Bartley sending off

[Sir David Gray]

The club really had no choice other than to appeal. It will be very interesting to hear what the outcome is, and if the appeal is unsuccessful what reason is concocted.

Hibs are 100% correct to appeal, the red card was completely unjustified but I would be surprised if they uphold two appeals for the same player in the space of a few weeks.

[Golden Bear]

Hibs are 100% correct to appeal, the red card was completely unjustified but I would be surprised if they uphold two appeals for the same player in the space of a few weeks.

It shouldn't come to it but I totally agree with what you are saying.

[Marco G]

Hibs are 100% correct to appeal, the red card was completely unjustified but I would be surprised if they uphold two appeals for the same player in the space of a few weeks.
Last time the ref & compliance officer watched Hibs evidence and agreed it was not a red. It never came to a face to face. I think the same will happen here.

[Wee Effen Bee]

What makes this even more crazy is we get the resulting free kick!

WTF was that for?

According to the ref our player fouls so bad to warrant a sending off, while at the same time being fouled?

Schrödinger's Foul.

J
Nah, If it were truly a Schrödinger's foul, it would have to be 'unseen' by lots of observers...erm!

[Radium]

Nah, If it were truly a Schrödinger's foul, it would have to be 'unseen' by lots of observers...erm!

Surely a Heisenberg foul, the more you look for it, the less chance you have of seeing it :hmmm:

[SRHibs]

Can see why the red card was given, but I don't agree with it. That said, I think he had the right to give Bartley a red even if it does look soft, and we won't win the appeal. Also, anyone implying (or overtly stating) that it's racist is a ****ing idiot.

[Allant1981]

Can see why the red card was given, but I don't agree with it. That said, I think he had the right to give Bartley a red even if it does look soft, and we won't win the appeal. Also, anyone implying (or overtly stating) that it's racist is a ****ing idiot.

Dont understand how you can see why the red was given, there was nothing in it, ive shown the highlights a few times to various non supporting hibs fans and they couldnt see anything in it either

[SRHibs]

Dont understand how you can see why the red was given, there was nothing in it, ive shown the highlights a few times to various non supporting hibs fans and they couldnt see anything in it either

He put his studs into his lower leg - whether it was intentional or not I don't know (I highly doubt it), but I don't think we'll win the appeal. Bartley is a bit of a liability now to be honest. Even though the issue of whether his cards were red or not is highly debatable (the first was not, as we've already seen), he's still prone to making clumsy challenges, and in terms of his skill on the ball, he leaves a lot to be desired - especially his passing which is atrocious. He's a good squad player but I don't think he should be in the starting line-up.

[Greenworld]

He put his studs into his lower leg - whether it was intentional or not I don't know (I highly doubt it), but I don't think we'll win the appeal. Bartley is a bit of a liability now to be honest. Even though the issue of whether his cards were red or not is highly debatable (the first was not, as we've already seen), he's still prone to making clumsy challenges, and in terms of his skill on the ball, he leaves a lot to be desired - especially his passing which is atrocious. He's a good squad player but I don't think he should be in the starting line-up.
It was no sending off and for anyone to suggest otherwise is laughable.
I think the appeal will be won 100%.
Bartley is there to break up play not to be a passing maestro and he does it very well.
It could be argued we would be 6 points better off but for bad referee decisions.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[Greenworld]

Hibs are 100% correct to appeal, the red card was completely unjustified but I would be surprised if they uphold two appeals for the same player in the space of a few weeks.
Why if they are both correct decisions then the appeal must be upheld.
There is nothing in this tackle people are looking for things.
The only thing that may need to be looked at are why are the referees picking on Bartley.
The seem to be taking the show racism the red card the wrong way

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[Allant1981]

He put his studs into his lower leg - whether it was intentional or not I don't know (I highly doubt it), but I don't think we'll win the appeal. Bartley is a bit of a liability now to be honest. Even though the issue of whether his cards were red or not is highly debatable (the first was not, as we've already seen), he's still prone to making clumsy challenges, and in terms of his skill on the ball, he leaves a lot to be desired - especially his passing which is atrocious. He's a good squad player but I don't think he should be in the starting line-up.

No he didnt, he was sent off for a kick to the groin

[J-C]

No he didnt, he was sent off for a kick to the groin


If this is what's in the refs report of the game it will be rescinded immediately, there was a tangle of legs and nothing more, if the ref has mentioned groin at all, it will be thrown out and the ref in question must be demoted.

[calumhibee1]

Will be interesting to see how this unfolds. Never a red and the fact we got the free kick makes it laughable. There was only one contact between the two players so it should have literally been impossible for us to get the foul but Bartley to get sent off. It's not like there was contact and then a tangle and a stamp or something along those lines, it was literally a coming together of legs.

