. There was 100% definately contact from where I was watching and I'm pleased that the SFA's arbiters have listened to and watched the evidence and come to the right decision. :thumbsup:

[DaveF]

The whole thing was a pile of ***** from the second is was raised.

I look forward to McInnes and Co slating their players for play acting to win fouls in future matches, because you can guarantee they'll do it, though I'm not so certain their manager will see it.

An almost hysterical degree of hypocrisy from some of the 'tweeters' mentioned earlier in this thread.

[Jim44]

Was O'Connor right? ..................... 'only God can judge him?' :greengrin

On a serious note, the petty and juvenile mocking dislike of Hibs by the Sportsound idiots, including R Gordon, will be even more unbearable now.

[frazeHFC]

Just seen the news. So GOC does not have a 2 match ban now, he can play versus 'Well? :confused:

:pray:

[Franck Stanton]

Really do have to laugh at McInnes, you trying to tell me a St J player has NEVER went down easily in the box to try for a penalty ? Get a grip man, EVERY team has players who will go down in the box with the slightest of contact. Get over it.

[WhileTheChief..]

According to Reporting Scotland SFA spokesman said that O'Connor was fouled, no simulation and that ref called it correct. And you know what, they're right! Happy days!!

[Bishop Hibee]

The correct decision.

As for STV, I can't remember watching any sport they show since the last millennium (as opposed to ITV). Stick to reporting club rugby you bunch of diddies.

[hibee_girl]

Just seen the news. So GOC does not have a 2 match ban now, he can play versus 'Well? :confused:

:pray:

:agree:

[WhileTheChief..]

Was O'Connor right? ..................... 'only God can judge him?' :greengrin

On a serious note, the petty and juvenile mocking dislike of Hibs by the Sportsound idiots, including R Gordon, will be even more unbearable now.

That's a serious note?? I think the serious point is that we have our top scorer available. People really need to remember that it's only some pundits opinions, they count for nowt in reality.

[poolman]

Yip, sun reported says its "baffling".

Also Jody morris has just tweeted "to say I'm miffed/baffled is an understatement". Wonder if its about the decision. Good to see fellow pros wanting players banned :confused:


Wonder if they would all be as upset if it was Stokes/Jelavic getting cleared.




He's used to telling the odd porkie or two :greengrin from Wiki

Morris has had a bad image over several legal and ethical issues. Chronologically, these include allegations that: he was one of a group of Chelsea players who drunkenly abused American tourists at Heathrow Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Heathrow_Airport) within hours of the 9/11 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks) on New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City) and the Pentagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon);[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jody_Morris#cite_note-9) that he was involved in a drunken brawl (in 2002);[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jody_Morris#cite_note-10) that he was involved in a sexual assault (in 2003).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jody_Morris#cite_note-11)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jody_Morris#cite_note-12) He was also arrested for drunk-driving on 1 November 2006, after driving the wrong way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_the_wrong_way) down a one-way street. Morris, who had one previous conviction for drunk-driving, was disqualified from driving for four years, given 80 hours community service and a two-year suspended jail sentence.

[DaveF]

He's used to telling the odd porkie or two :greengrin from Wiki

Morris has had a bad image over several legal and ethical issues. Chronologically, these include allegations that: he was one of a group of Chelsea players who drunkenly abused American tourists at Heathrow Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Heathrow_Airport) within hours of the 9/11 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks) on New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City) and the Pentagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon);[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jody_Morris#cite_note-9) that he was involved in a drunken brawl (in 2002);[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jody_Morris#cite_note-10) that he was involved in a sexual assault (in 2003).[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jody_Morris#cite_note-11)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jody_Morris#cite_note-12) He was also arrested for drunk-driving on 1 November 2006, after driving the wrong way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_the_wrong_way) down a one-way street. Morris, who had one previous conviction for drunk-driving, was disqualified from driving for four years, given 80 hours community service and a two-year suspended jail sentence.

