PDA

View Full Version : SFA could still punish Talbot



CallumLaidlaw
09-02-2015, 07:31 PM
Surprised I cant see this mentioned anywhere. Apparently the compliance officer is going to revisit the Talbot - Nicholson challenge at the weekend -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31294574

Now surely this opens up a whole can of worms? Hasn't the line always been that if a referee has mentioned it in his match report, and punished the player, then the SFA will not over-rule him? Could this see a load of previous incidents being sent to the compliance officer for review? McCulloch will end up being banned for a season!!

It should have been a red, but I dont see how they can go back on their previous argument.

Sylar
09-02-2015, 07:41 PM
I don't think it should have been a red, personally.

It was high but it was mistimed rather than malicious - I reckon a yellow was about right.

One thing I do agree with you on - retrospectively changing from a yellow to a red opens up a HUGE can of worms.

Has it ever been done before?

emerald green
09-02-2015, 07:43 PM
I see the Compliance Officer is going to speak to the referee Colvin first, presumably before deciding how to proceed from there?

He really does need to speak to Madden too about McCulloch on Sunday. Or is he just making it up as he goes along and turning a blind eye to one assault but trying to appear to be taking action on another?

Hermit Crab
09-02-2015, 07:45 PM
Stonewall red for me. How the ref only seen that as a booking is beyond me.

Does that mean that coward McCullochs stamp will be revisited?? :confused:

Biggie
09-02-2015, 07:47 PM
If the yams control hadn't been so bad, he wouldn't have got nailed.....it was a mistimed tackle rather than a malicious challenge....in my opinion likes

Sylar
09-02-2015, 08:04 PM
Seems this wouldn't be the first instance a player could be retrospectively punished further.

Jamie Hamill was sent off for a second yellow after his touchline clash with Derek Adams which was retrospectively upgraded to an excessive misconduct charge post-game.

Aldo
09-02-2015, 08:14 PM
Stonewall red for me. How the ref only seen that as a booking is beyond me. Does that mean that coward McCullochs stamp will be revisited?? :confused:

Regarding your second question!!

If his elbow and stamp on Giffiths and Guieditti (spl) respectively hasn't been dealt with by the CO then I very much doubt he will do anything about these latest issue.

FWIW watch we he goes up for the ball......arm raised in front of his head and then leads elbow into back of opponent... Pretending to header.

Dirty bassa. Can almost guarantee if say Leigh a Griffiths was to do this then he would of been offered a ban.

Pete
09-02-2015, 08:27 PM
Looks OK to me.

Baldy Foghorn
09-02-2015, 08:35 PM
Yams head was low, should have been a livi foul for dangerous play

greenlex
09-02-2015, 08:44 PM
It was dangerous. No more. Yellow is correct. He actually plays the ball. If he gets more punishment than has been given it's a.stonewall appeal win.

matty_f
09-02-2015, 08:45 PM
Yams head was low, should have been a livi foul for dangerous play

Quoted for truth.

Billy Whizz
09-02-2015, 08:51 PM
Yams head was low, should have been a livi foul for dangerous play

Are you suggesting a Yam could be brave?

Baldy Foghorn
09-02-2015, 09:01 PM
Are you suggesting a Yam could be brave?

no, more like stupid:greengrin

lord bunberry
09-02-2015, 09:11 PM
The ref saw it booked the livi player case closed.

Stantons Angel
09-02-2015, 09:29 PM
Regarding your second question!!

If his elbow and stamp on Giffiths and Guieditti (spl) respectively hasn't been dealt with by the CO then I very much doubt he will do anything about these latest issue.

FWIW watch we he goes up for the ball......arm raised in front of his head and then leads elbow into back of opponent... Pretending to header.

Dirty bassa. Can almost guarantee if say Leigh a Griffiths was to do this then he would of been offered a ban.

He would have been sent off you mean!