[gazathehibby]

Think the ref should be red carded with a two match suspension

[Allant1981]

If this is what's in the refs report of the game it will be rescinded immediately, there was a tangle of legs and nothing more, if the ref has mentioned groin at all, it will be thrown out and the ref in question must be demoted.

This was what was reported over the weekend, whether the ref puts that in his report is a different matter!

[neil7908]

Glad we are appealing but the SFA will never allow the terrible quality of refereeing in this country to be highlighted in such an obvious manner as the same player having a red card rescinded twice in a month

[Moulin Yarns]

If this is what's in the refs report of the game it will be rescinded immediately, there was a tangle of legs and nothing more, if the ref has mentioned groin at all, it will be thrown out and the ref in question must be demoted.


http://www.raithrovers.net/raithtv

At 3:58 in the Raith Highlights, it looks like Bartley stands on a Raith Players groin, but that was not the incident he was sent off for. The ref had the chance to deal with that incident when Raith had the throw in before the sending off incident.

[Onion]

http://www.raithrovers.net/raithtv

At 3:58 in the Raith Highlights, it looks like Bartley stands on a Raith Players groin, but that was not the incident he was sent off for. The ref had the chance to deal with that incident when Raith had the throw in before the sending off incident.

If he did, it was not deliberate and as you say it had to be dealt with as soon as the ball went dead. If this is what the ref is now relying on to justify sending Bartley off, then he is making it up and should be kicked out of the game.

[lapsedhibee]

http://www.raithrovers.net/raithtv

At 3:58 in the Raith Highlights, it looks like Bartley stands on a Raith Players groin, but that was not the incident he was sent off for. The ref had the chance to deal with that incident when Raith had the throw in before the sending off incident.

Does it? It looks like he has the chance to stand on a Raith player's groin, but I can't see him standing on the groin, and the Raith player doesn't complain of being hurt. :confused:

[Moulin Yarns]

Does it? It looks like he has the chance to stand on a Raith player's groin, but I can't see him standing on the groin, and the Raith player doesn't complain of being hurt. :confused:

OK, let's qualify that. In the clip it looks MORE like he gets the Raith player in the groin than the incident in which he was sent off for kicking Barr in the groin. In both cases I would say it is his momentum that takes him forward and nothing malicious.

[GreenCastle]

Never a red and will the 2nd time this season in a matter of weeks Bartley and Hibs have been punished incorrectly.

[lapsedhibee]

OK, let's qualify that. In the clip it looks MORE like he gets the Raith player in the groin than the incident in which he was sent off for kicking Barr in the groin. In both cases I would say it is his momentum that takes him forward and nothing malicious.

This confusion might be easily cleared up if all the Raith players published pictures of their groins on social media. That should be an easy instruction for a former Hearts manager to give.

[J-C]

http://www.raithrovers.net/raithtv

At 3:58 in the Raith Highlights, it looks like Bartley stands on a Raith Players groin, but that was not the incident he was sent off for. The ref had the chance to deal with that incident when Raith had the throw in before the sending off incident.



Nope, just watched it again and all Bartley does in the 1st incident is jump over the Raith player who immediately gets up and carries on, the incident where he gets sent off shows 2 players going for the ball and the legs tangle slightly with both hitting the deck, no kicking and certainly not in the groin.

[BlackSheep]

I have to be honest... the more i watch it the more I can see what some folk are saying could be deemed an offence by Bartley... I have shown it to a few folk and had mixed responses but those who have sided with the ref all point out the un natural way Bartley's left leg connects with Barr's knee/thigh... while some can argue it was his natural step that caused this it begins to get a littel more obvious the more you watch it... Dunno if I am playing devil's advocate here or not.

On the other hand it takes watching it over and over to see this and the Ref had his card out almost immediately... so it leaves me wondering if he couldn't wait to show the red no matter what...

This may not be as easy an appeal as Bartley's last one....

Time will tell....

[worcesterhibby]

I personally don't think there is a conspiracy against Hibs I just think we have a lot of crap refs. If the ref had wanted to he could easily have given them a penalty, the trip on the edge of the box by Hanlon looked like a penalty to me, to be honest. Not a cheat..just crap would be my take on it.

[Captain Trips]

Lets just make it easy for them "Not one player for Raith left pitch without being assaulted"

[PiemanP]

One thing that strikes me about this sending off and the one in the game against Ayr (not seen the Stevenson one..) was the speed at which the ref gets his card out. Both times the refs are practically ripping their pockets off to get the card out.

Good referees will take a moment, think things through and then take action. He also has three assistants none of which were conferred with.

[GreenOnions]

I've watched the clip numerous times now trying to find something for which Bartley could have been given even a yellow card. I just can't see anything. Bartley and Hibs were extremely unlucky there as we were against Ayr. When you take into account the disallowed goal v Brondby that was onside and the two nonsense sendings-off we're definitely due a bit of good fortune.