I'm a bit shocked and miffed at his twitter vids :greengrin

http://www.twitvid.com/MVABH (language Jody!)

http://www.twitvid.com/7P01R

[Carheenlea]

This whole episode has been shameful, and glad at least, that common sense has prevailed.

Will the pathetic situation of grown men bleating like primary school children at every decision that goes against them now cease? As long as your likes of McInnes are involved in Scottish football, probably not.

[poolman]

This whole episode has been shameful, and glad at least, that common sense has prevailed.

Will the pathetic situation of grown men bleating like primary school children at every decision that goes against them now cease? As long as your likes of McInnes are involved in Scottish football, probably not.


:agree: Have to agree with this

Bloody hell, decisions come and go for you throughout the whole season

As much as it was a soft penalty IMO it was a penalty, in todays game forwards are always looking to make the most of challenges in the box, they all do it so Mcinness can go and take one

I'm sure if somebody trolled through the web they would come up with a few decisions that went St J's way

[jdships]

Common sense has prevailed :thumbsup:
Now there is a shock
:greengrin

[Part/Time Supporter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/scotfoot

Billy Dodds admits that he hasn't seen the incident, then goes off on one.

:clown:

[Kato]

There's three possible scenarios with what's happening in the media.

1. They are sounding off on McInnes'/Brown's words without actually looking at the video evidence for themselves, within which is clear evidence that GOC could well have fouled.

2. They can see what is in the video but are ganging up in GOC for whatever reason.

3. They are all as thick as **** in the neck of an HP bottle.

[clerriehibs]

There's three possible scenarios with what's happening in the media.

1. They are sounding off on McInnes'/Brown's words without actually looking at the video evidence for themselves, within which is clear evidence that GOC could well have fouled.

2. They can see what is in the video but are ganging up in GOC for whatever reason.

3. They are all as thick as **** in the neck of an HP bottle.

I think there's also an element of self-righteousness about the penalty we conceded against the Czechs, and are looking for a home-grown sacrificial lamb to show that unlike those gits on the continent, we can do things properly, don't you know.

Maybe they'll start to realise now they should have waited until a stone-waller came along before getting on their high horses.

[Feed McGraw]

Have you listened to these media guys in the past ? Most of them would not know a fitba`if it hit them square in the puss ! Don`t care what they think or what Garry did or didn`t do. It was a PENALTY, endof,fact, as they say.

[HibsMax]

Great news! I still think that there was contact and that Garry made a meal of it but I don't think there's a rule against that. It would be nice if they had decent camera coverage at the game so things like this could be reviewed. I don't mean during the game, I mean after the fact. I know that decisions made after the game offer little consolation to a team that finds out later that a bad call was made against them but that's the nature of the beast unless they change the way the game is officiated.

[EasterRoad4Ever]

The SFA had no option but to dismiss this. The ref saw the incident from a few feet away and made his decision - end of. Had the stupid SFA decided that the ref was wrong, and that they were going to make a different decision based on an inconclusive TV angle or worse still some chap watching from 40 yds away on the touchline, they would not only be opening up a whole can of worms - likely Hibs could easily take legal action against these clowns.

Bottom line is the SFA had no PROOF that GOC dived, and THEIR representative on the field (i.e. the ref) decided that he didn't.

The SFA's incompetence knows no bounds.

[Kato]

I think there's also an element of self-righteousness about the penalty we conceded against the Czechs, and are looking for a home-grown sacrificial lamb to show that unlike those gits on the continent, we can do things properly, don't you know.

Maybe they'll start to realise now they should have waited until a stone-waller came along before getting on their high horses.

.
Good point. I think that's covered with #3 in my post

[RIP]

Has anyone looked at the BBC replay of the incident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14998324.stm

The defender clearly turns towards his own goal and lifts his back left leg to trip Garry?

I missed this the first couple of times I watched it and most other observers including McInnes and Billy Brown probably did too

[Hibby D]

Has anyone looked at the BBC replay of the incident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14998324.stm

The defender clearly turns towards his own goal and lifts his back left leg to trip Garry?