If Talbot does get into trouble with his mistimed kick towards a moving downwards head, then i hope to gawd that THUG McCulloch gets done for his purposeful actions.

He is no footballer and NEVER has been!

Mibbes Aye
09-02-2015, 09:44 PM
Surprised I cant see this mentioned anywhere. Apparently the compliance officer is going to revisit the Talbot - Nicholson challenge at the weekend -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31294574

Now surely this opens up a whole can of worms? Hasn't the line always been that if a referee has mentioned it in his match report, and punished the player, then the SFA will not over-rule him? Could this see a load of previous incidents being sent to the compliance officer for review? McCulloch will end up being banned for a season!!

It should have been a red, but I dont see how they can go back on their previous argument.

The photo clearly shows Nicholson holding Talbot's ankle and forcing the boot up to his face. I'm assuming the compliance officer thinks the ref should have red-carded Nicholson for simulation and cheating.

It's shocking that one pro could do that to another but then he is a Homfc player.

Shameful is as yamful does :agree:

Hannah_hfc
09-02-2015, 10:43 PM
There a photo going round of a similar challenge by the same player against a Dumbarton player, I highly doubt both times have been accidental.

Imo definite red card, reckless and pretty dangerous. If it was against a Hibs player, I'm pretty sure we'd change our tune.

neil7908
09-02-2015, 11:15 PM
There a photo going round of a similar challenge by the same player against a Dumbarton player, I highly doubt both times have been accidental.

Imo definite red card, reckless and pretty dangerous. If it was against a Hibs player, I'm pretty sure we'd change our tune.

Absolutely, I know a few comments here are a bit tongue in cheek and I agree it's going to create wider issues if they look to punish him after the fact despite the ref having dealt with it at the time but it really was an appalling challenge. The photos of Nicholson's face show the damage done and it's the kind of tackle that could have done some serious, long term harm.

Rivalry aside that kind of thing has no place in football - can you imagine if someone had tackled a Hibs player like that? This place would be in meltdown and rightly so. I don't genuinely think anyone would seriously suggest that was only a yellow after seeing a replay.

SaulGoodman
09-02-2015, 11:47 PM
Let's take the tinted glasses off here.

It's a red. 100%. It's a shocking challenge. If this happened in England or during the champions league there would be outcry :hilarious

greenlex
10-02-2015, 01:08 AM
Let's take the tinted glasses off here.

It's a red. 100%. It's a shocking challenge. If this happened in England or during the champions league there would be outcry :hilarious

It's a yellow. Really it is. High foot has never been a red in its puff. It was a genuine attempt to play the ball.(which he did) Dangerous yes absolutely but not a red.if he hadn't made contact with the yams coupon (which is neither here nor there) we wouldn't be having this thread.

Steve20
10-02-2015, 06:26 AM
It's a red card. No doubt about it. Only reason some people are saying it's not is because it was a Hearts player that was on the receiving end of it. No one can seriously believe it's anything other than a red.

Pete
10-02-2015, 06:53 AM
Let's take the tinted glasses off here.

OK, glasses off.

Hmmm, I'm still coming to the same conclusion: There's an awful lot of manning up to be done here and some people are being bitches. :hmmm:

PeterboroHibee
10-02-2015, 07:58 AM
The kick was unintentional, but it was caused by a fairly wild swing at the ball. Talbot didnt have control of the challenge, used excessive force, and his foot was very high (so high he was able to hit a guy who was standing upright with studs in the face). It was obviously a red card, and we would be annoyed if it happened to our player.

Scouse Hibee
10-02-2015, 07:58 AM
Intent or malicious or not it's a red card every day of the week for a challenge so high that it could have caused the boy serious damage to his eye. It was a ****** horrendous challenge suffered by a young laddie regardless of who he plays for.

Onion
10-02-2015, 08:04 AM
One of the craziest "tackles" I've seen in the game in years. Forget the red card, the police should have stepped in and arrested the guy. Long, long ban coming his way.

greenlex
10-02-2015, 08:20 AM
Are we really saying a high boots is a red card? Seriously?