You could add to that our home play-off game last season against Falkirk when really we should have been awarded a penalty and Falkirk reduced to 10 men with ten minutes to go for either the deliberate handball in the box or the hilariously obvious and deliberate barge about five seconds later by a Falkirk defender that sent Henderson to the ground in the box. That would have given us the chance to go 3-1 up against ten men instead of drawing 2-2.

Having said all that - all the conspiracy stuff is a load of nonsense too. The referees have just made mistakes and that's it.

The reason it's so important to us is our own fault. We should have been out of sight against Ayr and QoS and really ought to have won against RR too. Also - against RR the incident involving Bartley wouldn't have happened had it not been for our own poor defending. Both Bartley and then Stevenson made really poor attempts to clear the cross ball immediately prior to the Bartley incident and the ball ought to have been well clear of our penalty area instead of on the edge of the box.

The main point is though - if we were two or three up against these teams when we suffer some bad luck then they wouldn't matter so much. I really think we ought to concentrate more on that rather than developing what could be described as a victim mentality.

[Onion]

One thing that strikes me about this sending off and the one in the game against Ayr (not seen the Stevenson one..) was the speed at which the ref gets his card out. Both times the refs are practically ripping their pockets off to get the card out.

Good referees will take a moment, think things through and then take action. He also has three assistants none of which were conferred with.

:agree: which simply supports the view that the ref had it in for the player / Hibs.

You see referees ripping the red card out for violent tackles/incidents where he's clearly trying to appease the opposition players who are going mental and to defuse the situation. That was not the case in either of the Bartley tackles. The ref enjoyed it too much !

[Onion]

I've watched the clip numerous times now trying to find something for which Bartley could have been given even a yellow card. I just can't see anything. Bartley and Hibs were extremely unlucky there as we were against Ayr. When you take into account the disallowed goal v Brondby that was onside and the two nonsense sendings-off we're definitely due a bit of good fortune.

You could add to that our home play-off game last season against Falkirk when really we should have been awarded a penalty and Falkirk reduced to 10 men with ten minutes to go for either the deliberate handball in the box or the hilariously obvious and deliberate barge about five seconds later by a Falkirk defender that sent Henderson to the ground in the box. That would have given us the chance to go 3-1 up against ten men instead of drawing 2-2.

Having said all that - all the conspiracy stuff is a load of nonsense too. The referees have just made mistakes and that's it.

The reason it's so important to us is our own fault. We should have been out of sight against Ayr and QoS and really ought to have won against RR too. Also - against RR the incident involving Bartley wouldn't have happened had it not been for our own poor defending. Both Bartley and then Stevenson made really poor attempts to clear the cross ball immediately prior to the Bartley incident and the ball ought to have been well clear of our penalty area instead of on the edge of the box.

The main point is though - if we were two or three up against these teams when we suffer some bad luck then they wouldn't matter so much. I really think we ought to concentrate more on that rather than developing what could be described as a victim mentality.

Hear what you're saying but a level playing field is hugely important in the context of the game. We saw the worst of that against the Yams a few seasons ago when they fouled with impunity, only for their players to get red cards AFTER the match - time and again. The foul count against Ayr and RR was ridiculously one sided with Hibs players getting kicked all over the pitch, but it as soon as Hibs player makes a tackle, he's off ??? WTF ? These small incidents have a disproportionate impact on the way the players approach the game, and referees know it.

[brog]

I don't know why some posters feel the need to link our failure to be 3 goals up with a wrong refereeing decision. There's no connection. A bad decision is just that whether we're 6 up or 6 down.

[GreenOnions]

I don't know why some posters feel the need to link our failure to be 3 goals up with a wrong refereeing decision. There's no connection. A bad decision is just that whether we're 6 up or 6 down.

I think you must have misunderstood my post. It says clearly that the decisions were wrong. I just make the point that if we were more clinical in the final third these referee errors would not matter. Statement of fact really.

[lord bunberry]

I think you must have misunderstood my post. It says clearly that the decisions were wrong. I just make the point that if we were more clinical in the final third these referee errors would not matter. Statement of fact really.

It may be true, but its irrelevant in the context of this thread. If you read through this thread there's a few people who seem to suggest that we should be more concerned with our lack of goals than poor refereeing. We should be concerned about both.

[GreenOnions]

It may be true, but its irrelevant in the context of this thread. If you read through this thread there's a few people who seem to suggest that we should be more concerned with our lack of goals than poor refereeing. We should be concerned about both.

I know what you're saying - and I share your frustration. I just think it's better to focus on things we can affect with our own actions. I'm never comfortable conveying a message that we think everything is unfair. There's a danger that it can engender a negative mindset and that it can become a sort of pre-prepared excuse. Nobody listens to complaints anyway - unless they're from the most powerful of organisations. Off the Ball played Neil Lennon's post-match comments on the show on Saturday. They then took about 30 seconds to ridicule his complaints before moving on to another topic.