I missed this the first couple of times I watched it and most other observers including McInnes and Billy Brown probably did too

Well thankfully the compliance officer must have noticed it. I still maintain the first two showings look like a clear pen and it's only the close up slow motion that gives the impression GO'C is diving, but in that view the defenders leg is hidden. 2-1 says it's not a penalty therefore it's inconclusive and the CO made the right call.

The BBC's band of merry men are apopletic about this outcome ye ken - erses!!

[son of haggart]

Has anyone looked at the BBC replay of the incident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14998324.stm

The defender clearly turns towards his own goal and lifts his back left leg to trip Garry?

I missed this the first couple of times I watched it and most other observers including McInnes and Billy Brown probably did too

I've looked at it a few times and I think the ref got it wrong. I think O'Connor moved into the defender rather than the reverse and the defender was trying (albeit he failed) to get out of the way. However it was a marginal decision and totally ridiculous to overturn it on the video evidence. For which reasons I think hibs were right to appeal and the right decision has now been made.

There was a post earlier which called for video evidence to be available to refs at games,, liek the rugby, and if it is to be used at all this is the right approach IMHO

[Future17]

Well thankfully the compliance officer must have noticed it. I still maintain the first two showings look like a clear pen and it's only the close up slow motion that gives the impression GO'C is diving, but in that view the defenders leg is hidden. 2-1 says it's not a penalty therefore it's inconclusive and the CO made the right call.

The BBC's band of merry men are apopletic about this outcome ye ken - erses!!

Except he/she didn't as the it was the Compliance Officer who recommended a 2 game ban!

[matty_f]

I've looked at it a few times and I think the ref got it wrong. I think O'Connor moved into the defender rather than the reverse and the defender was trying (albeit he failed) to get out of the way. However it was a marginal decision and totally ridiculous to overturn it on the video evidence. For which reasons I think hibs were right to appeal and the right decision has now been made.

There was a post earlier which called for video evidence to be available to refs at games,, liek the rugby, and if it is to be used at all this is the right approach IMHO
Video evidence wouldn't have helped in this instance though, as the camera angles were totally inconclusive. The ref had the best view of all, and he called it right, despite what you might think.

[Leithenhibby]

Never doubted it to be honest ... :na na:

Right decision by the SFA and "I doth my cap" :wink:

[Kato]

I've looked at it a few times and I think the ref got it wrong. I think O'Connor moved into the defender rather than the reverse and the defender was trying (albeit he failed) to get out of the way.

Ref was closer than you were.

Look at again with this interpretation in mind. O'Connor is moving toward goal and the defenders turns his back on him but leaves his leg trailing behind. The only contact required to put GOC down is the defender's trailing leg and GOC as he moves to get to the ball. You can see the defender's pulling once GOC is going to ground.

[son of haggart]

Video evidence wouldn't have helped in this instance though, as the camera angles were totally inconclusive. The ref had the best view of all, and he called it right, despite what you might think.

I don't think he did, based on the video evidence - and presumably the compliance officer shared my opinion, not yours. However I think it is a subjective call, and if my reading was right a booking would have been given to O'Connor at worst, and the penalty decision reversed. Certainly not a two match ban after the game is over.

[Hibbyradge]

I've looked at it a few times and I think the ref got it wrong. I think O'Connor moved into the defender rather than the reverse and the defender was trying (albeit he failed) to get out of the way. However it was a marginal decision and totally ridiculous to overturn it on the video evidence. For which reasons I think hibs were right to appeal and the right decision has now been made.

There was a post earlier which called for video evidence to be available to refs at games,, liek the rugby, and if it is to be used at all this is the right approach IMHO

The beauty of football debate, I guess.

You've looked it a few times, Scott, and yet you only "think" the ref got it wrong. The ref saw it once. As you say, the right decision has been made.

(I haven't seen it once yet, by the way.)

Video evidence should be available at the time, as you say. Frankly, it's only resisted to save people's egos on a number of levels.

[son of haggart]

Ref was closer than you were.