Scouse Hibee
10-02-2015, 08:23 AM
High boot both feet off the floor tackle that smashes into a players face let's describe it properly!

BoomtownHibees
10-02-2015, 08:24 AM
Are we really saying a high boots is a red card? Seriously?

When it almost takes a boys head off then yes. Red all day long

greenlex
10-02-2015, 08:27 AM
When it almost takes a boys head off then yes. Red all day long
The ref was a few feet away and called it right. If he gets punished further t's a disgrace.Soon you'll not be allowed to tackle.:rolleyes:

HappyAsHellas
10-02-2015, 08:30 AM
Man U v Real, I think it was Nani got a straight red for kicking someone accidentally in the chest, and even the paragon of virtue that is Roy Keane said it was a red all day long. This incident is certainly a red card as were both incidents with McCulloch but he plays for der hun and will therefore get away with it.

Big_Franck
10-02-2015, 08:41 AM
Despite the fact it was on a yam it was as clear a red card as ive ever seen in a game of football. Two feet off the ground and smashes the dirty wee yam square in the face with his studs. Talbot should get a lengthy ban for that.

lord bunberry
10-02-2015, 08:46 AM
Despite the fact it was on a yam it was as clear a red card as ive ever seen in a game of football. Two feet off the ground and smashes the dirty wee yam square in the face with his studs. Talbot should get a lengthy ban for that.

But he can't, the ref saw the incident and booked him. If the sfa decide to punish him further it would open the door to every decision a ref makes being reviewed.

BoomtownHibees
10-02-2015, 08:50 AM
The ref was a few feet away and called it right. If he gets punished further t's a disgrace.Soon you'll not be allowed to tackle.:rolleyes:

Nothing to do with not being allowed to tackle. You need to be in control when doing so and Talbot wasn't.

The ref being a few feet away means nothing when you think of countless other things being missed regardless of where the ref is positioned

easty
10-02-2015, 08:54 AM
I remember Nani getting a red card for a high boot against Real Madrid. He went to play the ball, and his foot was a lot lower than this Livvy boys was.

The Livvy player should have been off, but I don't like that Scottish football look like they're about to make the rules up as they go along again. You can't say the refs dealt with it so we can't do anything more for one incident then change the rule for another incident.

Scouse Hibee
10-02-2015, 08:56 AM
But he can't, the ref saw the incident and booked him. If the sfa decide to punish him further it would open the door to every decision a ref makes being reviewed.

Why? Red cards issued can be rescinded and have been so I see no problem the other way around.

GreenArmy1875
10-02-2015, 09:03 AM
It looks horrible but looks an accident to me. Hope the hearts lad makes a good recovery but don't think the defender meant to kick him in the face

lord bunberry
10-02-2015, 09:44 AM
Why? Red cards issued can be rescinded and have been so I see no problem the other way around.

But yellow cards can't be appealed. We have been told for years that if the referee deals with the incident during the game then the sfa can't do anything about it. If the sfa change this to a red they'll be duty bound to look at every controversial decision a referee makes. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it's not the way the system currently works.

Thecat23
10-02-2015, 09:45 AM
It looks horrible but looks an accident to me. Hope the hearts lad makes a good recovery but don't think the defender meant to kick him in the face

Doesn't matter if he meant it or not. It's reckless and he's not in control of the tackle. Straight red simple as that! the fact it's Hearts I think is clouding people's judgment whether they admit it or not.

Imagine that tackle on our player during a derby? Be an outcry if it wasn't red.

Smartie
10-02-2015, 09:46 AM
The thing that gets me about the football authorities is that they are very quick to punish players if they take their shirt off celebrating, argue back at the referee (often after being subjected to a quite terrible decision), make comments in the press or respond to taking dogs abuse from fans by responding in some way.

