PDA

View Full Version : Boyd Not Proven



Scottiedog007
09-10-2014, 01:25 PM
I see Mr Boyd has been found not guilty by the handshaking club for his alleged headbutt must have lost all video content to get to that conclusion

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=13849

easty
09-10-2014, 01:29 PM
Brilliant. It must have been a trick of the camera when I saw it on TV then.

JimBHibees
09-10-2014, 01:29 PM
Quite simply, wow. Very clear and to say it is not proven is completely made up. Hearts player Walker got done for exact same thing. Remarkable decision maybe Kenny Miller was deciding.

Onion
09-10-2014, 01:35 PM
Wow. That means what he did is part of the game and everyone can now do it 😃

HIBERNIAN-0762
09-10-2014, 01:37 PM
You see what you can get with a funny handshake?

Disgraceful decision.

Mikey09
09-10-2014, 01:47 PM
I posted on another thread when the rangers appealed his punishment how funny it would be if he won it just to piss off some yams..... However, this is astounding as Boyd clearly pushes his forehead towards Forster. Although he didn't "Headbutt" Forster he did EXACTLY what the wee yam Walker did. Cue the yam seethe...... Which as I first posted, will be brilliant to listen to!!! :faf:

PatHead
09-10-2014, 01:53 PM
Wonder if the BBC Sportscene will mention it at every opportunity like they did with Garry O'Connor after they accused him of diving but he won his appeal.

Think he was booked 3 times for diving afterwards when he should have had penalties.

Keith_M
09-10-2014, 02:01 PM
I have to be honest, I didn't think there was much in it.

I think the defender that pulled the ball over the line (McCulloch?) should have been cited instead.

SteveHFC
09-10-2014, 02:09 PM
What a ****ing joke.

See if a Hibs player headbutts someone watch him get a 3 match ban. :rolleyes:

Mikey09
09-10-2014, 02:12 PM
What a ****ing joke.

See if a Hibs player headbutts someone watch him get a 3 match ban. :rolleyes:



So this wee gif is safe from any SFA punishment for the time being..... :brickwall

21.05.2016
09-10-2014, 02:48 PM
Suprise ****ing suprise :rolleyes:

SFA sucking up to the OF as per usual.

Hibs History
09-10-2014, 03:04 PM
Total joke but nothing surprises we with the SFA anymore

Anyone joke the footage of the incident?

Gus Fring
09-10-2014, 03:32 PM
I have to be honest, I didn't think there was much in it.

I think the defender that pulled the ball over the line (McCulloch?) should have been cited instead.

i believe the reason he was not is that the referee was deemed to have dealt with the incident during the game as he gave a corner.

Mathias Jack
09-10-2014, 03:41 PM
Wow. That means what he did is part of the game and everyone can now do it 

Correct, watch Forster go head to head with someone else and get punished for it.

Not even worthy of just a one match ban either it seems, the SFA are a disgrace. Mind you, shouldn't shock me as it's The Rangers.

Aldo
09-10-2014, 03:42 PM
I wonder what the outcome would of been if it wasn't an OF player....... 3 match ban I would say.

Shocking decision IMHO and a precedence has now been set in my books.

The Harp
09-10-2014, 03:46 PM
Wonder if the BBC Sportscene will mention it at every opportunity like they did with Garry O'Connor after they accused him of diving but he won his appeal.

Think he was booked 3 times for diving afterwards when he should have had penalties.

Maybe we should 'lodge' an appeal.:wink: Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to decisions made by Scottish football's hierarchy.
Maybe it's time to have a reduced charge of 'headpush' instead of headbutt as an option - Huns (old or new) would still get away with it though.

NAE NOOKIE
09-10-2014, 03:51 PM
Like others have said, that wee Yam got a ban for exactly the same thing and he was reacting to what was a pretty bad, but obviously perfectly understandable, kicking from wee Lewis.

If I was the Yams I would be turning up at Hampden with film of both incidents and asking them very nicely to please explain the difference.

A rhetorical question obviously ............... we all know what the bloody difference is.

Ozyhibby
09-10-2014, 04:00 PM
Yams can feel well aggrieved over this.

