PDA

View Full Version : Fyvie two match ban



Ozyhibby
30-12-2015, 02:45 PM
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12/30/1a467adb28b14f1efefdb46fe85465ec.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

matty_f
30-12-2015, 02:48 PM
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12/30/1a467adb28b14f1efefdb46fe85465ec.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Halliday's red card should stand, but I can't argue with Fyvie's ban. Right decision has been made there.

Ozyhibby
30-12-2015, 02:49 PM
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12/30/fdf769cb46c8d647a76f38ec9acfebd1.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ozyhibby
30-12-2015, 02:50 PM
The wording of Fyvie's case suggests Halliday will win his appeal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thecat23
30-12-2015, 02:51 PM
Good, hopefully he doesn't do it again. Halliday for me kicked out so his red should still stand!

Smartie
30-12-2015, 02:51 PM
Good. I can't stand feigning injury.

For all he had a poor game on Monday he's an important player for us and we will miss him.

Hopefully it'll teach him not to come out with any of this kind of crap in future.

Oh, and Halliday's red card should still stand, for the kick which was still violent conduct.

Big_Franck
30-12-2015, 02:53 PM
The wording of Fyvie's case suggests Halliday will win his appeal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They've just ignored the fact that he kicked Fyvie before then shoulder barging him. He should have been off for the kick out.

My_Wife_Camille
30-12-2015, 02:55 PM
Pish decision. Have to say I'm not too fussed about Fyvie being suspended as I think we're a better team without him but how can he get a 2 match ban for simulation when normally it's just a bookable offence?

Scottie
30-12-2015, 02:57 PM
Pish decision. Have to say I'm not too fussed about Fyvie being suspended as I think we're a better team without him but how can he get a 2 match ban for simulation when normally it's just a bookable offence?
This.

SFA at its best again.(Laughable) :agree:

Pete
30-12-2015, 02:58 PM
They've just ignored the fact that he kicked Fyvie before then shoulder barging him. He should have been off for the kick out.

I think this is the reason that the referee gave for sending g him off so the Rangers might not win. Shocking if they did.

Really annoyed at Fyvie's ban as all he was doing was recoiling from the shock of hun breath.

Steveey
30-12-2015, 02:58 PM
There is no way Fyvie should be banned for his actions. No way.

For one main reason being if the ref spotted that Halliday hadn't touched Fyvie's face the maximum punishment he would've have received would be a booking.

How can that now result in him receiving a 2 match ban?

Doesn't make sense.

Dinkydoo
30-12-2015, 03:00 PM
People recoil from being shoulder barged in the face - it's not as if there was no contact at all.

Ridiculous decision

greenlex
30-12-2015, 03:03 PM
Can only assume refs report had the red as a head butt. The highlighting of the kick out should have the red stand tho, if his appeal is thrown out the Orc hoards will go into meltdown because Fyvie has been seen to contribute. Guaranteed to be reduced to a yellow. Ridiculous thattheagressir gets effectively no punishment while the victim gets two matches. (Correctly if that's the punishment for simulation) Hope he and his team mates all take note

matty_f
30-12-2015, 03:06 PM
Pish decision. Have to say I'm not too fussed about Fyvie being suspended as I think we're a better team without him but how can he get a 2 match ban for simulation when normally it's just a bookable offence?

Think it's been the case for a while that if you've successfully conned the ref and then subsequently gained an advantage (i.e. for a penalty or getting an opponent sent off) then it's a ban. Fyvie didn't need to go down like he did, he wasn't hit in the face.

Hopefully Halliday's kick out has been taken into consideration, because that in itself is a red card offence regardless of what followed with Fyvie.

Famous Fiver
30-12-2015, 03:06 PM
Why is their mechanism in place to act so promptly on Fyvie and no word on sectarian singing?

This stinks.

Halliday should be looking at at least 6 games for his kick out and assault which far outweighs anything Fyvie did.

Won't hold my breath on the establishment finding
a) any fault with Halliday.
b) any fault with sectarian abuse.

Talk about bias. The whole thing is laughable.

My_Wife_Camille
30-12-2015, 03:14 PM
Think it's been the case for a while that if you've successfully conned the ref and then subsequently gained an advantage (i.e. for a penalty or getting an opponent sent off) then it's a ban. Fyvie didn't need to go down like he did, he wasn't hit in the face.

Hopefully Halliday's kick out has been taken into consideration, because that in itself is a red card offence regardless of what followed with Fyvie.
I know that mate but it's still the same offence and should carry the same punishment whether it is spotted before or after the game.

Personally, I hate diving more than just about anything in football. I'd give red cards and 2 match bans to anyone caught doing it.

DarrenSQH
30-12-2015, 03:19 PM
Thats a disgrace. no way does that deserve a ban

NORTHERNHIBBY
30-12-2015, 03:21 PM
Had an opposition player done the same to him we would be using the cheat word. Same rules have to apply. Good thing for Fyvie would be getting a copy of this game and being told, don't do any of this again. Takes away the question about being dropped though and any players mumping about not playing now get a chance.

Phil MaGlass
30-12-2015, 03:24 PM
Thats a disgrace. no way does that deserve a ban

sorry mate I disagree, any player that simulates a headbutt and basically helps in getting a fellow pro sent off, deserves everything he gets.