They are a lot softer on quite brutal assaults on the football field. The kind of challenge that could end a player's career is less likely to be punished. I'm not saying this one was one of those but it could have done the laddie a very serious injury indeed and it should be stamped out.

I'm all for physical challenges but when the line is crossed players should be punished.

If Scott Allan gets a challenge like that on him in the first 20 minutes on Friday (and I'd be astonished if he didn't) there will (rightly) be an outcry on here if it is not punished.

JimBHibees
10-02-2015, 09:54 AM
The thing that gets me about the football authorities is that they are very quick to punish players if they take their shirt off celebrating, argue back at the referee (often after being subjected to a quite terrible decision), make comments in the press or respond to taking dogs abuse from fans by responding in some way.

They are a lot softer on quite brutal assaults on the football field. The kind of challenge that could end a player's career is less likely to be punished. I'm not saying this one was one of those but it could have done the laddie a very serious injury indeed and it should be stamped out.

I'm all for physical challenges but when the line is crossed players should be punished.

If Scott Allan gets a challenge like that on him in the first 20 minutes on Friday (and I'd be astonished if he didn't) there will (rightly) be an outcry on here if it is not punished.

I think it is nailed on he will get treatment when you have players like Black who will be hurting after the last game at ER and the untouchable clogger at the back. Go as far to say that it is a matter of time before McCulloch gives an opponent a really bad injury when you consider his last 2 games. His booking at ER on Malonga was also a horrible challenge. When you compare and contrast with Danny Handling's red in the Petrofac game it really is laughable the double standards. Sporting integrity my ass.

Raith although they won were cheated by the ref not sending off McCulloch especially IMO the stick on second yellow which Midden ignored. Boyd could quite easily have got the equaliser and Rangers would have won the replay. Quite simply refereeing standards are appalling with a culture of lack of responsibility and treating teams differently. When you have refs come out and say they referee the OF game differently than other games then how is that fair.

Scouse Hibee
10-02-2015, 10:04 AM
But yellow cards can't be appealed. We have been told for years that if the referee deals with the incident during the game then the sfa can't do anything about it. If the sfa change this to a red they'll be duty bound to look at every controversial decision a referee makes. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it's not the way the system currently works.

I think you're forgetting that the ref can be asked to reconsider his decision so a retrospective red card can still be issued.

Nutmegged
10-02-2015, 10:05 AM
Yellow cards in certain specific circumstances can be appealed, it was a rule change last Summer, as for Talbot, that was a horrific challenge worthy of the minimum 3 game ban

MacBean
10-02-2015, 10:58 AM
Surely the can of worms was opened when they decided to try and suspend Cummings for his celebration, despite being booked at the time by the referee?

--------
10-02-2015, 11:04 AM
Yellow cards in certain specific circumstances can be appealed, it was a rule change last Summer, as for Talbot, that was a horrific challenge worthy of the minimum 3 game ban


:agree: Both feet off the ground, all six studs planted firmly in the other guy's face?

Absolutely. That was an appalling challenge and the only reason some folks are defending him is that Sam Nicholson plays for Hearts. Totally irrelevant whether he 'meant it' or not.

brog
10-02-2015, 11:11 AM
Terrible challenge, definitely a straight red though I do think it was not intended. However the SFA are opening up a can of worms if they go this route. A serious question, have any OF players been punished retrospectively by the Compliance Officer?

JimBHibees
10-02-2015, 11:12 AM
:agree: Both feet off the ground, all six studs planted firmly in the other guy's face?

Absolutely. That was an appalling challenge and the only reason some folks are defending him is that Sam Nicholson plays for Hearts. Totally irrelevant whether he 'meant it' or not.

I think there has to be intent I would have thought though no doubt there is wording around excessive force and recklessness of another players well being. Hugely reckless.

CallumLaidlaw
10-02-2015, 11:13 AM
:agree: Both feet off the ground, all six studs planted firmly in the other guy's face?