Big_Franck
09-10-2014, 04:12 PM
Shocking decision but does it really make any difference? Boyd is terrible. Mark Oxley has still scored more league goals than Kenny Miller and Kris Boyd put together.

Billy Whizz
09-10-2014, 04:20 PM
I see Mr Boyd has been found not guilty by the handshaking club for his alleged headbutt must have lost all video content to get to that conclusion

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=13849

He's got to thank Jordan Forster a lot for this, as he didn't make a meal of it

3pm
09-10-2014, 04:24 PM
Yams can feel well aggrieved over this.

Good.

Sir David Gray
09-10-2014, 04:31 PM
I'm shocked...:rolleyes:

kaimendhibs
09-10-2014, 04:34 PM
i believe the reason he was not is that the referee was deemed to have dealt with the incident during the game as he gave a corner.

FAF


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

emerald green
09-10-2014, 05:04 PM
"Not proven". Seriously? Can there be any doubt now (if there ever was any) that the game in this country is bent, has been for years, and The Rangers get everything going?

Will McCoist indignantly be demanding the names of these individuals be made public? I doubt it.

Winston Ingram
09-10-2014, 05:09 PM
That's ridiculous. It was way more conclusive than Moshni

woody47
09-10-2014, 05:11 PM
How the ferk can you have an NOT PROVEN decision? How much more do we have to take from the knuckle draggers that are in charge of our game? This screams of dodgy hand shakes and pandering to the disgusting biggoted mob imo.

Onion
09-10-2014, 05:18 PM
"Not proven". Seriously? Can there be any doubt now (if there ever was any) that the game in this country is bent, has been for years, and The Rangers get everything going?

Will McCoist indignantly be demanding the names of these individuals be made public? I doubt it.

Thing no one seems to question is why Forster turned around and confronted Boyd in the first place. Forster is not that type of player, so more than likely Boyd has done something to stoke things up before his headbutt. No way Boyd would get away with that down south or in any European game... only in Scotland.

emerald green
09-10-2014, 05:20 PM
Thing no one seems to question is why Forster turned around and confronted Boyd in the first place. Forster is not that type of player, so more than likely Boyd has done something to stoke things up before his headbutt. No way Boyd would get away with that down south or in any European game... only in Scotland.

:agree: It just beggars belief mate. Justice ma er**.

Kojock
09-10-2014, 05:28 PM
Not Proven basically means that we know you did it but there is insufficient evidence to prove it. Maybe the goat walked in front of the screen obscuring the review panels view.

Scottish football is corrupt from top to bottom it's no wonder fans are deserting the game.

WhileTheChief..
09-10-2014, 05:39 PM
It was hardly a head butt ffs. He moved his head slightly towards Foster.

If a Hibs player had been sent off for that we would all be complaining. Just cause he's a Rangers player doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

Foster don't make a meal of it at the time cause it was a non issue.

Phil D. Rolls
09-10-2014, 05:58 PM
How brave and forward looking of the SFA - everyone else is calling for the abolition of not proven in our legal system. No cow towing to public opinion at Park Gardens though.

emerald green
09-10-2014, 06:08 PM
It was hardly a head butt ffs. He moved his head slightly towards Foster.

If a Hibs player had been sent off for that we would all be complaining. Just cause he's a Rangers player doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

Foster don't make a meal of it at the time cause it was a non issue.

The SFA had issued a notice of complaint against Boyd & Moshni for violent conduct during the Hibs match. Why would they have done that if it was a non issue? I'm not sure about a head butt, however it doesn't need to be a full-on Glasgae kiss to be deemed violent conduct.

What exactly does "not proven" mean? It means you probably did something but you are getting away with it.

Here we go again with the "it's not a conspiracy" mantra. Who said it's a conspiracy? It's the amount and frequency of all sorts of decisions that seem to go in this particular club's favour. Not just this one.

EastCalderHibby
09-10-2014, 06:08 PM
Thing no one seems to question is why Forster turned around and confronted Boyd in the first place. Forster is not that type of player, so more than likely Boyd has done something to stoke things up before his headbutt. No way Boyd would get away with that down south or in any European game... only in Scotland.

he would not get away with it if he was still at killie but lets face it that not proven verdict helps everybody but them by them playing the plum

SunshineOnLeith
09-10-2014, 06:10 PM
People need to calm down, it wasn't a headbutt or anything even close. They squared up, Boyd moved towards Forster to try and intimidate him, it didn't work, everyone carried on with their lives. And Hibs won.

