PDA

View Full Version : NHC Sone Aluko



Wotherspiniesta
04-12-2011, 01:03 PM
After losing a diving prick to serious injury, its nice to see that the Huns have found a replacement.

Billy Whizz
04-12-2011, 01:41 PM
After losing a diving prick to serious injury, its nice to see that the Huns have found a replacement.

Saw the incident on goals on Sunday.
Blatant dive

joebakerforever
04-12-2011, 02:02 PM
Given that the SFA Compliance Officer was quickly on the case of GO'Cs alleged simulation in the St Johnstone match, surely Aluko should be cited by the SFA on Monday morning :dunno:

Pedantic_Hibee
04-12-2011, 02:05 PM
Can the general public bring this to SFA attention or will they investigate it off their own accord? In the interests of fairness for all of course.

millarco
04-12-2011, 02:10 PM
The SFA are 'likely' to investigate it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16023596.stm

Ferryhibby
04-12-2011, 02:39 PM
Well, theres there winning goal next saturday, hes a bloody disgrace

Future17
04-12-2011, 06:30 PM
Well, theres there winning goal next saturday, hes a bloody disgrace

He might be suspended for next week.

It's interesting - as we discussed after the O'Connor incident versus St Johnstone - it's a yellow card offence if the referee makes the decision during the game, but a potential 2 match ban if dealt with by the Compliance Officer. Doesn't seem right to me.

PaulSmith
04-12-2011, 06:57 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/16025163.stm

That is a clear dive with zero contact. Two match ban coming his way.

p.s the O'Connor one Hibs TV picked up contact with the St Johnstone player.

Wotherspiniesta
04-12-2011, 09:21 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/16025163.stm

That is a clear dive with zero contact. Two match ban coming his way.

p.s the O'Connor one Hibs TV picked up contact with the St Johnstone player.

Who's the ref? Could he have had a better view than that? Cheats.

PatHead
04-12-2011, 09:29 PM
Who's the ref? Could he have had a better view than that? Cheats.

Steve Conroy

Hibercelona
04-12-2011, 09:34 PM
Steve Conroy

Utter fudbaw! :agree:

FastEddieFelson
04-12-2011, 10:51 PM
the huns had one foul given against them too, in the 80th minute. that must be some sort of record in top flight football?

Sir David Gray
04-12-2011, 11:15 PM
I said this when O'Connor was being investigated and faced a ban, and I'll say it again.

There's no question that Sone Aluko dived yesterday, it was even clearer than O'Connor's in my opinion, but if it had been spotted by the referee, he would have received a yellow card and that would have been case closed.

It's not right that he faces a different punishment, just because the referee didn't see it at the time.

It's time for diving to be a sending off offence.

hibbysam
04-12-2011, 11:42 PM
I said this when O'Connor was being investigated and faced a ban, and I'll say it again.

There's no question that Sone Aluko dived yesterday, it was even clearer than O'Connor's in my opinion, but if it had been spotted by the referee, he would have received a yellow card and that would have been case closed.

It's not right that he faces a different punishment, just because the referee didn't see it at the time.

It's time for diving to be a sending off offence.

Think the ban will be more because he won the penalty that basically won the game for Rangers, had he been booked it would have been 1-0 and chances are Dunfermline may have got a point, as it is he dived and won Rangers 3 points which is why he should receive a ban for his actions..

blackpoolhibs
04-12-2011, 11:56 PM
Thats a dive, i have watched it 3 times now, there is no contact. I expect him to be cleared.

Sir David Gray
05-12-2011, 10:41 AM
Think the ban will be more because he won the penalty that basically won the game for Rangers, had he been booked it would have been 1-0 and chances are Dunfermline may have got a point, as it is he dived and won Rangers 3 points which is why he should receive a ban for his actions..

So what happens if a player dives, wins his side a penalty but the penalty is missed?

Presumably the player would still be cited and punished?