StevieT
30-12-2015, 03:25 PM
Have I read this correctly? Instant two match ban meaning missing the game at the weekend and the cup tie whilst the The Rangers player gets a hearing on 7th January and is therefore eligible to play on Saturday? Hunbelievable! I'm not saying what Fraser did was right but this decision is so wrong. Both players should serve their bans at the the same time.

lucky
30-12-2015, 03:28 PM
He deserves his ban but so does Halliday for the kick & shoulder barge. Lesson for both players there.

J-C
30-12-2015, 03:33 PM
Have I read this correctly? Instant two match ban meaning missing the game at the weekend and the cup tie whilst the The Rangers player gets a hearing on 7th January and is therefore eligible to play on Saturday? Hunbelievable! I'm not saying what Fraser did was right but this decision is so wrong. Both players should serve their bans at the the same time.


Fyvie and Hibs have accepted the ban, which probably means he and they knew he did wrong.

greenlex
30-12-2015, 03:33 PM
He deserves his ban but so does Halliday for the kick & shoulder barge. Lesson for both players there.

The refs report will have mentioned the head butt and that's why Fyvies been banned quickly. Halidays is an appeal so will be heard at a different time by the appeals panel. Hibs have the right to appeal Fyvies ban but are rightly not.

Thecat23
30-12-2015, 03:40 PM
Have I read this correctly? Instant two match ban meaning missing the game at the weekend and the cup tie whilst the The Rangers player gets a hearing on 7th January and is therefore eligible to play on Saturday? Hunbelievable! I'm not saying what Fraser did was right but this decision is so wrong. Both players should serve their bans at the the same time.

We done the same with McGinn, appealed it so he could play the week after thankfully we won the appeal, so we can't moan about it when we used the exact loop hole just two weeks ago. It needs looked at though!

HibernianJK
30-12-2015, 03:45 PM
If Fyvie had been punished for this during the game it would have only have warranted a yellow yet after he receives a 2 game ban? What a bent FA we have.

Tyler Durden
30-12-2015, 03:47 PM
Think it's been the case for a while that if you've successfully conned the ref and then subsequently gained an advantage (i.e. for a penalty or getting an opponent sent off) then it's a ban. Fyvie didn't need to go down like he did, he wasn't hit in the face.

Hopefully Halliday's kick out has been taken into consideration, because that in itself is a red card offence regardless of what followed with Fyvie.

Fyvie didn't "go down".

I'm disappointed in Stubbs here. For me he should have defended Fyvie and drawn attention to Hallidays kick out and aggressive shoulder motion towards Fyvie. Not to mention Hallidays two earlier offences which should have been yellows, one a blatant handball which the ref penalised him for.

Fyvie was basically assaulted but because it wasn't a headbutt, that is all the media focus on. Stubbs could've looked to change the story but has allowed it to seem he backs Halliday as being wronged

Northernhibee
30-12-2015, 03:47 PM
Corrupt league.

StevieT
30-12-2015, 03:49 PM
We done the same with McGinn, appealed it so he could play the week after thankfully we won the appeal, so we can't moan about it when we used the exact loop hole just two weeks ago. It needs looked at though!

I agree to a certain degree. In the McGinn incident no-one else was cited. In this case Fyvie has been charged (correctly in my opinion) and has to serve his ban immediately whilst Halliday gets to play on Saturday and who knows what the outcome of his appeal will be.

Both cases are similar but also so very different.

Unseen work
30-12-2015, 03:50 PM
Rubbish!!!

He turned away and held his head, he never fell about screaming demanding a red.

If a player dives/feigns a injury in a game that the ref notices it's only a yellow at the most, so how does this merit a 2 match ban?

StevieT
30-12-2015, 03:53 PM
Rubbish!!!

He turned away and held his head, he never fell about screaming demanding a red.

If a player dives/feigns a injury in a game that the ref notices it's only a yellow at the most, so how does this merit a 2 match ban?

My interpretation is that Fyvie is being charged with feigning injury in order to get an opposing player sent off (2 match ban). This would indicate to me that Halliday's red card is for a headbut and nothing else therefore I think it will be reduced to a yellow.

I guess video evidence was taken in to account whilst citing Fyvie? If so, one of the disadvantages of being on TV.

J-C
30-12-2015, 03:57 PM
Fyvie didn't "go down".

I'm disappointed in Stubbs here. For me he should have defended Fyvie and drawn attention to Hallidays kick out and aggressive shoulder motion towards Fyvie. Not to mention Hallidays two earlier offences which should have been yellows, one a blatant handball which the ref penalised him for.

Fyvie was basically assaulted but because it wasn't a headbutt, that is all the media focus on. Stubbs could've looked to change the story but has allowed it to seem he backs Halliday as being wronged


Forget the kick out, he still feigned injury, hence why he's been banned, as has been said it will depend on the ref's report and why he sent him off.

Stuarty27
30-12-2015, 04:00 PM
I must say the SFA have been terrific towards Hibs in the last few weeks and are doing the upmost to help us win the League.

Letting off John McGinn our best player for assault and banning our worst player for hehaw is terrific.

Well done the SFA

greenginger
30-12-2015, 04:02 PM
It would appear Fyvie can't win .

last match against the Huns, he gets assaulted by Waghorn , he stands up for himself and gets booked ,Waghorn gets nothing.