BoomtownHibeys
09-10-2014, 06:26 PM
People need to calm down, it wasn't a headbutt or anything even close. They squared up, Boyd moved towards Forster to try and intimidate him, it didn't work, everyone carried on with their lives. And Hibs won.

So why "offer" him the 2 match ban in the first place?

hibbytam
09-10-2014, 06:56 PM
People need to calm down, it wasn't a headbutt or anything even close. They squared up, Boyd moved towards Forster to try and intimidate him, it didn't work, everyone carried on with their lives. And Hibs won.

But going by the rules, and previous cases, the forward motion by Boyd constitutes a headbutt.

Eyrie
09-10-2014, 07:05 PM
Two thoughts on this.

Firstly, if that incident had been the other way round we've have been fuming if Forster had been cited, so I have no problem with Boyd being let off.

Secondly, if that incident had been the other way round then Forster would have received a three match ban for very little.

malcolm
09-10-2014, 07:13 PM
How brave and forward looking of the SFA - everyone else is calling for the abolition of not proven in our legal system. No cow towing to public opinion at Park Gardens though. not everyone but most. In the context of this case they should have fast tracked the daft move to remove the need for corroboration just for him ..I'd like 'he's one of them so is guilty with out need for any more evidence' but we get as ever 'he's one of them so lets not consider the evidence' :wink:

In fact he just looked a right eejit but that has always been enough for anyone else to be sent off etc.

Sir David Gray
09-10-2014, 07:19 PM
It was hardly a head butt ffs. He moved his head slightly towards Foster.

If a Hibs player had been sent off for that we would all be complaining. Just cause he's a Rangers player doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

Foster don't make a meal of it at the time cause it was a non issue.

It wasn't a headbutt but it was a red card. Players get sent off for doing what Boyd did every week.

It's scandalous that he was let off with it.

nonshinyfinish
09-10-2014, 07:23 PM
People need to calm down, it wasn't a headbutt or anything even close. They squared up, Boyd moved towards Forster to try and intimidate him, it didn't work, everyone carried on with their lives. And Hibs won.

The point is not whether what Boyd did should be considered a headbutt or should be punishable with a ban. The point is that the rules are implemented differently when it suits the SFA.

If it were up to me, that kind of squaring up/pretend headbutting wouldn't merit anything more than a 'come on, lads' from the referee. However, it's not up to me, and if the rules deem it a red card/ban-worthy crime, then those rules should apply to Sevco players as well.

Peevemor
09-10-2014, 07:26 PM
It was hardly a head butt ffs. He moved his head slightly towards Foster.

If a Hibs player had been sent off for that we would all be complaining. Just cause he's a Rangers player doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

Foster don't make a meal of it at the time cause it was a non issue.

:agree: Both players were at it. They went head to head and Boyd pushed his forward - there was no violence. If anything a yellow card for each may have been justified, but even that's pushing it.

He's still a dick though!

kaimendhibs
09-10-2014, 07:30 PM
Jeezo, it's the Boyd appreciation society at times on here. Let's not kid ourselves, if he played for anyone else he would have been done!! He was fouling all game, this was the fairy on the tree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Half Pint
09-10-2014, 07:38 PM
Jeezo, it's the Boyd appreciation society at times on here. Let's not kid ourselves, if he played for anyone else he would have been done!! He was fouling all game, this was the fairy on the tree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:agree: :top marks Fat lazy prick that's past his sell by date the only way he contributes is to throw his weight about. Big time Jessie.

Peevemor
09-10-2014, 07:59 PM
Jeezo, it's the Boyd appreciation society at times on here. Let's not kid ourselves, if he played for anyone else he would have been done!! He was fouling all game, this was the fairy on the tree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you were watching a match as a neutral, a world cup group match for example, and a similar thing happened, would you be shouting for a red card? Honestly?

kaimendhibs
09-10-2014, 08:01 PM
If you were watching a match as a neutral, a world cup group match for example, and a similar thing happened, would you be shouting for a red card? Honestly?