[lord bunberry]

I know what you're saying - and I share your frustration. I just think it's better to focus on things we can affect with our own actions. I'm never comfortable conveying a message that we think everything is unfair. There's a danger that it can engender a negative mindset and that it can become a sort of pre-prepared excuse. Nobody listens to complaints anyway - unless they're from the most powerful of organisations. Off the Ball played Neil Lennon's post-match comments on the show on Saturday. They then took about 30 seconds to ridicule his complaints before moving on to another topic.

I agree, but we need to take each case as it comes and in this instance we have been on the wrong end of a bad decision. If it leads to a bit of a siege mentality then I'm all for it. The danger is as you say we start to look for excuses.

[green day]

Off the Ball played Neil Lennon's post-match comments on the show on Saturday. They then took about 30 seconds to ridicule his complaints before moving on to another topic.

Good for them.

What if we win the appeal, will they ridicule him then?

[H18 SFR]

When do we expect to hear? I was expecting to hear today because the SFA normally contact the referee to see if he wants to change his decision. I've got a feeling Finnie will dig his Hun heals in.

[Jack Hackett]

When do we expect to hear? I was expecting to hear today because the SFA normally contact the referee to see if he wants to change his decision. I've got a feeling Finnie will dig his Hun heals in.

Last one was rescinded on 21st Sept, which was a Wednesday

[H18 SFR]

Last one was rescinded on 21st Sept, which was a Wednesday

Fingers crossed tomorrow.

[Eyrie]

Off the Ball played Neil Lennon's post-match comments on the show on Saturday. They then took about 30 seconds to ridicule his complaints before moving on to another topic.

I think most of us did that when he was the Celtc manager, and with good cause as he was normally trying to distract attention from his team not winning.

But Lennon is correct about Saturday's red card being a ridiculous decision.

[Iggy Pope]

Good for them.

What if we win the appeal, will they ridicule him then?

Only if that pair of fuds can shoehorn something about Motherwell or St Johnstone in to the 'discussion'. Cannot suffer them.

[Marco G]

Last one was rescinded on 21st Sept, which was a Wednesday
The ref & compliance officer have the chance to consider Hibs evidence and say if a) the ref called it wrong or b) the ref stands by his decision. Last time for Bartley ref admitted he got it wrong Think we heard that on the Tuesday. If ref sticks to his guns then the panel will meet on Thursday and I think we have a strong case for the red to be rescinded.

[Dunbar Hibee]

Cheating *******.

That said, I can't say I've been particularly impressed with Bartley's performances this season.

[oneone73]

Cheating *******.

That said, I can't say I've been particularly impressed with Bartley's performances this season.

He was having a good game on Saturday.

[northstandhibby]

Only if that pair of fuds can shoehorn something about Motherwell or St Johnstone in to the 'discussion'. Cannot suffer them.

:top marks

And it seems sometimes as if it is only yams who e-mail or text the show or they pick them out deliberately to mention them.

Most of the time it is a shocker of a program and treats us the fans like idiots.

GGTTH

[number9dream]

I have to be honest... the more i watch it the more I can see what some folk are saying could be deemed an offence by Bartley... I have shown it to a few folk and had mixed responses but those who have sided with the ref all point out the un natural way Bartley's left leg connects with Barr's knee/thigh... while some can argue it was his natural step that caused this it begins to get a littel more obvious the more you watch it... Dunno if I am playing devil's advocate here or not.

On the other hand it takes watching it over and over to see this and the Ref had his card out almost immediately... so it leaves me wondering if he couldn't wait to show the red no matter what...

This may not be as easy an appeal as Bartley's last one....

Time will tell....

Yup. I see it as Bartley swinging his left at Barr and catching the guy around the knee and that is heightened by Rovers player's angry reaction.
Not sure why we got a foul. Obstruction from Barr? Or where the kick in the groin line came from...
I think they'll uphold the decision, ignoring Bartley's claim that it is a mere tangle of legs.

[superfurryhibby]

:top marks

And it seems sometimes as if it is only yams who e-mail or text the show or they pick them out deliberately to mention them.

Most of the time it is a shocker of a program and treats us the fans like idiots.

GGTTH

A tad paranoid.

I like the show, always have.

Re: Bartley. I watched a clip on Pie andBovril. It showed the incident close up and slowed down. Bartley definitely makes contact with his left foot against the Raith guys shin. It was never a leg breaker and arose from being impeded, but it was nonetheless a very stupid response. His appeal will be rejected.

[matty_f]

:top marks

And it seems sometimes as if it is only yams who e-mail or text the show or they pick them out deliberately to mention them.