Geo_1875
05-12-2011, 10:50 AM
Mentioned on Radio Scotland this morning, followed by "What about Garry O'Connor, he got off with it?". Utter bawbags and a crap system.

easty
05-12-2011, 02:46 PM
Just watched it for the first time the now, that's unreal. That referee is a disgrace, you can't even really say that Aluko has conned the ref into giving the pen as the ref could clearly see there was no contact.

Aluko is a cheat, but the % of players in modern football who'd do the same is pretty high.

The referee is an absolute disgrace, he should be taking outside and shot in front of his family...:wink:

hibiedude
05-12-2011, 04:34 PM
Until the power that be get their finger out both old-firm players will continue to dive the second they get inside the box- best way to stop this is simple "deduct points" as for the Ref in that game he should be fined because he had the best view of the lot and he still gave a spot kick.

HibeeMG
05-12-2011, 04:38 PM
I texted my Pars supporting mate to say that was the most blatantly biased piece of refereeing I'd seen in a long time.

It's the only explanation for it. The referee had the clearest view of the incident and there is no-way he could have seen it as a penalty without having some sort of ulterior motive.

Strong words, I know, and I'm not one for being conspiratorial normally, but that one really p***ed me off.

aljo7-0
05-12-2011, 04:39 PM
Thats a dive, i have watched it 3 times now, there is no contact. I expect him to be cleared.
:faf: As much as that made me laugh it is true, sadly.

SteveHFC
05-12-2011, 04:40 PM
What are the odds of that little p**** (Aluko) scoring against us on Saturday.:dunno:

Saorsa
05-12-2011, 04:54 PM
Disgraceful dive absolutely nae contact whatsoever. No sure why it's being compared tae the O'Connor incident as there clearly was contact. What is worse is the ref was a few yards from the incident with a totally unobstructed view and actually gave it, which IMO once again brings in tae question refereeing decisions given tae the OF.

HibbyAndy
05-12-2011, 04:59 PM
Disgraceful dive absolutely nae contact whatsoever. No sure why it's being compared tae the O'Connor incident as there clearly was contact. What is worse is the ref was a few yards from the incident with a totally unobstructed view and actually gave it, which IMO once again brings in tae question refereeing decisions given tae the OF.



Spot on.


There is poor refereeing and there is down right cheating on the refs behalf. Conroy falls into the latter.


Utterly disgraceful decision by Conroy to award a penalty with a FULL view. Cringeworthy.

Calvin
06-12-2011, 04:36 PM
Two match ban for Aluko

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=721&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=9014

SteveHFC
06-12-2011, 04:40 PM
Two match ban for Aluko

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=721&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=9014

:thumbsup:

Golden Bear
06-12-2011, 04:44 PM
Two match ban for Aluko

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=721&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=9014

It's still odds on that Rangers will appeal and it will be upheld.

Part/Time Supporter
06-12-2011, 04:47 PM
It's still odds on that Rangers will appeal and it will be upheld.

Why?

Hibs were able to produce some evidence of contact / a foul with the alleged GOC dive. Huns can't do that.

Leithenhibby
06-12-2011, 04:48 PM
I know that they can appeal, but not this time shirley!! :wink:

I have a good feeling about the game at ER... :agree:

Golden Bear
06-12-2011, 04:52 PM
Why?

Hibs were able to produce some evidence of contact / a foul with the alleged GOC dive. Huns can't do that.

Nothing ventured nothing gained I suppose. Aluko denies that he dived but he would wouldn't he?

c31
06-12-2011, 04:53 PM
Appeal to be heard at 1pm Thursday

MWHIBBIES
06-12-2011, 04:53 PM
I'm probably reading too much into this but what does it mean that they have ''offered'' him a fixed suspension?

soupy
06-12-2011, 04:53 PM
Even if they did, it would be sorted out before the weekend....

givescotlandfreedom
06-12-2011, 04:59 PM
Nothing ventured nothing gained I suppose. Aluko denies that he dived but he would wouldn't he?

Yep his honesty level's summed up by the fact he took the dive.