Absolutely. That was an appalling challenge and the only reason some folks are defending him is that Sam Nicholson plays for Hearts. Totally irrelevant whether he 'meant it' or not.

:agree: I'd be AMAZED if anyone genuinely didn't think it was a red. My point is all around the SFA revisiting. I wasn't aware there had been a rule change tho. I thought the "ref has already dealt with it" line had been used more recently than last summer.

lord bunberry
10-02-2015, 11:24 AM
I think you're forgetting that the ref can be asked to reconsider his decision so a retrospective red card can still be issued.

I'm not forgetting anything, I didn't know the rules had changed so I'm ignorant :greengrin

--------
10-02-2015, 12:07 PM
:agree: I'd be AMAZED if anyone genuinely didn't think it was a red. My point is all around the SFA revisiting. I wasn't aware there had been a rule change tho. I thought the "ref has already dealt with it" line had been used more recently than last summer.


There's a considerable degree of confusion about this area at present in Scotland.

Not made any less by the unspoken but blatantly obvious rule about referees helping the Huns at every opportunity.

lyonhibs
10-02-2015, 12:11 PM
Doesn't matter if he meant it or not. It's reckless and he's not in control of the tackle. Straight red simple as that! the fact it's Hearts I think is clouding people's judgment whether they admit it or not.

Imagine that tackle on our player during a derby? Be an outcry if it wasn't red.

This :agree:

It's an absolute horror show of a tackle. Someone earlier glibly posted that the fact that he connected full on with the Hearts players face was "neither here nor there" which I think is a load of bollocks.

If "opening up a can of worms" means shockingly lenient refereeing decision being looked at and the proper punishment being awarded retrospectively, then get Jason Cummings on the case and get it opened.

Do folk think the right decision in the WC 2010 Final was for De Jong to just get a yellow for karate kicking Alonso in the mid-riff with his studs? Thought not.

WeeRussell
10-02-2015, 12:31 PM
He meant to do the boy. Bad enough players deliberately going in with studs high on people's legs.

Disgusting challenge and stonewall red card.

allezsauzee
10-02-2015, 12:45 PM
Duncan Ferguson got time for a headbutt on the pitch so I think a similar punishment is appropriate for Sam Nicholson's disgusting attack on Talbot's boot.

Seveno
10-02-2015, 01:00 PM
Intent or malicious or not it's a red card every day of the week for a challenge so high that it could have caused the boy serious damage to his eye. It was a ****** horrendous challenge suffered by a young laddie regardless of who he plays for.

I totally agree. No player should ever have there foot that high when there are other players nearby. It was reckless in the extreme and could easily have resulted in permanent damage to the player.

SaulGoodman
10-02-2015, 01:05 PM
It looks horrible but looks an accident to me. Hope the hearts lad makes a good recovery but don't think the defender meant to kick him in the face

I'm sure when someone goes over the top of the ball and catches a players leg it's usually accidental too. This is all beside the point though.

Yes it's high feet, which is a yellow.. But it's beyond that. It's dangerous, reckless and could cause a serious injury. Which is a red card.

alhibby
10-02-2015, 03:15 PM
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/livingston/309770-jason-talbot-banned-for-two-games-as-livingston-man-accepts-sfa-charge/

He has accepted 2 match ban

ancient hibee
10-02-2015, 03:26 PM
This guy has got a long charge sheet-sent off 5 times in 36 games for Port Vale.A bit more than mistimed tackle I think.

Aldo
10-02-2015, 03:29 PM
In view of the swift turn around for the Livi Boy why am I not surprised McCulloch as not been mentioned by the authorities??

--------
10-02-2015, 03:30 PM
I'm sure when someone goes over the top of the ball and catches a players leg it's usually accidental too. This is all beside the point though.

Yes it's high feet, which is a yellow.. But it's beyond that. It's dangerous, reckless and could cause a serious injury. Which is a red card.