On Monday gets threatened again, does not retaliate , gets a 2 match ban , and the hun might get off with it. :confused:

Tyler Durden
30-12-2015, 04:04 PM
Forget the kick out, he still feigned injury, hence why he's been banned, as has been said it will depend on the ref's report and why he sent him off.

I know what's been said, it's irrelevant. Let a panel prove he's feigned injury, that's the crux of Fyvies case. It doesn't matter what the refs report says.

Fyvie was hit with force. He recoils and puts his hand on his face. All other cases of simulation involve players who feign contact where there was none. Fyvie was very clearly hit twice. Hibs should have highlighted this and if nothing else it would make it tougher for Halliday to escape punishment.

I can only think that Stubbs logic is he wants to draw a line under this and move on. But it looks like he's hung Fyvie out to dry IMO

21.05.2016
30-12-2015, 04:06 PM
Halliday still kicked out and him and approached him in a very aggressive manner. Still though, Fraser holding his face and making out he had been head butted is just idiotic and not the type of thing I want to see in hibs players.

I agree with Frasers ban but I really must laugh at huns trying to act all high and mighty over this. A certain kyle Lafferty springs to mind!

allmodcons
30-12-2015, 04:06 PM
Three things:-

1. Halliday is a thug and deserved a red card for his reaction to be being 'tapped' on the ankle by Fyvie.

2. Fyvie should be embarrassed by his reaction and deserves the ban.

3. Stubbs is off the hook because he doesn't have to tell Fyvie he's dropped for Saturday.

MWHIBBIES
30-12-2015, 04:12 PM
I must say the SFA have been terrific towards Hibs in the last few weeks and are doing the upmost to help us win the League.

Letting off John McGinn our best player for assault and banning our worst player for hehaw is terrific.

Well done the SFANot even in the top 10.

You as a poster on the other hand...

greenginger
30-12-2015, 04:18 PM
Halliday still kicked out and him and approached him in a very aggressive manner. Still though, Fraser holding his face and making out he had been head butted is just idiotic and not the type of thing I want to see in hibs players.

I agree with Frasers ban but I really must laugh at huns trying to act all high and mighty over this. A certain kyle Lafferty springs to mind!

And their goalkeeper McGregor, squares up to Deeks and throws himself back clutching his head.

CB_NO3
30-12-2015, 04:19 PM
I actually think its a blessing in disguise. Fyvie needs a rest and to think about his poor performances lately. Hopefully he screws the nut and comes back a better player. Hopefully big Marv gets called in.

greenlex
30-12-2015, 04:21 PM
If Fyvie had been punished for this during the game it would have only have warranted a yellow yet after he receives a 2 game ban? What a bent FA we have.
thats the punishment for conning the ref. If he isnt conned its a yellow for trying. Cant see a problem to be honest. i think they should chamge the punishment to red to really stamp simulation out the game.

Onion
30-12-2015, 04:23 PM
Pish decision. Have to say I'm not too fussed about Fyvie being suspended as I think we're a better team without him but how can he get a 2 match ban for simulation when normally it's just a bookable offence?

Good question. How is that equivalent to attempting to break a players leg ?

greenginger
30-12-2015, 04:23 PM
And their goalkeeper McGregor, squares up to Deeks and throws himself back clutching his head.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8938240.stm

that's the one, but the BBC have pulled the footage .

matty_f
30-12-2015, 04:25 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8938240.stm

that's the one, but the BBC have pulled the footage .

The footage is on Youtube, I know this because I was calling out the hypocrites on Monday evening.:greengrin

FranckSuzy
30-12-2015, 04:26 PM
I must say the SFA have been terrific towards Hibs in the last few weeks and are doing the upmost to help us win the League.

Letting off John McGinn our best player for assault and banning our worst player for hehaw is terrific.

Well done the SFA

Deary me.

greenlex
30-12-2015, 04:26 PM
Good question. How is that equivalent to attempting to break a players leg ? 2 match ban foractually conning the ref and yellow for attempting to con him.

Ozyhibby
30-12-2015, 04:29 PM
What was the suspension in the McGregor and Lafferty cases?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

matty_f
30-12-2015, 04:30 PM
Fyvie didn't "go down".

I'm disappointed in Stubbs here. For me he should have defended Fyvie and drawn attention to Hallidays kick out and aggressive shoulder motion towards Fyvie. Not to mention Hallidays two earlier offences which should have been yellows, one a blatant handball which the ref penalised him for.

Fyvie was basically assaulted but because it wasn't a headbutt, that is all the media focus on. Stubbs could've looked to change the story but has allowed it to seem he backs Halliday as being wronged

Come on, let's be realistic here, he's gone down clutching his face in reaction to a bit of a barge. It's like saying Rivaldo didn't go down at the corner flag when he was hit on the knee by the ball in the world cup all those years ago.

We can recognise that Fyvie was at it without changing the fact that Halliday deserved his red card anyway.

Stuarty27
30-12-2015, 04:30 PM
Not even in the top 10.

You as a poster on the other hand...