Most of the time it is a shocker of a program and treats us the fans like idiots.

GGTTH

I don't get that at all when I listen. I think they're very good, and generally very balanced.

[Lago]

I don't get that at all when I listen. I think they're very good, and generally very balanced.
Completely agree.

[northstandhibby]

I don't get that at all when I listen. I think they're very good, and generally very balanced.

Totally respect differing opinions.:aok:

Better than listening to Derek Johnstone I suppose.

GGTTH

[matty_f]

Totally respect differing opinions.:aok:

Better than listening to Derek Johnstone I suppose.

GGTTH

That I can definitely agree with. :agree:

[greenlex]

A tad paranoid.

I like the show, always have.

Re: Bartley. I watched a clip on Pie andBovril. It showed the incident close up and slowed down. Bartley definitely makes contact with his left foot against the Raith guys shin. It was never a leg breaker and arose from being impeded, but it was nonetheless a very stupid response. His appeal will be rejected.
If it arose from him being impeded why is it a red? Why is it a stupid response? Yes there's contact but I'm not sure what he's meant to do with his leg after the challenge. His momentum takes him through the player and that momentum is after he himself is fouled. Never a red in a million years. Not even a yelllow. Not even a foul. If this is not recinded it's more political than what actually happened.

[Marco G]

If it arose from him being impeded why is it a red? Why is it a stupid response? Yes there's contact but I'm not sure what he's meant to do with his leg after the challenge. His momentum takes him through the player and that momentum is after he himself is fouled. Never a red in a million years. Not even a yelllow. Not even a foul. If this is not recinded it's more political than what actually happened.
That is why I am saying it is like the John McGinn case. He got a red, but video showed he had been pushed first and that caused him to collide with player. Red was rescinded. Imho Bartley case is exactly the same. Once you have been fouled travelling fast you may not have much control of what happens next!

[superfurryhibby]

If it arose from him being impeded why is it a red? Why is it a stupid response? Yes there's contact but I'm not sure what he's meant to do with his leg after the challenge. His momentum takes him through the player and that momentum is after he himself is fouled. Never a red in a million years. Not even a yelllow. Not even a foul. If this is not recinded it's more political than what actually happened.

Being impeded and taking the opportunity to have a wee kick at the person who did it are different things. It looked to me like he took the opportunity to raise his left leg and deliberately make contact with the upper area of the Raith fud's shin. Not viciously, but not very smart. What matters is that the ref saw and called it, he didn't like it and sent Bartley off. As we know, the penalty is the same for a daft wee petulant kick and a full on one. Maybe Bartley didn't mean it all, that is possible, but the refs not equipped with psychic powers. He interpreted it as a kick, had already stopped play for a foul to Hibs and that is why we got a free kick and a man sent off.

Not sure why this is so hard to grasp?

Not getting the link to anything political or sinister.

[Hibrandenburg]

I just flicked the V's at a prick who cut me up at a junction, fully expect 6 months for my indiscretion.

It's Bartley's behaviour on the field that leads to young impressionable males copying it. Doesn't he realise he's a role model?

[greenlex]

Being impeded and taking the opportunity to have a wee kick at the person who did it are different things. It looked to me like he took the opportunity to raise his left leg and deliberately make contact with the upper area of the Raith fud's shin. Not viciously, but not very smart. What matters is that the ref saw and called it, he didn't like it and sent Bartley off. As we know, the penalty is the same for a daft wee petulant kick and a full on one. Maybe Bartley didn't mean it all, that is possible, but the refs not equipped with psychic powers. He interpreted it as a kick, had already stopped play for a foul to Hibs and that is why we got a free kick and a man sent off.

Not sure why this is so hard to grasp?

Not getting the link to anything political or sinister.
Not hard to grasp at all. You didnt indicate you thought it was deliberate in your post. Just do not agree it was. Youre right about the ref too. He has to call it as he sees it. Doesnt make it right though. Thats why we are appealing the decision. If it was as cut and dried deliberate as is being suggested in some quarters we wouldnt be bothering.

[Moulin Yarns]

Being impeded and taking the opportunity to have a wee kick at the person who did it are different things. It looked to me like he took the opportunity to raise his left leg and deliberately make contact with the upper area of the Raith fud's shin. Not viciously, but not very smart. What matters is that the ref saw and called it, he didn't like it and sent Bartley off. As we know, the penalty is the same for a daft wee petulant kick and a full on one. Maybe Bartley didn't mean it all, that is possible, but the refs not equipped with psychic powers. He interpreted it as a kick, had already stopped play for a foul to Hibs and that is why we got a free kick and a man sent off.

Not sure why this is so hard to grasp?

Not getting the link to anything political or sinister.

Why was play stopped when Hibs were in possession and moving forward? Has he not heard of playing advantage?