Really? You think? :devil:

I can think of at least a dozen old-time hard men who made an art of 'going over the top' of the ball. Sometimes they got away with it, sometimes they didn't. But it was almost always deliberate, and designed to do serious damage. I saw a few promising careers ended this way.

But you're absolutely correct - this challenge was reckless and dangerous, and that's a red every time - or should be.

JimBHibees
10-02-2015, 04:27 PM
In view of the swift turn around for the Livi Boy why am I not surprised McCulloch as not been mentioned by the authorities??

Indeed just goes to show what a bit of press exposure and discussion about the incident can do.

Incredible to be honest.

Aldo
10-02-2015, 04:35 PM
Indeed just goes to show what a bit of press exposure and discussion about the incident can do. Incredible to be honest.

Was swept under the carpet by the BBC and I'm still certain that if that had been A player other than a hen player then they would be looking at a ban.

Corrupt if you ask me.

Watch the first Hibs challenge against McCulloch on Fri. Pound to a penny he throws himself to ground like he's been smacked by mike Tyson.

AndyM_1875
10-02-2015, 04:38 PM
In view of the swift turn around for the Livi Boy why am I not surprised McCulloch as not been mentioned by the authorities??

Just been hit with a notice of complaint.

2 games. Would include this Friday.

WillowbraeHibby
10-02-2015, 04:40 PM
STV Sport ‏@STVSport (https://twitter.com/STVSport) 4m4 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/STVSport/status/565187400985354240)
Lee McCulloch offered two-match ban over 'stamp' on Dale Carrick http://bit.ly/1Fus9Tn (http://t.co/JYQwnSqx45)

Aldo
10-02-2015, 04:42 PM
Just been hit with a notice of complaint. 2 games. Would include this Friday.

Has he really. I take it back and I'm surprised very surprised!

JimBHibees
10-02-2015, 04:43 PM
Just been hit with a notice of complaint.

2 games. Would include this Friday.

Good to see although it really is only a one game ban as it includes their next Scottish cup tie whenever that is. He has until lunchtime tomorrow to decide, think he will contest it.

Aldo
10-02-2015, 04:44 PM
Good to see although it really is only a one game ban as it includes their next Scottish cup tie whenever that is. He has until lunchtime tomorrow to decide, think he will contest it.

Thing is Jim there is no difference from the previous week IMHO.

I think he will contest it. I'd rather he played cos he's utter dross.

Lucius Apuleius
10-02-2015, 04:45 PM
Oh sh#@, another conspiracy theory screwed
😋.

JimBHibees
10-02-2015, 04:47 PM
Oh sh#@, another conspiracy theory screwed
.

Though of course he should have been pulled up the week before also.

PatHead
10-02-2015, 04:50 PM
Though of course he should have been pulled up the week before also.

See what happens when Aldo complains rather than me! I was ignored after Griffiths incident, Aldo gets the business done. Must be a Fife thing.

Aldo
10-02-2015, 04:57 PM
See what happens when Aldo complains rather than me! I was ignored after Griffiths incident, Aldo gets the business done. Must be a Fife thing.

:-). This made me laugh. Good embra lad living in Fife. I must have a way with words!! (Not)

Kato
10-02-2015, 05:15 PM
Are you suggesting a Yam could be brave?


No, that they slouch.

emerald green
10-02-2015, 06:25 PM
Really? You think? :devil:

I can think of at least a dozen old-time hard men who made an art of 'going over the top' of the ball. Sometimes they got away with it, sometimes they didn't. But it was almost always deliberate, and designed to do serious damage. I saw a few promising careers ended this way.

But you're absolutely correct - this challenge was reckless and dangerous, and that's a red every time - or should be.

:agree: Someone I know had to stop playing junior football after being "done" like this.