Look at again with this interpretation in mind. O'Connor is moving toward goal and the defenders turns his back on him but leaves his leg trailing behind. The only contact required to put GOC down is the defender's trailing leg and GOC as he moves to get to the ball. You can see the defender's pulling once GOC is going to ground.


I agree the ref was closer and hence his decision should have been final.

My opinion is only based on the tv coverage and therefore counts for diddly squat. If we want to have judgement on the basis of TV evidence it should be at the request of the referee if he is unsure or unsighted forthe incident, as in rugby.

from what I have seen my opinion is I think contact was mad, as you saye but I don't think it was deliberate on behalf of the defender.

[matty_f]

I don't think he did, based on the video evidence - and presumably the compliance officer shared my opinion, not yours. However I think it is a subjective call, and if my reading was right a booking would have been given to O'Connor at worst, and the penalty decision reversed. Certainly not a two match ban after the game is over.

What I'm saying though is that it is almost impossible to tell one way or the other from the video evidence, whereas the referee had a look, completely unobstructed, at the incident from a few yards away. There is practically nobody who was better placed to give the decision than the referee. The compliance officer might have agreed with you, but they've been over-ruled by whoever it is that does the appeal who clearly share my opinion, not yours.

So that's me, the ref, and the appeals folk that say Garry has no case to answer. Fortunately we're the three people (or more, depending on how many look at the appeal) whose opinion matters most.:greengrin

[son of haggart]

The beauty of football debate, I guess.

You've looked it a few times, Scott, and yet you only "think" the ref got it wrong. The ref saw it once. As you say, the right decision has been made.

(I haven't seen it once yet, by the way.)

Video evidence should be available at the time, as you say. Frankly, it's only resisted to save people's egos on a number of levels.

Exactly - as I have said a few times it's just my opinion - there can be no certainty with this. If there was video evidence at the time it would just be an aid to the referee to help him make a judgement. To conduct trials after the vent (unless it is an off the ball assault or similar) is nonsensical IMHO

[Kato]

I agree the ref was closer and hence his decision should have been final.

My opinion is only based on the tv coverage and therefore counts for diddly squat. If we want to have judgement on the basis of TV evidence it should be at the request of the referee if he is unsure or unsighted forthe incident....

Agreed, two decisions each - would stop the game too much if there's too many.


I don't think it was deliberate on behalf of the defender.

Doesn't really matter intent is by passed in the laws - the word "careless" is involved when describing fouling by tripping an opponent.

[snooky]

Never doubted it to be honest ... :na na:

Right decision by the SFA and "I doth my cap" :wink:

GO'C 2 game ban = the SFA are :asshole: :asshole: :asshole:

GO'C 2 game ban annulled = the SFA admit they are :asshole: :asshole: :asshole:

Conclusion : The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

[Sir David Gray]

Video evidence wouldn't have helped in this instance though, as the camera angles were totally inconclusive. The ref had the best view of all, and he called it right, despite what you might think.

It would have saved all this nonsense, though, with a possible two match suspension hanging over a player, more than a week after the game has been played.

The appeal committee has just seen the footage that the referee would have seen, if it was possible to review video evidence during a game so presumably the same decision would have been made, even if the incident had been replayed there and then. The only difference is, the incident would have been done and dusted within a minute or so, instead of all this uncertainty that has been going on for the last eight days.

[Hibby D]

Except he/she didn't as the it was the Compliance Officer who recommended a 2 game ban!

I see. I've been a bit mixed up then as I thought the CO heard the appeal....:dizzy:

Now that you've clarified that I can state that as far as I'm concerned, the compliance officer is a twat :greengrin

http://www.scotsman.com/hibernianfc/Garry-O39Connor-cleared-of-simulation.6849179.jp?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[basehibby]

Don't know if anyone's said this already but credit is due to all the legal and administrative staff at Hibs who have successfully brought about a just conclusion to this important appeal - important work with a very real positive impact on the football team so :top marksto all involved.

As for Billy Brown - still think he's a positive aquisition in as an assisstant coach - just remember though Billy - less of yer idle chat - this is not a pub team!!!