Hibs Class
06-12-2011, 05:55 PM
They've appealed it already

blackpoolhibs
06-12-2011, 06:28 PM
They've appealed it already

I'm surprised they lost the case, fully expect them to win the appeal, and get awarded a 4th point for Saturdays win for the inconvenience.

Hibernia Na Eir
06-12-2011, 06:32 PM
What a filthy cheat!

Is this what Super Ally's team has come to?!

Hope the £150000 your gamily shelled out for you was worth it super cheat! cheat


Once a cheat, always a cheat:agree:

millarco
06-12-2011, 06:35 PM
I'm probably reading too much into this but what does it mean that they have ''offered'' him a fixed suspension?

I think it's part of the fast-track suspension process that was introduced in the summer. Basically if the SFA find the player guilty they will offer a fixed 2 match ban, which can be accepted or appealed. Seems that the crime at that point is pretty much irrelevant (Naismith got the same length for his elbow as O'Connor/Aluko got for diving). Rangers may not necessarily be appealing the innocence of the player, but rather the length of punishment. IMO it should be no more than a booking (player shouldn't get punished for the referee's mistake).

Also think it's a bit poor that McIntyre has a case to answer for his criticism of the referee when the SFA are as good as admitting he called it wrong. Guess they have to be seen to be backing the officials to avoid another strike.

Saorsa
06-12-2011, 07:57 PM
I think it's part of the fast-track suspension process that was introduced in the summer. Basically if the SFA find the player guilty they will offer a fixed 2 match ban, which can be accepted or appealed. Seems that the crime at that point is pretty much irrelevant (Naismith got the same length for his elbow as O'Connor/Aluko got for diving). Rangers may not necessarily be appealing the innocence of the player, but rather the length of punishment. IMO it should be no more than a booking (player shouldn't get punished for the referee's mistake).

Also think it's a bit poor that McIntyre has a case to answer for his criticism of the referee when the SFA are as good as admitting he called it wrong. Guess they have to be seen to be backing the officials to avoid another strike.No but he should be punished for deliberately cheating because that's what he was doing. If the ref had been in a poorer position without such a view he would probably still have given it as it was the players intention tae con the ref, who's fault would it be then? There's nothing wrong with the length of the punishment, it should be that at least as it may be the way tae cut out the cheating.

Jonnyboy
06-12-2011, 08:23 PM
Anyone else see the irony in Kenny Clark's statement in that BBC report? I mean it's not like he ever awarded Rantic a dodgy pen

millarco
06-12-2011, 08:29 PM
No but he should be punished for deliberately cheating because that's what he was doing. If the ref had been in a poorer position without such a view he would probably still have given it as it was the players intention tae con the ref, who's fault would it be then? There's nothing wrong with the length of the punishment, it should be that at least as it may be the way tae cut out the cheating.

He would be punished with a booking. Not much of a punishment admittedly, but if the ref had ruled it correctly then that's what Aluko would have received. Why should it be any different because the ref didn't do his job properly?

Sir David Gray
06-12-2011, 08:38 PM
I think it's part of the fast-track suspension process that was introduced in the summer. Basically if the SFA find the player guilty they will offer a fixed 2 match ban, which can be accepted or appealed. Seems that the crime at that point is pretty much irrelevant (Naismith got the same length for his elbow as O'Connor/Aluko got for diving). Rangers may not necessarily be appealing the innocence of the player, but rather the length of punishment. IMO it should be no more than a booking (player shouldn't get punished for the referee's mistake).

Also think it's a bit poor that McIntyre has a case to answer for his criticism of the referee when the SFA are as good as admitting he called it wrong. Guess they have to be seen to be backing the officials to avoid another strike.

:agree: I just heard that a wee while ago and couldn't believe it.

He's effectively being punished for criticising a decision that the authorities are accepting was incorrect.

Unreal.

Saorsa
06-12-2011, 09:57 PM
He would be punished with a booking. Not much of a punishment admittedly, but if the ref had ruled it correctly then that's what Aluko would have received. Why should it be any different because the ref didn't do his job properly?Whether the ref got it right or wrong isnae the issue here, we're talking about a players deliberate intention tae deceive tae gain an advantage and who has later been seen tae have done so regardless of the refs decision at the time.