Must be up there for post of the year 👍

EdinMike
30-12-2015, 04:31 PM
What was the suspension in the McGregor and Lafferty cases?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lafferty was 2 months iirc ?!

hibbysam
30-12-2015, 04:31 PM
Can someone tell me how John McGinn, sent off, we appeal, hearing is heard the same week, Rangers appeal, heard the following week so that he can play this weekend and may possibly if held up miss a cup tie vs Cowdenbeath? The hearing should be the same on all levels and heard this midweek!

greenlex
30-12-2015, 04:39 PM
Must be up there for post of the year  not even in the top ten. Yours on the other hand??

greenlex
30-12-2015, 04:40 PM
Can someone tell me how John McGinn, sent off, we appeal, hearing is heard the same week, Rangers appeal, heard the following week so that he can play this weekend and may possibly if held up miss a cup tie vs Cowdenbeath? The hearing should be the same on all levels and heard this midweek! Monday night game versus a Saturday game. Add in holidays and I guess thats your answer.

Tyler Durden
30-12-2015, 04:41 PM
Come on, let's be realistic here, he's gone down clutching his face in reaction to a bit of a barge. It's like saying Rivaldo didn't go down at the corner flag when he was hit on the knee by the ball in the world cup all those years ago.

We can recognise that Fyvie was at it without changing the fact that Halliday deserved his red card anyway.

Fyvie didn't go down though? He clutched his face yes - is that to deceive the ref? Suppose Stubbs believes it was. I think his comments should've defended his own player first and foremost.

Rivaldo?! Now that couldn't be further removed from this but thanks for giving me a laugh having looked it up again.

Bishop Hibee
30-12-2015, 04:41 PM
I'm all for clamping down on feigning injury so no complaints about the ban. I hope the ref sent Halliday off for the kick connecting with Fyvie's calf and not the shoulder charge which could be construed a yellow.

Meanwhile the elephant in the room that is sectarian chanting is being ignored by the authorities.

Thecat23
30-12-2015, 04:45 PM
Rubbish!!!

He turned away and held his head, he never fell about screaming demanding a red.

If a player dives/feigns a injury in a game that the ref notices it's only a yellow at the most, so how does this merit a 2 match ban?

It's because he's done it to get a man sent off which then gave us an advantage. Deserves the 2 match ban hense why Stubbs won't appeal it.

Thecat23
30-12-2015, 04:46 PM
I'm all for clamping down on feigning injury so no complaints about the ban. I hope the ref sent Halliday off for the kick connecting with Fyvie's calf and not the shoulder charge which could be construed a yellow.

Meanwhile the elephant in the room that is sectarian chanting is being ignored by the authorities.

That will never be challenged sadly BH. They are to scared to face up to Celtic and The Rangers. It's a disgrace that we are meant to just pretend it never happens.

matty_f
30-12-2015, 04:48 PM
Fyvie didn't go down though? He clutched his face yes - is that to deceive the ref? Suppose Stubbs believes it was. I think his comments should've defended his own player first and foremost.

Rivaldo?! Now that couldn't be further removed from this but thanks for giving me a laugh having looked it up again.

Apologies, it was my recollection that Fyvie had gone down as well as clutching his face. Happy to stand corrected (no pun intended!). :thumbsup:

greenlex
30-12-2015, 04:51 PM
That will never be challenged sadly BH. They are to scared to face up to Celtic and The Rangers. It's a disgrace that we are meant to just pretend it never happens. Whilst I think Fyvies ban could be successwfully appealled I am quite glad that Fyvie Stubbs and Hibs as a club know it for what it was and are in a way making a statement about feigning injury. Well done guys.


edit- sorry meant to quote your post above the one I did.

Billy Whizz
30-12-2015, 04:52 PM
Any comment from Hibs on this yet?

Northernhibee
30-12-2015, 04:59 PM
Fyvie was attacked by their thug. The compliance officer has decided to blame Fyvie for not reacting in the right manner.

That's just plain nuts.

SausageSurprise
30-12-2015, 05:03 PM
I must say the SFA have been terrific towards Hibs in the last few weeks and are doing the upmost to help us win the League.

Letting off John McGinn our best player for assault and banning our worst player for hehaw is terrific.

Well done the SFA

For heehaw?

He's a cheat

Dashing Bob S
30-12-2015, 05:07 PM
There's no justice in this world.

Fyvie gets a two-match ban for simulation, while my wife (a repeat offender) gets a new kitchen.

bookert
30-12-2015, 05:11 PM
I know what's been said, it's irrelevant. Let a panel prove he's feigned injury, that's the crux of Fyvies case. It doesn't matter what the refs report says.

Fyvie was hit with force. He recoils and puts his hand on his face. All other cases of simulation involve players who feign contact where there was none. Fyvie was very clearly hit twice. Hibs should have highlighted this and if nothing else it would make it tougher for Halliday to escape punishment.

I can only think that Stubbs logic is he wants to draw a line under this and move on. But it looks like he's hung Fyvie out to dry IMO

I agree absolutely with this, he didn't go to ground, he was kicked then subsequently barged by Halliday and reacted by putting his hand to his face for a fleeting moment. I am really concerned of the current vilification of Fyvie for this.

NORTHERNHIBBY
30-12-2015, 05:16 PM
There's no justice in this world.

Fyvie gets a two-match ban for simulation, while my wife (a repeat offender) gets a new kitchen.

Usually get penalised for going down too easily.