Geo_1875
10-02-2015, 06:57 PM
STV Sport ‏@STVSport (https://twitter.com/STVSport) 4m4 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/STVSport/status/565187400985354240)
Lee McCulloch offered two-match ban over 'stamp' on Dale Carrick http://bit.ly/1Fus9Tn (http://t.co/JYQwnSqx45)

So still nothing for the forearm smash?

JimBHibees
10-02-2015, 07:02 PM
So still nothing for the forearm smash?

Sounds like they are arguing that was the reason he got the yellow. Personally think that he will get off with it.

PatHead
10-02-2015, 07:09 PM
Sounds like they are arguing that was the reason he got the yellow. Personally think that he will get off with it.

Me too, the guy has gone for the most difficult incident to prove despite the wee glance before the stamp is made.

If he really wanted a punishment he could have gone for the foul later in the game or the elbow. Not to mention Griffiths or the stamp the week before.

JimBHibees
10-02-2015, 07:25 PM
Me too, the guy has gone for the most difficult incident to prove despite the wee glance before the stamp is made.

If he really wanted a punishment he could have gone for the foul later in the game or the elbow. Not to mention Griffiths or the stamp the week before.

Yes he can then say he tried to ban him while allowing him to get off with it. The much clearer ones were the week before which he shamefully ignored due to IMO the SFA wanting as little fall out as possible.

Geo_1875
10-02-2015, 08:55 PM
Sounds like they are arguing that was the reason he got the yellow. Personally think that he will get off with it.

Doesn't matter if he got booked for it. Apparently, if the referee gets it wrong the compliance officer gets a second bite. A forearm smash in the back of the neck should be a red card every day of the week. Doesn't matter who you play for or who the referee is.

jane_says
10-02-2015, 10:17 PM
:agree: Both feet off the ground, all six studs planted firmly in the other guy's face?

Absolutely. That was an appalling challenge and the only reason some folks are defending him is that Sam Nicholson plays for Hearts. Totally irrelevant whether he 'meant it' or not.

Imagine that was young ralf on Allan or McGeough, people would be crying blue murder, and folk saying it's nicholsons fault for a heavy touch hahaha, come on guys that's a long ban. Ridiculous tackle. Has Talbot not done that before? Against Dumbarton I'm sure?

greenlex
10-02-2015, 10:32 PM
So he gets a yellow during the game for the dangerous high boot. Mr Compliance reckons it should have been red. I disagree but thems the breaks. How does this translate to a two game ban when a red during the game would have got him one? Surely it can't be deemed serious foul play FFS. The games for fairies these days.

Sir David Gray
10-02-2015, 11:32 PM
So he gets a yellow during the game for the dangerous high boot. Mr Compliance reckons it should have been red. I disagree but thems the breaks. How does this translate to a two game ban when a red during the game would have got him one? Surely it can't be deemed serious foul play FFS. The games for fairies these days.

It's an argument that I don't really understand either.

It's even worse in the case of diving. If you are deemed to have dived by the referee during a match, you will be shown a yellow card. However, if the dive's not spotted at the time and it's only picked up on the Monday morning by the compliance officer, you would be liable to receive a ban, which would equate to receiving a retrospective red card.

Never understood that one.

silverhibee
11-02-2015, 12:07 AM
But he can't, the ref saw the incident and booked him. If the sfa decide to punish him further it would open the door to every decision a ref makes being reviewed.

:agree:

silverhibee
11-02-2015, 12:08 AM
But yellow cards can't be appealed. We have been told for years that if the referee deals with the incident during the game then the sfa can't do anything about it. If the sfa change this to a red they'll be duty bound to look at every controversial decision a referee makes. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it's not the way the system currently works.

:agree:

And correct.

This could open a can of worms for the SFA.

silverhibee
11-02-2015, 12:14 AM
Doesn't matter if he meant it or not. It's reckless and he's not in control of the tackle. Straight red simple as that! the fact it's Hearts I think is clouding people's judgment whether they admit it or not.

Imagine that tackle on our player during a derby? Be an outcry if it wasn't red.