Doesn't matter what I shout for, bans have been given for less. He was offered a two match ban, why was that??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aldo
09-10-2014, 08:09 PM
Even if it didn't strike it's the aggressive nature of it and/or the intent.

The SFA or whoever have bottled it.

I would bear this decision in mind for any future rulings on any of our players and refer back to it.

The SFA have made a rod for their own back with this and have set the standard for future appeals.

Bottle merchants.

Peevemor
09-10-2014, 08:14 PM
Doesn't matter what I shout for, bans have been given for less. He was offered a two match ban, why was that??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People are saying that the compliance officer (or whatever his title is) was sticking to the rule book, although I haven't seen the specific rule quoted.

For me common sense says it's not a sending off.

kaimendhibs
09-10-2014, 08:16 PM
Fair enough. Watch in future tho for others getting done for less. Guarantee it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Swedish hibee
09-10-2014, 08:25 PM
SFA bottled it, like they usually do :eyes:

Sir David Gray
09-10-2014, 08:57 PM
People are saying that the compliance officer (or whatever his title is) was sticking to the rule book, although I haven't seen the specific rule quoted.

For me common sense says it's not a sending off.

Common sense doesn't come into it.

As I said earlier, players get sent off for doing what Boyd did every week.

It was a stick on red card in the current climate.

Scouse Hibee
09-10-2014, 09:22 PM
Boyd incident and the Jamie Walker incident very similar yet very different outcomes. Did Walker appeal his at the time or accept the initial ban offered?

portycabbage
09-10-2014, 09:24 PM
Boyd incident and the Jamie Walker incident very similar yet very different outcomes. Did Walker appeal his at the time or accept the initial ban offered?

Think they accepted it.

macca70
09-10-2014, 09:49 PM
People need to calm down, it wasn't a headbutt or anything even close. They squared up, Boyd moved towards Forster to try and intimidate him, it didn't work, everyone carried on with their lives. And Hibs won.

You cannae be allowing aggressive behaviour like that on a football pitch though.

Going head to head then very clearly aggressively making a forward motion is completely unacceptable behaviour and needs dealt with accordingly but this just sets a precedent that there's nothing wrong with it. Unbelievable!!

macca70
09-10-2014, 10:13 PM
The whole compliance officer system is a complete shambles, how can this shambles be allowed to go on.

So we have a Compliance Officer that retrospectively looks at an incident and decides that an offence has been committed so makes an 'Offer' deal or no deal style.

It's then up to the club to stick or twist regarding the offer!!

Twist and it then goes to a tribunal run by the same organisation that employees the compliance officer using same TV evidence, who then decide that there was no offence or whatever 'Not Proven' means considering there was very clear TV Coverage of the incident.

Surely if it's there for everyone to clearly see, he has to be guilty or not guilty, there's absolutely clear pictures to make a decision.

The SFA is completely incompetent but it will continue unless scottish football fans unite to have some action taken.

GreenOnions
09-10-2014, 11:14 PM
The decision is the correct one IMO. The incident was a whole lot of nothing. I hate to see players booked and sent off for trivial things as it spoils games. If other players have been punished for similar it is these decisions that are wrong and making another mistake with this doesn't make things right. Well done to the SFA.

macca70
10-10-2014, 04:44 AM
The decision is the correct one IMO. The incident was a whole lot of nothing. I hate to see players booked and sent off for trivial things as it spoils games. If other players have been punished for similar it is these decisions that are wrong and making another mistake with this doesn't make things right. Well done to the SFA.

The whole system is a mess though, why did the compliance officer think it warranted a 2 match ban?

Also, This has set a precedent that it is acceptable to behave like this on a football pitch as it will unpunished.

It might not have fallen under the definition of a 'Headbutt' but it is aggressive behaviour which should not be tolerated.

Peevemor
10-10-2014, 05:30 AM
The whole system is a mess though, why did the compliance officer think it warranted a 2 match ban?

Also, This has set a precedent that it is acceptable to behave like this on a football pitch as it will unpunished.

It might not have fallen under the definition of a 'Headbutt' but it is aggressive behaviour which should not be tolerated.

From both players.