Refs dinnae always get it right, the players intention however was perfectly clear. Supposing that game had been refereed by a good honest referee (so not a Scottish one :greengrin ) and if the he had been in a poorer position tae see and he had been conned and gave a penalty and they then score and gain an advantage (in this case two points eventually), do you think a retrospective booking is sufficient punishment? If a player is caught before any advantage is gained then the booking is fine. If cheating has later been found tae have gained an advantage then quite rightly the punishment should be more severe IMO. A two match ban for cheating two points should be the least he should get.

What about the team that was done out of a point by the cheating, just suppose they just happen tae finish last by that point?

That sort of blatant cheating by players needs tae be stamped out IMO regardless of crap refs.

MWHIBBIES
06-12-2011, 10:04 PM
I think it's part of the fast-track suspension process that was introduced in the summer. Basically if the SFA find the player guilty they will offer a fixed 2 match ban, which can be accepted or appealed. Seems that the crime at that point is pretty much irrelevant (Naismith got the same length for his elbow as O'Connor/Aluko got for diving). Rangers may not necessarily be appealing the innocence of the player, but rather the length of punishment. IMO it should be no more than a booking (player shouldn't get punished for the referee's mistake).

Also think it's a bit poor that McIntyre has a case to answer for his criticism of the referee when the SFA are as good as admitting he called it wrong. Guess they have to be seen to be backing the officials to avoid another strike.:aok: Thanks for clearing that up, I was thinking

''Do you want a 2 match ban?''

'''Naw, yer awryt lads''

Wouldn't be surprised knowing the SFA :greengrin

Argylehibby
06-12-2011, 10:31 PM
Whether the ref got it right or wrong isnae the issue here, we're talking about a players deliberate intention tae deceive tae gain an advantage and who has later been seen tae have done so regardless of the refs decision at the time.

Refs dinnae always get it right, the players intention however was perfectly clear. Supposing that game had been refereed by a good honest referee (so not a Scottish one :greengrin ) and if the he had been in a poorer position tae see and he had been conned and gave a penalty and they then score and gain an advantage (in this case two points eventually), do you think a retrospective booking is sufficient punishment? If a player is caught before any advantage is gained then the booking is fine. If cheating has later been found tae have gained an advantage then quite rightly the punishment should be more severe IMO. A two match ban for cheating two points should be the least he should get.

What about the team that was done out of a point by the cheating, just suppose they just happen tae finish last by that point?

That sort of blatant cheating by players needs tae be stamped out IMO regardless of crap refs.

I think the point that was being made, and one that I agree with, is why should 2 players committing the same offence (even in the same game) receive a different punishment? The punishment for diving is a yellow card, the punishment for diving and the ref not seeing it as a dive is a 2 game suspension, the equivalent of 12 or 13 yellow cards. That can’t be right surely?

blackpoolhibs
06-12-2011, 10:44 PM
I think people are missing the point here, if he gets caught diving then yes its a yellow card, but if a player gets away with it, and gains an unfair penalty, then i think its fair the punishment is much harder.

If we are serious about stamping it out, then this is the way to go.

Eyrie
06-12-2011, 10:59 PM
The key difference is the award of the penalty.

Presumably if the player appeals the fixed two match ban, the ban could be increased to three games if the appeal is found to be spurious?

millarco
06-12-2011, 11:03 PM
Whether the ref got it right or wrong isnae the issue here, we're talking about a players deliberate intention tae deceive tae gain an advantage and who has later been seen tae have done so regardless of the refs decision at the time.

Refs dinnae always get it right, the players intention however was perfectly clear. Supposing that game had been refereed by a good honest referee (so not a Scottish one :greengrin ) and if the he had been in a poorer position tae see and he had been conned and gave a penalty and they then score and gain an advantage (in this case two points eventually), do you think a retrospective booking is sufficient punishment? If a player is caught before any advantage is gained then the booking is fine. If cheating has later been found tae have gained an advantage then quite rightly the punishment should be more severe IMO. A two match ban for cheating two points should be the least he should get.