The ref dealt with it at the time, that should be the end of the matter, he deemed it to be a yellow card, or are they just making it up at the SFA as they go along, we have always been told that if the ref deals with the incident at the time then that's the end of it.

If they do this then they must allow clubs to appeal yellow cards.

Scouse Hibee
11-02-2015, 12:38 AM
No not making it up as they go along, the rules allow this to happen and have done for a while.

Scouse Hibee
11-02-2015, 12:40 AM
So he gets a yellow during the game for the dangerous high boot. Mr Compliance reckons it should have been red. I disagree but thems the breaks. How does this translate to a two game ban when a red during the game would have got him one? Surely it can't be deemed serious foul play FFS. The games for fairies these days.

It was serious foul play he kicked him in the face ffs! Nothing fairy about it.

greenlex
11-02-2015, 02:00 AM
It was serious foul play he kicked him in the face ffs! Nothing fairy about it.

No he didn't. He attempted to play the ball. (and did to be fair). I concede it was dangerous. I would even consider it a red if thre ref had thought that on the day as he is feet away FFS. His momentum carried him into the face of the Hearts player. It doesn't look intentional and the ref agreed at the time so how can it be serious foul play? Mc Culloch yes two weeks on the trot. A deliberate stamp. Retrospective red is bollocks. The game is soft.

Dashing Bob S
11-02-2015, 02:40 AM
Open and shut case. The Jambo tried to nut the Livingston player's boot. I'd have given him a straight red and life ban.

Scouse Hibee
11-02-2015, 10:17 AM
No he didn't. He attempted to play the ball. (and did to be fair). I concede it was dangerous. I would even consider it a red if thre ref had thought that on the day as he is feet away FFS. His momentum carried him into the face of the Hearts player. It doesn't look intentional and the ref agreed at the time so how can it be serious foul play? Mc Culloch yes two weeks on the trot. A deliberate stamp. Retrospective red is bollocks. The game is soft.

Thankfully the SFA agree with me and have acted correctly. Sam Nicholson doesn't feel the game is soft either!

--------
11-02-2015, 11:03 AM
No he didn't. He attempted to play the ball. (and did to be fair). I concede it was dangerous. I would even consider it a red if thre ref had thought that on the day as he is feet away FFS. His momentum carried him into the face of the Hearts player. It doesn't look intentional and the ref agreed at the time so how can it be serious foul play? Mc Culloch yes two weeks on the trot. A deliberate stamp. Retrospective red is bollocks. The game is soft.


Corner. Painting. Into. A. Yourself. :wink:

Thecat23
11-02-2015, 11:21 AM
The ref dealt with it at the time, that should be the end of the matter, he deemed it to be a yellow card, or are they just making it up at the SFA as they go along, we have always been told that if the ref deals with the incident at the time then that's the end of it.

If they do this then they must allow clubs to appeal yellow cards.

I think everyone can see this is clearly an exception. Not all yellows will be contested like this one. It's a red card ref got it wrong and tv evidence and compliance officer got it right!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WeeRussell
11-02-2015, 12:09 PM
No he didn't. He attempted to play the ball. (and did to be fair). I concede it was dangerous. I would even consider it a red if thre ref had thought that on the day as he is feet away FFS. His momentum carried him into the face of the Hearts player. It doesn't look intentional and the ref agreed at the time so how can it be serious foul play? Mc Culloch yes two weeks on the trot. A deliberate stamp. Retrospective red is bollocks. The game is soft.

Where to start...

Surely you're on the wind-up like a few of the jesting posts on here, as it's a Hearts player?

JimBHibees
11-02-2015, 12:42 PM
Doesn't matter if he got booked for it. Apparently, if the referee gets it wrong the compliance officer gets a second bite. A forearm smash in the back of the neck should be a red card every day of the week. Doesn't matter who you play for or who the referee is.

Totally agree however logically they are saying an elbow is a yellow by not listing it.