BoomtownHibeys
10-10-2014, 05:46 AM
The whole system is a mess though, why did the compliance officer think it warranted a 2 match ban?

Exactly. This has been mentioned a few times in this thread now and nobody can answer it. It's not like he was arrested awaiting evidence, the compliance officer has obviously seen the incident and felt it worthy enough to "offer" a 2 match ban. How then can it be deemed a 'not proven' verdict??

It doesn't matter if we think it was a headbutt or not or whether it was violent conduct or not, the matter is that he has gotten away with something that the compliance officer deemed worthy of a ban just a week ago.

GreenOnions
10-10-2014, 09:33 AM
Exactly. This has been mentioned a few times in this thread now and nobody can answer it. It's not like he was arrested awaiting evidence, the compliance officer has obviously seen the incident and felt it worthy enough to "offer" a 2 match ban. How then can it be deemed a 'not proven' verdict??

It doesn't matter if we think it was a headbutt or not or whether it was violent conduct or not, the matter is that he has gotten away with something that the compliance officer deemed worthy of a ban just a week ago.

There are (at least) two different arguments here with both being pursued on this thread. One concerns whether or not, irrespective of current rules, Boyd deserved to be awarded a red card for what he did. In other words - do we really want what KB did to be a red card offence in football every time it occurs - whoever is responsible?

The second issue is whether or not the current rules are being applied fairly/correctly in all cases. In other words - would every player found to have committed the same "offence" as Boyd have been treated the same way?

ancient hibee
10-10-2014, 09:46 AM
The SFA found him guilty-the independent panel (which usually includes at least one former player)didn't agree.What's all the fuss about.The SFA handled the matter perfectly and I don't see why they are being criticised.

emerald green
10-10-2014, 10:19 AM
I read a very good comment elsewhere which I'm going to quote here because I think it sums things up quite well.

"The real issue is the deafening silence coming from the SFA as to why it was deemed necessary to censure other players for similar offences but NOT Boyd."

This is just another in a long line of decisions which inexplicably favour the Ibrox club:

This season alone (only a few games old) I can think of the Handling ordering off - yellow card maybe? Hibs manager then feels it necessary to call for a "strong referee" for our next match at Ibrox. A very strong penalty claim for hand ball in the penalty area in that match is not given to Hibs. Both officials didn't see it seemingly?

Falkirk manager feels it necessary to publicly complain about another hand ball in the box not given against the Ibrox club which might have levelled the scores near the end of the match. Presumably both officials didn't see that one either?

Now the case against Boyd is found "not proven" leaving him free to carry on playing, yet a similar action by a Hearts player resulted in a ban.

As someone else said, everyone else can just calm down about winning the Championship because the engraver has already got The Rangers name on the trophy.

Fraz1875
10-10-2014, 10:55 AM
The rules are if you lean in with your head and make contact, It's a red. Those are the rules. Soft or not those are the rules.

Disgraceful decision imo

Peevemor
10-10-2014, 10:56 AM
The rules are if you lean in with your head and make contact, It's a red. Those are the rules. Soft or not those are the rules.

Disgraceful decision imo

So should Foster be given a red too?

Fraz1875
10-10-2014, 10:59 AM
So should Foster be given a red too?
It was clear enough that once the pair come together it's Boyd who motions forward.

I can take a step back aswell and see it as a neutral, the outcome is the same. This should not have been overturned.

Peevemor
10-10-2014, 11:11 AM
The rules are if you lean in with your head and make contact, It's a red. Those are the rules. Soft or not those are the rules.

Disgraceful decision imo


It was clear enough that once the pair come together it's Boyd who motions forward.

I can take a step back aswell and see it as a neutral, the outcome is the same. This should not have been overturned.

I could be wrong, but from what I remember the two of them were at it when their heads initially came together.

Fraz1875
10-10-2014, 11:23 AM
I could be wrong, but from what I remember the two of them were at it when their heads initially came together.
That's correct. I realised I'd tied myself in knots :greengrin

The difference is, after the stand-off Boyd leaned in. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. I certainly don't see any grounds for it to go 'unproven'.