Speedy
30-12-2015, 05:50 PM
thats the punishment for conning the ref. If he isnt conned its a yellow for trying. Cant see a problem to be honest. i think they should chamge the punishment to red to really stamp simulation out the game.

It's absolutely ridiculous, that's the problem. The crime is the same, why should the punishment be different because the ref believed it at the time.

(I don't disagree with your second point, if that was the case I wouldn't see a problem)

Spike Mandela
30-12-2015, 05:53 PM
We have a decent squad, as good as any in the league, so we should manage to cope with these routine suspensions and injuries over a season.

New faces coming in too so hopefully good results will keep on coming.

Fyvie will have to earn his place back in the team.

givescotlandfreedom
30-12-2015, 05:53 PM
Deserved punishment. So when is half of the QoTS team getting done for feigning injury for the game at ER? Or the Falkirk player for putting his head through Stevenson's face?

matty_f
30-12-2015, 05:54 PM
It's absolutely ridiculous, that's the problem. The crime is the same, why should the punishment be different because the ref believed it at the time.

(I don't disagree with your second point, if that was the case I wouldn't see a problem)

Because you've gained the advantage if the ref's bought it at the time.

I actually think it's a good way to deal with it, and it's actually fairly consistently applied as far as I know. We've not been harshly treated in this case.

greenlex
30-12-2015, 05:55 PM
It's absolutely ridiculous, that's the problem. The crime is the same, why should the punishment be different because the ref believed it at the time.

(I don't disagree with your second point, if that was the case I wouldn't see a problem)
Im guessing that having conned the ref whether it be getting someone sent off or diving for a penalty and not being caught they have an advantage for a period of a game so a bigger punishment is appropriate. Caught and its a yellow as there is no advantage. Still think a red for simulation is a better deterant. only problem is its down to the refs interpretation I guess.
.

givescotlandfreedom
30-12-2015, 05:57 PM
And their goalkeeper McGregor, squares up to Deeks and throws himself back clutching his head.

https://youtu.be/kpQTxZAAnIk

Speedy
30-12-2015, 06:04 PM
Because you've gained the advantage if the ref's bought it at the time.

I actually think it's a good way to deal with it, and it's actually fairly consistently applied as far as I know. We've not been harshly treated in this case.

People will have different opinions. You could argue we didn't gain any advantage because Rangers still won. Equally you could argue that it's not an appropriate punishment because Rangers were down to 10 and we're still able to field 11 players for the next two games.

If we're going to punish this with suspensions to stamp it out then it should be a red card offense at the time.

greenlex
30-12-2015, 06:09 PM
People will have different opinions. You could argue we didn't gain any advantage because Rangers still won. Equally you could argue that it's not an appropriate punishment because Rangers were down to 10 and we're still able to field 11 players for the next two games.

If we're going to punish this with suspensions to stamp it out then it should be a red card offense at the time. The punishment IMO should be a red if caught at the time as yellow is clearly not working as simulation still goes on.. 2 matches retrospectively I have no problem with as a punishment to try an balance the advatage gained against disadvantaging the team in subsequent games. Its up to the players and their team mates to clean up their act. Its cheating.

silverhibee
30-12-2015, 06:11 PM
Good, hopefully he doesn't do it again. Halliday for me kicked out so his red should still stand!

Tell you what TC, thought Kenny Miller refereed the game quite well on Monday. :greengrin

NAE NOOKIE
30-12-2015, 06:14 PM
Fyvie did the wrong thing and that's the end of it, he cant complain and by the looks of it he isn't.

But in that same incident the Sevco player aims a kick at an opponent and then aggressively barges into him, I wonder if the 'compliance' officer will note that? ...... if Halliday hadn't over reacted to a challenge that would have been laughed off in a kids game Fyvie wouldn't be in this position.

The Huns are all over this on Facebook etc, seething with rage at the cheating Hibbies. Its fantastic that they are now aware of what a big part fair play has to play in the game ..... as I speak they are all at home picking the stars off their The Rangers tops and organising a van to return a chunk of league flags & trophies to Hampden :aok:

dalkeith stu
30-12-2015, 06:17 PM
Agree with the Fyvie punishment and can see Hallyday getting off with the red. BUT he should be cited for the kick as this has obviously been missed by the ref!

silverhibee
30-12-2015, 06:17 PM
sorry mate I disagree, any player that simulates a headbutt and basically helps in getting a fellow pro sent off, deserves everything he gets.

Unless your a hun, Allan McGregor name springs to mind when he done the same thing, he got booked and then the ref had the cheek to book the Hibs player as well who had done absolutely nothing.

silverhibee
30-12-2015, 06:25 PM
The footage is on Youtube, I know this because I was calling out the hypocrites on Monday evening.:greengrin

Don't think it is, seems to have gone from youtube.

Obviously not. :thumbsup:

silverhibee
30-12-2015, 06:27 PM
What was the suspension in the McGregor and Lafferty cases?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

McGregor got booked along with Riordan.

Lafferty one, was it a Aberdeen player who got a red card.

Speedy
30-12-2015, 06:30 PM
The punishment IMO should be a red if caught at the time as yellow is clearly not working as simulation still goes on.. 2 matches retrospectively I have no problem with as a punishment to try an balance the advatage gained against disadvantaging the team in subsequent games. Its up to the players and their team mates to clean up their act. Its cheating.