[Real Emerald]

Being impeded and taking the opportunity to have a wee kick at the person who did it are different things. It looked to me like he took the opportunity to raise his left leg and deliberately make contact with the upper area of the Raith fud's shin. Not viciously, but not very smart. What matters is that the ref saw and called it, he didn't like it and sent Bartley off. As we know, the penalty is the same for a daft wee petulant kick and a full on one. Maybe Bartley didn't mean it all, that is possible, but the refs not equipped with psychic powers. He interpreted it as a kick, had already stopped play for a foul to Hibs and that is why we got a free kick and a man sent off.

Not sure why this is so hard to grasp?

Not getting the link to anything political or sinister.

If you look at Bartley's head he follows the ball and would appear to me to have no idea where the players leg was and therefore any contact was not deliberate and came about through the momentum of the coming together. You can't seriously start sending players off for that when there's much worse going on in the game that doesn't warrant bookings. There would be no one left on the field if that's deemed to be a red card. If it is, we're turning the game into netball. Folk have to get stuck in and make tackles, that was not even a foul never mind a yellow and as for a red, I'm shocked. You could watch any game and find much worse that will be let go without anything being said or done. Why Hibs seem to always get these nothing red cards is beyond me. There is no way on Earth a Celtic, Rangers or Hearts player would have walked for that.

[Danderhall Hibs]

It seems clear to me that the refs have had one of their meetings recently and Bartleys been discussed.


They've been in that much of a hurry to get the red card out they're not giving themselves any time to register what happened.

[green day]

Seen tackles in the Napoli game tonight which are much, much worse.

Result? Free kick, not even a yellow. Sensible referees.

[neil7908]

The Scotsman has a piece on Brian Graham on Thursday and that confirms at the end that Bartley's appeal will be heard Thursday.

[Godsahibby]

Lennon said yesterday that "by all accounts the appeal will be successful". Fingers crossed he's heard something baxk already from those involved.

[Thecat23]

Lennon said yesterday that "by all accounts the appeal will be successful". Fingers crossed he's heard something baxk already from those involved.

Be great if it is.

[blackpoolhibs]

Lennon said yesterday that "by all accounts the appeal will be successful". Fingers crossed he's heard something baxk already from those involved.

There cant be any other result, and there should be an enquiry into these bent ref's who are hell bent on punishing Hibs because of their ridiculous views on our club.

[Oscar T Grouch]

Marv's just tweeted
Déjà vu 👀😳🙃
Does that mean it's been rescinded again?

[hibsbollah]

Marv's just tweeted
Déjà vu 👀😳🙃
Does that mean it's been rescinded again?

It might mean he's had an 'actual' deja vu. (Opened the kitchen cupboard door looking for a jar of strawberry jam while humming Mamma Mia and having a sensation that he'd done this exact thing before).

[Brightside]

Marv's just tweeted
Déjà vu 👀😳🙃
Does that mean it's been rescinded again?

winding up there SFA isn't a good idea.

[SouthMoroccoStu]

winding up there SFA isn't a good idea.

They're too thick and inbred to notice or understand so I wouldn't worry :wink:

[Oscar T Grouch]

I think it might just be the actual appeal he's déjà juing

Still the outcome will be the same.

[greenginger]

Downgrade it to a yellow, easy way out.

That would be saying the ref was not totally wrong whilst satisfying Hibs and Bartley.


:aok: predictable

[HibbiesandtheBaddies]

Have we been practising with 10 men this week?

[Velma Dinkley]

It's been downgraded to a yellow according to Sky

[Baldy Foghorn]

About time referees are held to account....Two reds for Marvin, one rescinded, one downgraded......Utter shambles

[Tomsk]

Not even a yellow in my view.

[HibbiesandtheBaddies]

It's been downgraded to a yellow according to Sky

What a shambles the SFA are, complete laughing stock.

Speaks volumes for this character Finnie as well.......

[matty_f]

What's annoying is that the refs couldn't get the red card out quick enough on both occasions. Why is that?

[Hibee87]

I have a little bit more respect for the first offence, although incorrect did the ref not quickly come out and hold his hands up and said he got it wrong. Not heard anything from Finnie at the weekend though.

[Onion]

What's annoying is that the refs couldn't get the red card out quick enough on both occasions. Why is that?

To prevent a riot ? Glad the red was reversed, but twice for the same player in just a few weeks - something stinks !

[ancient hibee]

Think Marvin's entitled to be black affronted.

[GreenLake]

Vindication but not justice. Blindingly obvious outcome.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Think Marvin's entitled to be black affronted.

Oh mate .................... we just dinnae nowadays and ye dinnae get a pass for being 74 either http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/tsk%20tsk.gif

[ancient hibee]

Oh mate .................... we just dinnae nowadays and ye dinnae get a pass for being 74 either http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/tsk%20tsk.gif
Old Scots phrase,nothing to do with colour.