GreenOnions
10-10-2014, 11:26 AM
Giving people red cards for "leaning in" is one of the things that's wrong with football IMO

Peevemor
10-10-2014, 11:35 AM
That's correct. I realised I'd tied myself in knots :greengrin

The difference is, after the stand-off Boyd leaned in. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. I certainly don't see any grounds for it to go 'unproven'.

As GreenOnions posted before, there are two issues here.

One is should it have been a red - for me no, but maybe the rules say otherwise.

The other is the current 'compliance officer' system which I don't really have a problem with. The compliance officer reviews what happened and, if he deems fit, offers a punishment. If the club/player rejects the offer then it goes to the tribunal where the decision along with the punishment can go either way.

While I'm at it, I think shirt pulling should be a red card offence.

Onion
10-10-2014, 11:42 AM
So should Foster be given a red too?

This isn't a difficult concept :roll eyes: and has been illustrated perfectly in the EPL and across Europe loads of times. If two players come together, that's generally accepted. However if one of those player makes a forward movement with his head towards the other, it's instantly deemed aggressive behaviour and a straight RED. Not only should Boyd have get a 2 match ban, he should have been sent off - giving Hibs a right and proper advantage.

HibbyHutt
10-10-2014, 01:07 PM
Might as well break my post virginity on this one. Is it convenient that the footage (highlights) on the BBC sport website has mysteriously gone missing? (This content is no longer available)!?

Kato
10-10-2014, 01:36 PM
Might as well break my post virginity on this one. Is it convenient that the footage (highlights) on the BBC sport website has mysteriously gone missing? (This content is no longer available)!?

As an aside George Orwell based some of 1984 on his experiences working for the BBC. However I'm sure they aren't covering anything up this time. Probably.

emerald green
10-10-2014, 03:00 PM
As an aside George Orwell based some of 1984 on his experiences working for the BBC. However I'm sure they aren't covering anything up this time. Probably.

Does everyone know that Blair Jenkins (OBE), head of the Yes campaign during the referendum, formerly served as head of news and current affairs for BBC Scotland?

Just saying like.

Holmesdale Hibs
10-10-2014, 06:26 PM
Good to see everyone in agreement on this. A Terrible decision regardless of who you support. In fact, I even have some sympathy for a yam, that's how bad it is.

Another way of looking at is (for once) it didn't affect the outcome of the game and we were still able to GIRFU them.

ancient hibee
10-10-2014, 06:32 PM
The difficulty is that the make up of the panel changes all the time so you don't get appeals treated consistently.

SunshineOnLeith
10-10-2014, 07:38 PM
You cannae be allowing aggressive behaviour like that on a football pitch though.

Going head to head then very clearly aggressively making a forward motion is completely unacceptable behaviour and needs dealt with accordingly but this just sets a precedent that there's nothing wrong with it. Unbelievable!!

"Completely unacceptable behaviour"? Really?

It's a physical sport played in a testosterone fuelled environment, the odd flare up is always going to happen. As long as nobody actually punches/kicks/headbutts etc anyone then there's really no need for the hysteria.

Boyd's 'punishment' was that he tried to intimidate a 21 year old and got embarrassed and wound up, probably putting him off his game while Jordon would have gained confidence from the incident.

macca70
10-10-2014, 07:49 PM
"Completely unacceptable behaviour"? Really?

It's a physical sport played in a testosterone fuelled environment, the odd flare up is always going to happen. As long as nobody actually punches/kicks/headbutts etc anyone then there's really no need for the hysteria.


Boyd's 'punishment' was that he tried to intimidate a 21 year old and got embarrassed and wound up, probably putting him off his game while Jordon would have gained confidence from the incident.

Yeah, Really!!

It would appear the Compliance Officer agreed.

Mr White
10-10-2014, 07:53 PM
Yeah, Really!!

It would appear the Compliance Officer agreed.

They should change the system so that the compliance officer refers any incidents to a panel who make a non-appealable decision before any announcement is made. The current system is farcical, like a lot of things in Scottish football I suppose.

macca70
10-10-2014, 08:36 PM
They should change the system so that the compliance officer refers any incidents to a panel who make a non-appealable decision before any announcement is made. The current system is farcical, like a lot of things in Scottish football I suppose.

Absolutely, it's the way these situations are handled that is the bigger issue rather than whether or not Boyds behaviour warranted a punishment.