:agree:

Speedy
30-12-2015, 06:33 PM
Fyvie did the wrong thing and that's the end of it, he cant complain and by the looks of it he isn't.

But in that same incident the Sevco player aims a kick at an opponent and then aggressively barges into him, I wonder if the 'compliance' officer will note that? ...... if Halliday hadn't over reacted to a challenge that would have been laughed off in a kids game Fyvie wouldn't be in this position.

The Huns are all over this on Facebook etc, seething with rage at the cheating Hibbies. Its fantastic that they are now aware of what a big part fair play has to play in the game ..... as I speak they are all at home picking the stars off their The Rangers tops and organising a van to return a chunk of league flags & trophies to Hampden :aok:

We learn from the best :greengrin


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3iUDg6JEo0

Speedy
30-12-2015, 06:34 PM
Don't think it is, seems to have gone from youtube.


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

Speedy
30-12-2015, 06:35 PM
And in the interest of balance...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbHogZ8ndvk

Lucius Apuleius
30-12-2015, 06:51 PM
Deserved punishment. Whether it is a two match ban or not is another argument. I guess it is a bit like a parking ticket, £2.00 per hour but if you are 10 minutes over, a £30 fine. Over the top but such is the rules. Should still be something done about Halliday's kick out at him though.

Jones28
30-12-2015, 07:07 PM
Pish decision. Have to say I'm not too fussed about Fyvie being suspended as I think we're a better team without him but how can he get a 2 match ban for simulation when normally it's just a bookable offence?

I think it's more because Fyvies actions got a player sent off.

Smartie
30-12-2015, 07:11 PM
I'm happy to see simulation punished severely as it needs stamped out of the game.

I look forward to more bans like this being dished out.

ancient hibee
30-12-2015, 07:21 PM
When all is said and done Halliday did kick Fyvie in retaliation -a sending off every day of the week.

Eyrie
30-12-2015, 07:36 PM
I have no problem with Fyvie being banned for conning the ref.

However it will be interesting to see if any action is taken against Halliday for his deliberate kick, or if the appeal will ignore that and just let him off because there was no head butt.

And of course the sectarian singing will be ignored. It's still the seventeenth century here, even if the rest of the planet is in the twenty first.

rcarter1
30-12-2015, 07:44 PM
I'm happy to see simulation punished severely as it needs stamped out of the game.

I look forward to more bans like this being dished out.

:agree: Its this kind of attention and sanction that helps players reconsider their behaviour.

ano hibby
30-12-2015, 08:18 PM
There's no justice in this world.

Fyvie gets a two-match ban for simulation, while my wife (a repeat offender) gets a new kitchen.

Excellent :)

proud_and_green
30-12-2015, 11:27 PM
To my mind there were three incidents, two of which were clocked by the referee.

Incident One. The kick,
Incident Two. The barge.
Incident Three. The simulated reaction to a non-existent head butt.

Incident one. This was a kick out at Fyvie and many players have had reds for less in the past; therefore it appears to have been dealt with correctly and appropriately at the time by the ref at the game,

Incident two would on its own probably at most merit a yellow although you would probably feel hard doen by if you got a yellow for it in isolation. But combined with incident one is worthy of a red.

Incident three - simulation is a despicable perversion of the game and does need to be dealt with firmly - a two match ban is appropriate. This incident should not, though, be considered in the appeal against the red by the panel as it happened after incidents one and two and therefore is not relevant.

The correct outcome for me is the action already taken against Fyvie and the red card to stand for the Rangers player .

Speedy
31-12-2015, 12:02 AM
To my mind there were three incidents, two of which were clocked by the referee.

Incident One. The kick,
Incident Two. The barge.
Incident Three. The simulated reaction to a non-existent head butt.

Incident one. This was a kick out at Fyvie and many players have had reds for less in the past; therefore it appears to have been dealt with correctly and appropriately at the time by the ref at the game,

Incident two would on its own probably at most merit a yellow although you would probably feel hard doen by if you got a yellow for it in isolation. But combined with incident one is worthy of a red.

Incident three - simulation is a despicable perversion of the game and does need to be dealt with firmly - a two match ban is appropriate. This incident should not, though, be considered in the appeal against the red by the panel as it happened after incidents one and two and therefore is not relevant.

The correct outcome for me is the action already taken against Fyvie and the red card to stand for the Rangers player .

I suspect (but could be wrong) that Halliday was sent off for a headbutt and the kick will be reduced to a yellow.

However, if the red stands it begs the question why Fyvie has been given a suspension. The consensus seems to be that he is being suspended (rather than booked) for gaining Hibs an unfair advantage, that wouldn't be true if the kick was a red.

Sir David Gray
31-12-2015, 12:05 AM
I suspect (but could be wrong) that Halliday was sent off for a headbutt and the kick will be reduced to a yellow.

However, if the red stands it begs the question why Fyvie has been given a suspension. The consensus seems to be that he is being suspended (rather than booked) for gaining Hibs an unfair advantage, that wouldn't be true if the kick was a red.

:agree: There isn't a hope in hell that Halliday's appeal will fail.