[Smartie]

Old Scots phrase,nothing to do with colour.

One that takes me back. A regular in the Broons and Oor Wullie although I don't know if I've heard it anywhere else since.

[killie-hibby]

Oh mate .................... we just dinnae nowadays and ye dinnae get a pass for being 74 either http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/tsk%20tsk.gif

You should be feeling "black burning shame" for considering "black affronted" as anything other than a frequently used Scottish phrase.:na na:

[ancient hibee]

One that takes me back. A regular in the Broons and Oor Wullie although I don't know if I've heard it anywhere else since.
Help ma boab.

[Kojock]

One that takes me back. A regular in the Broons and Oor Wullie although I don't know if I've heard it anywhere else since.

BLACK-AFFRONTED: Ashamed, a Scots term still in use today and probably derived from the act of covering your heraldic shield (affronty is a heraldic term) in order not to be recognised. Scots knights did this as they fled from Methven, in order not to be subsequently accused of being supporters of Bruce.

[CropleyWasGod]

Old Scots phrase,nothing to do with colour.

But why should he be ashamed?

[Kojock]

But why should he be ashamed?

It's Finnie who should be black affronted.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's Finnie who should be black affronted.

Yep....

And Marv should be beelin' :greengrin

[Smartie]

Yep....

And Marv should be beelin' :greengrin

I think he needs a weekend up the but'n'ben to calm doon.

[bigwheel]

But why should he be ashamed?

Exactly ...was a poorly judged play on words. Not acceptable to me

[CropleyWasGod]

I think he needs a weekend up the but'n'ben to calm doon.

...wi' a poke of Granpaw's pepperies.

(and that's not a euphemism.....:greengrin)

[ACLeith]

...wi' a poke of Granpaw's pepperies.

(and that's not a euphemism.....:greengrin)

Daphne kens whit's gaun on 🙄

[DaveF]

Oh mate .................... we just dinnae nowadays and ye dinnae get a pass for being 74 either http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/tsk%20tsk.gif

Someone tell me this is one if those 'whoosh' moments because if anyone is somehow offended by ancient hibees post then I might just give up on the internet.

[CropleyWasGod]

Someone tell me this is one if those 'whoosh' moments because if anyone is somehow offended by ancient hibees post then I might just give up on the internet.

I'm guessing that it's less about being offended, and more about not being doon wi' the language o' the street..... Glebe Street, that is. :greengrin

[ancient hibee]

Exactly ...was a poorly judged play on words. Not acceptable to me

Jings.

[Moulin Yarns]

BLACK-AFFRONTED: Ashamed, a Scots term still in use today and probably derived from the act of covering your heraldic shield (affronty is a heraldic term) in order not to be recognised. Scots knights did this as they fled from Methven, in order not to be subsequently accused of being supporters of Bruce.


But why should he be ashamed?

If you know Methven, you would be ashamed to be anywhere near it too. :greengrin

[emerald green]

So what happens to Finnie (and the ref who sent Bartley off against Ayr Utd too)? Anything? Nothing?

Meanwhile, their decisions / actions could possibly have cost Hibs up to a maximum of 5 points. We'll never know now of course. Just carry on as usual and pretend none of it ever happened.

[basehibby]

So what happens to Finnie (and the ref who sent Bartley off against Ayr Utd too)? Anything? Nothing?

Meanwhile, their decisions / actions could possibly have cost Hibs up to a maximum of 5 points. We'll never know now of course. Just carry on as usual and pretend none of it ever happened.

He should be hauled over the coals for what was a pure rotten performance. Worse for me than the sending off is all the missed penalties - there's two blatant ones for Hibs and one for RR. That's 4 of what you'd usually call game changing decisions all called wrong - shameful stuff from the ref.

[Bostonhibby]

Help ma boab.
Jings, one for PC Murdoch to sort out

Sent from my HTC One mini 2 using Tapatalk

[emerald green]

He should be hauled over the coals for what was a pure rotten performance. Worse for me than the sending off is all the missed penalties - there's two blatant ones for Hibs and one for RR. That's 4 of what you'd usually call game changing decisions all called wrong - shameful stuff from the ref.

:agree: Yep, it's way beyond a joke. If I made as many serious mistakes as that in my job in the space of 90 minutes I know what would be coming.

Yet, if you are a referee, you pick up your (generous) match fee and off you go so to speak. Something's just not right.

[Bostonhibby]

It's Finnie who should be black affronted.
He'll be very much Orange fronted with matching rolled up trouser leg

Sent from my HTC One mini 2 using Tapatalk

[CallumLaidlaw]

He should be hauled over the coals for what was a pure rotten performance. Worse for me than the sending off is all the missed penalties - there's two blatant ones for Hibs and one for RR. That's 4 of what you'd usually call game changing decisions all called wrong - shameful stuff from the ref.