What about the team that was done out of a point by the cheating, just suppose they just happen tae finish last by that point?

That sort of blatant cheating by players needs tae be stamped out IMO regardless of crap refs.

A good referee would have better positioning than his Scottish counterpart! :wink: Don't think the heavier retrospective punishment is much good to the team that have been hard done by in the first place-Dunfermline will be worse off if Aluko misses out against their relegation rivals this weekend...

I'd still argue that the same crime deserves the same punishment. If Dunfermline had equalised or won the game on Saturday would you still give Aluko a 2 game ban? Rangers ultimately wouldn't have gained any advantage from it.

And if someone finishes last by a point there will be plenty of reasons why-missed chances, bad refereeing decisions, defensive mistakes. That's just football IMO.

If you really want to stamp it out make it a straight red offence from the start. That might deter players from taking the risk, but I wouldn't have too much faith in our officials. Plenty other examples of players cheating to gain an advantage (deliberate fouls, shirt pulling, wrongfully claiming for throw-ins/corners). What makes one form of cheating more acceptable than another?

Saorsa
06-12-2011, 11:19 PM
I think people are missing the point here, if he gets caught diving then yes its a yellow card, but if a player gets away with it, and gains an unfair penalty, then i think its fair the punishment is much harder.

If we are serious about stamping it out, then this is the way to go.:agree: Exactly my point, a booking after gaining the advantage by cheating is nae punishment at all.


I'd still argue that the same crime deserves the same punishment.and I'll still disagree :wink: once the cheating has succeeded in its aim particularly in the case winning a penalty and it being the deciding factor in the outcome of said game it is different tae being caught out before it does and IMO should carry a heavier punishment.

During the game the ref only has one chance tae make the call and they will sometimes be deceived by the cheats (though for certain teams they dinnae need much convincing). The one (and only IMO) good thing about TV cameras at games is that once everybody has seen it and it's so blatant the authorities have little choice but tae act. IMO if that sort of thing is tae be stamped out players should be aware that whether or not they got away with something during the game there is a stiffer punishment waiting for them if they get caught out after.

millarco
06-12-2011, 11:49 PM
:agree: Exactly my point, a booking after gaining the advantage by cheating is nae punishment at all.

and I'll still disagree :wink: once the cheating has succeeded in its aim particularly in the case winning a penalty and it being the deciding factor in the outcome of said game it is different tae being caught out before it does and IMO should carry a heavier punishment.

During the game the ref only has one chance tae make the call and they will sometimes be deceived by the cheats. IMO if that sort of thing is tae be stamped out player should be aware that whether or not they got away with something during the game there is a stiffer punishment waiting for them if they get caught out after.

Game of opinions! We cry out for refereeing consistency, I would rather that extended to punishments too. Besides, I was moaning about this exact point when GOC got his ban, don't want to be hypocritical!

If they gave out harsher punishments for all divers, initially caught or not, then perhaps we'd stamp it out quicker.

Sir David Gray
07-12-2011, 12:43 AM
:agree: Exactly my point, a booking after gaining the advantage by cheating is nae punishment at all.

Totally agree. So let's have all players who are caught diving, irrespective of whether it's the referee during the game or the authorities afterwards, given straight red cards.

Golden Bear
08-12-2011, 01:49 PM
His appeal was dismissed.

Just watch the indignation from the weegie press and I bet Garry O'Connor's case will be brought up ------------again.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16091669.stm

PaulSmith
08-12-2011, 02:21 PM
Banned for Hibs game this Sat, all I'm really interested in.

silverhibee
08-12-2011, 03:50 PM
His appeal was dismissed.

Just watch the indignation from the weegie press and I bet Garry O'Connor's case will be brought up ------------again.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16091669.stm



Big Gaz will come in for some nasty treatment from there fans on Saturday, hope the big guy sticks it right up them with a we double for Hibs.