Stuarty27
31-12-2015, 12:17 AM
No sure why we care about Halliday appeal anyway he is pish

Thecat23
31-12-2015, 12:20 AM
Tell you what TC, thought Kenny Miller refereed the game quite well on Monday. :greengrin

He's a sour face **** 😁

To be fair he's not been gloating even though I've gave him it tight all last week!

Forza Fred
31-12-2015, 02:49 AM
:agree: Its this kind of attention and sanction that helps players reconsider their behaviour.

Agreed.

If a Sevcovians had conned the ref as Fyvie did we would be raging.

No excuses for such an act of conning, and only gets the game a bad name.

Stamp it out..everywhere.

andrew70
31-12-2015, 03:03 AM
No sure why we care about Halliday appeal anyway he is pish

This! We let ourselves down on Monday but we really shouldn't worry about any of them.

lyonhibs
31-12-2015, 07:31 AM
Fyvie didn't "go down".

I'm disappointed in Stubbs here. For me he should have defended Fyvie and drawn attention to Hallidays kick out and aggressive shoulder motion towards Fyvie. Not to mention Hallidays two earlier offences which should have been yellows, one a blatant handball which the ref penalised him for.

Fyvie was basically assaulted but because it wasn't a headbutt, that is all the media focus on. Stubbs could've looked to change the story but has allowed it to seem he backs Halliday as being wronged

" aggressive shoulder motion " "basically assaulted" Lol, you're at it. Fyvie has had a 'mare, acted like a wee fanny and it's the kind of simulation we all want to see stamped out of the game so the punishment is apt.

What could Stubbs have changed the story to, in light of what actually happened?? Fyvie recoiled holding his face like he'd been nutted, no such thing happened.

Halliday did kick out, without making contact, but the intent was there so his red should still stand, but we can have no complaints about Fyvie's punishment.

Tyler Durden
31-12-2015, 08:18 AM
The story has become about Fyvie being guilty and Halliday being innocent. Stubbs should put the focus on Halliday being the aggressor and the fact it was still a red regardless of Fyvies actions.

Deliberately barging into someone at pace is still violent conduct.

lyonhibs
31-12-2015, 08:43 AM
The story has become about Fyvie being guilty and Halliday being innocent. Stubbs should put the focus on Halliday being the aggressor and the fact it was still a red regardless of Fyvies actions.

Deliberately barging into someone at pace is still violent conduct.

What "pace" would that be?? Walking pace??

Halliday was the agressor, and the red card probably merited for the intent of his kick, but Fyvie's reaction was so wildly disproportionate and fake relative to what actually happened to him (my Mum could shoulder charge harder FFS) that- IMO - it's right he's getting some stick and a ban. Hopefully will now think twice before indulging in that vein of cheating again.

Scouse Hibee
31-12-2015, 09:35 AM
I must say the SFA have been terrific towards Hibs in the last few weeks and are doing the upmost to help us win the League.

Letting off John McGinn our best player for assault and banning our worst player for hehaw is terrific.

Well done the SFA

Behave.

AlbertK86
31-12-2015, 10:26 AM
Good, hopefully he doesn't do it again. Halliday for me kicked out so his red should still stand!

Absolutely spot on.

Agree with Fyvie punishment but what irks is last game at ER against them Waghorn run 30 yards and assaults one of our players but absolutely nowt happened to him and SFA never took any action and failed to respond to it being pointed out via email

LaMotta
31-12-2015, 11:00 AM
thats the punishment for conning the ref. If he isnt conned its a yellow for trying. Cant see a problem to be honest. i think they should chamge the punishment to red to really stamp simulation out the game.

So a player who cons the ref gets a worse punishment for being a better actor, or for a ref being less observant or competent, than in a situation where the ref isn't conned.

That doesn't make any sense.

Like you say a red card for both situations would be fairer. But players go down in games all the time to win an advantage...defenders in the corner crumpling after a slight touch from a striker etc. They would have to be sent off too...every single incident of simulation can affect a match outcome.

bookert
31-12-2015, 11:19 AM
What "pace" would that be?? Walking pace??

Halliday was the agressor, and the red card probably merited for the intent of his kick, but Fyvie's reaction was so wildly disproportionate and fake relative to what actually happened to him (my Mum could shoulder charge harder FFS) that- IMO - it's right he's getting some stick and a ban. Hopefully will now think twice before indulging in that vein of cheating again.

I am amazed at the amount of stick Fyvie is getting for this. I went back and watched the incident again last night, he was kicked then barged, - he didnt fall down, he didnt roll about, he put his hand to his face for a couple of seconds max. I see the same or similar at every game, I am not condoning his actions, but the amount of criticism being leveled at FF is in my view completely disproportionate

CallumLaidlaw
31-12-2015, 11:22 AM
I am amazed at the amount of stick Fyvie is getting for this. I went back and watched the incident again last night, he was kicked then barged, - he didnt fall down, he didnt roll about, he put his hand to his face for a couple of seconds max. I see the same or similar at every game, I am not condoning his actions, but the amount of criticism being leveled at FF is in my view completely disproportionate

I do agree. I saw a rangers fan say he "fell to the ground". I totally disagree with him playing on it, and the ban is correct, but it was hardly Kyle Lafferty-esque!

lyonhibs
31-12-2015, 11:42 AM
[QUOTE=bookert;4534493]I am amazed at the amount of stick Fyvie is getting for this. I went back and watched the incident again last night, he was kicked then barged, - he didnt fall down, he didnt roll about, he put his hand to his face for a couple of seconds max. I see the same or similar at every game, I am not condoning his actions, but the amount of criticism being leveled at FF is in my view completely disproportionate[

None of the contact was with his face, which is what he ended up grabbing to feign that he had been hit there. Like you say, his actions can't be condoned and that's all that people giving him stick are doing, highlighting that fact.