Which one for Raith? Not the dive? I know raith fans that said it was a clear dive from their end.

[bigwheel]

Jings.

To me, your "joke" was ill judged - you can either hide behind the "Scots language: Broons stuff or admit you got it wrong...

[Andy74]

Old Scots phrase,nothing to do with colour.

So it was just a coincidence it was used, incorrectly at that, in relation to someone who is black?

It's not that offensive but it's pretty poor form.

[DaveF]

So it was just a coincidence it was used, incorrectly at that, in relation to someone who is black?

It's not that offensive but it's pretty poor form.

Someone used the phrase 'hauled over the coals' just above in relation to the referee. Coal is black in colour, and the referee sent off Marv who is also black.

I'm guessing that poster is guilty of covert racism too?

[CropleyWasGod]

:agree: Yep, it's way beyond a joke. If I made as many serious mistakes as that in my job in the space of 90 minutes I know what would be coming.

Yet, if you are a referee, you pick up your (generous) match fee and off you go so to speak. Something's just not right.

If the SFA think the ref has made an error, it'll be dealt with internally. Frustrating as it is, we don't get to see that ****.... and that's probably for the best.

[Just Alf]

Everyone hold a sec!! ... im off for some popcorn, back in a mo. :agree:

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

Back! .. ... please continue .

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[emerald green]

If the SFA think the ref has made an error, it'll be dealt with internally. Frustrating as it is, we don't get to see that ****.... and that's probably for the best.

Maybe, but my view FWIW is that the whole process should be out in the open. Referees should be able to state publicly why they made certain decisions. If there's nothing to hide, then there is nothing to fear surely?

[lapsedhibee]

Maybe, but my view FWIW is that the whole process should be out in the open. Referees should be able to state publicly why they made certain decisions. If there's nothing to hide, then there is nothing to fear surely?

Certainly be interesting to know if the red for a kick to the groin was downgraded to a yellow for a kick to the groin, or what.

[staunchhibby]

Pity trades description act does not apply to refs.Most of them would have been done for masquerading as referees.:cb

[Thecat23]

Apparently it was down graded to yellow because Marv didn't turn up for the hearing. If you turn up and it's over turned then you don't get anything. Marv tweeted he wasn't wasting a days training to travel through.

[lapsedhibee]

Apparently it was down graded to yellow because Marv didn't turn up for the hearing. If you turn up and it's over turned then you don't get anything. Marv tweeted he wasn't wasting a days training to travel through.

Fair enough (if true). Kick to the groin=red. Being cheeky to the SFA=yellow. All makes complete sense.

[CallumLaidlaw]

Apparently it was down graded to yellow because Marv didn't turn up for the hearing. If you turn up and it's over turned then you don't get anything. Marv tweeted he wasn't wasting a days training to travel through.

Saw that. Ludicrous. So a player could end up serving a ban for racking up yellow cards that weren't warranted because he was too busy actually doing his job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ancient hibee]

To me, your "joke" was ill judged - you can either hide behind the "Scots language: Broons stuff or admit you got it wrong...

Thank you for giving me the choice.I'll hide behind the Scots language etc.if you don't mind.

[Lago]

Thank you for giving me the choice.I'll hide behind the Scots language etc.if you don't mind.
Good for you.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Old Scots phrase,nothing to do with colour.


You should be feeling "black burning shame" for considering "black affronted" as anything other than a frequently used Scottish phrase.:na na:


Someone tell me this is one if those 'whoosh' moments because if anyone is somehow offended by ancient hibees post then I might just give up on the internet.


I'm guessing that it's less about being offended, and more about not being doon wi' the language o' the street..... Glebe Street, that is. :greengrin


Thank you for giving me the choice.I'll hide behind the Scots language etc.if you don't mind.

I don't want to turn this thread into something it shouldn't be, but lets not go kidding ourselves on eh .... I know just fine what 'black affronted' means and I've been using the phrase for years .... In this context the use of the phrase was no doubt intended to be humorous, but IMO it was ill considered and inappropriate.

[Andy74]

Someone used the phrase 'hauled over the coals' just above in relation to the referee. Coal is black in colour, and the referee sent off Marv who is also black.

I'm guessing that poster is guilty of covert racism too?

No and that's why I commented on the other post and not that one.

[Thecat23]

Saw that. Ludicrous. So a player could end up serving a ban for racking up yellow cards that weren't warranted because he was too busy actually doing his job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does make you laugh eh!! SFA are a complete joke of an organisation.

[bigwheel]

Thank you for giving me the choice.I'll hide behind the Scots language etc.if you don't mind.


yeh, i've noticed