Golden Bear
08-12-2011, 04:44 PM
Big Gaz will come in for some nasty treatment from there fans on Saturday, hope the big guy sticks it right up them with a we double for Hibs.

I was right.

McCoist is raging at the decision citing "rules for some but different for others." Apparently the poor wee sowels are being victimised. He's also questioning the expertise of the Compliance Officer as he comes from a legal background rather than a football one.

What a friggin shame eh.

:devil:

PaulSmith
08-12-2011, 04:55 PM
I was right.

McCoist is raging at the decision citing "rules for some but different for others." Apparently the poor wee sowels are being victimised. He's also questioning the expertise of the Compliance Officer as he comes from a legal background rather than a football one.

What a friggin shame eh.

:devil:

Maybe worth pointing out to Ally that the compliance officer makes the original decision, if the club accepts then end of.
If however it goes to dispute then its **** all to do with the compliance officer and its 3 'football' people that judge.

Hibercelona
08-12-2011, 04:58 PM
I'm embarassed that players think they can dive and nobody would ever notice.

Do they just completely forget that they're being watched by many? :confused:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP5mLY16xTc

Golden Bear
08-12-2011, 05:04 PM
Maybe worth pointing out to Ally that the compliance officer makes the original decision, if the club accepts then end of.
If however it goes to dispute then its **** all to do with the compliance officer and its 3 'football' people that judge.

:agree:

McCoist's wee tantrum is here.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/286140-ally-mccoist-blasts-sfa-over-aluko-ban/

PatHead
08-12-2011, 05:05 PM
Wonder if Super Ally will get hauled before the SFA like McIntyre has been for telling the truth?

Hibs should also protest as he has called Garry O a cheat as well. Biggest difference was there was someone within 2 inches of our Garry whilst there was no-one within a good distance of that "lying cheat" to use Ally's words

HibeeMG
08-12-2011, 05:06 PM
I'm embarassed that players think they can dive and nobody would ever notice.

Do they just completely forget that they're being watched by many? :confused:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP5mLY16xTc

That last one is absolutely tremendous! I've never seen a double dive before. :greengrin

Saorsa
08-12-2011, 05:10 PM
:agree:

McCoist's wee tantrum is here.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/286140-ally-mccoist-blasts-sfa-over-aluko-ban/:boo hoo::boo hoo:



"The three gentlemen on the panel have effectively called my player a cheat and a liar, neither of which he is.

"What they've effectively done is they have said the player has cheated to get the penalty.and they were absolutely correct McCoist ya baw bag :bye:

hibiedude
08-12-2011, 05:45 PM
Still not fair because Rangers got all 3 points- SFA should look at deducting points its the only way to stop players diving to gain a spot kick

silverhibee
08-12-2011, 07:21 PM
:agree:

McCoist's wee tantrum is here.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/rangers/286140-ally-mccoist-blasts-sfa-over-aluko-ban/


:faf: :faf:

We took it on the chin with Steven Naismith, aye so did the Pars player Ally.


And here's your goalie having a wee moment to himself Ally, next Ally will be saying there was contact there to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpQTxZAAnIk

lapsedhibee
08-12-2011, 07:46 PM
Ach, Aluko's an amateur. SPL class. Long way to go before he can compete with the likes of Pedersen (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8o98l_gamst-pedersen-dive-of-the-season_sport).

Hibs Class
08-12-2011, 08:05 PM
:faf: :faf:

We took it on the chin with Steven Naismith, aye so did the Pars player Ally.


And here's your goalie having a wee moment to himself Ally, next Ally will be saying there was contact there to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpQTxZAAnIk

That's the one I thought of too. No surprise super joker Ally didn't cast that one up though. Fud.

Jonnyboy
08-12-2011, 08:42 PM
McCoist is a twat and I reckon he'd have gotten countrywide support if he'd said it was a fair cop and I've warned Aluko not to do it again. Instead he goes greetin' to his mates in the media who incidentally are also twats for giving him the facility to moan. They should be blasting him for his attitude