I'm sure when he's back after the ban, there'll be nothing but support for him from the stands.

Leithenhibby
31-12-2015, 12:26 PM
I suspect (but could be wrong) that Halliday was sent off for a headbutt and the kick will be reduced to a yellow.

However, if the red stands it begs the question why Fyvie has been given a suspension. The consensus seems to be that he is being suspended (rather than booked) for gaining Hibs an unfair advantage, that wouldn't be true if the kick was a red.


:agree: There isn't a hope in hell that Halliday's appeal will fail.

I'd hope not. The fact that the SFA/SPFL have taken steps to review the footage on FF, it's clearly violent conduct from the hard man! :rolleyes:

15820

Scouse Hibee
31-12-2015, 01:22 PM
The story has become about Fyvie being guilty and Halliday being innocent. Stubbs should put the focus on Halliday being the aggressor and the fact it was still a red regardless of Fyvies actions.

Deliberately barging into someone at pace is still violent conduct.


If that was pace, happy days I've still got it :greengrin

Lucius Apuleius
31-12-2015, 01:34 PM
If he hadn't grabbed his face there would be no discussions. Sending off would have been warranted and no further action required.

Simkin911
31-12-2015, 01:52 PM
Fell off my bike badly a few weeks ago. Landed on my shoulder. I immediately developed a headache.

Struggling to see the reason for a 2 match suspension for a player who held his hand to his face/head immediately after a physical jolt to his body. Nor did I see the player claim to the referee there was direct contact to his head.

Maybe I need to watch it multiple times again to fully appreciate the gravity of his offence....

Onion
31-12-2015, 02:04 PM
So a player who cons the ref gets a worse punishment for being a better actor, or for a ref being less observant or competent, than in a situation where the ref isn't conned.

That doesn't make any sense.

Like you say a red card for both situations would be fairer. But players go down in games all the time to win an advantage...defenders in the corner crumpling after a slight touch from a striker etc. They would have to be sent off too...every single incident of simulation can affect a match outcome.

:top marks Ref was no distance from the incident and should have been more observant, or consulted with the lino. Had he been doing his job properly, Hun would have got red, Fyvie a yellow for over-reacting and that's it. But hey, it's easier for the authorities to make an example of Fyvie than train their incompetent officials up to a decent level. Scottish football is for ever making allowances for the incompetence of the officials on and off the pitch.

greenlex
31-12-2015, 03:28 PM
Fell off my bike badly a few weeks ago. Landed on my shoulder. I immediately developed a headache.

Struggling to see the reason for a 2 match suspension for a player who held his hand to his face/head immediately after a physical jolt to his body. Nor did I see the player claim to the referee there was direct contact to his head.

Maybe I need to watch it multiple times again to fully appreciate the gravity of his offence....
Fyvie has accepted his simulation. Why can't we? Isai elsewhere it could be overturned if we really wanted to as Imsure it could be argued that he may have suffered soreness in his head from any of the challenges any where and his actions are hardly theatrical and open to interpretation. IMO Hibs and Fyvie aknowledge that be knew exactly what he was doing and accepted the punishment. I'd rather that than being dishonest and by appealing condone the action. Moral high ground intact.

greenlex
31-12-2015, 03:33 PM
So a player who cons the ref gets a worse punishment for being a better actor, or for a ref being less observant or competent, than in a situation where the ref isn't conned.

That doesn't make any sense.

Like you say a red card for both situations would be fairer. But players go down in games all the time to win an advantage...defenders in the corner crumpling after a slight touch from a striker etc. They would have to be sent off too...every single incident of simulation can affect a match outcome.

I think the overriding thing here is its needing eradicated from the game in any form. Again I said elsewhere a red should be issued a yellow is quite obviously not a deterant. The harsher punishment IMO is to try and even out any advantage gained by the action missed.

J-C
31-12-2015, 03:56 PM
:top marks Ref was no distance from the incident and should have been more observant, or consulted with the lino. Had he been doing his job properly, Hun would have got red, Fyvie a yellow for over-reacting and that's it. But hey, it's easier for the authorities to make an example of Fyvie than train their incompetent officials up to a decent level. Scottish football is for ever making allowances for the incompetence of the officials on and off the pitch.


I'm pretty sure Fyvie charging into the back of Halliday in the first place was enough for the ref to give a yellow, he did blow his whistle immediately before Halliday lunged forward, the fact that Fyvie simulated a hit to his head conned the ref and he red carded Halliday for a head butt, which he didn't do.

Does anyone know if the ref mentioned the initial kick at Fyvie in his report and what exactly was he sent off for, he might have been getting sent off anyway for the kick but as we've not seen his report we don't know.

Also Fyvie and Hibs have accepted the ban, which means they accept his guilt that he conned the ref, end of, time for people to get over it, he had a bad day and this was his icing on the cake, move on.