Lennons currently serving a 4 match ban for his behaviour, he rec'd another 4 match ban for his altercation with Super Sally.
Celtic have now released an official statement stating he will serve the bans concurrently.
What a complete farce, who's running Scottish football? Celtic or SFA?
SFA should be making it very clear that the bans must be served separately.
Celtic and Lennon ought to be getting hammered for this, what gives th the right to release an official statement, totally taking the Mickey out of the SFA.
And Rangers appeal McCoists 2 match ban, that was about the minimum he could get!! I'm guessing SFA now have to increase it for wasting there time as they did with Lennon!!
Results 1 to 30 of 38
Thread: Serving bans concurrently
-
17-03-2011 11:40 AM #1
Serving bans concurrently
-
-
17-03-2011 11:44 AM #3This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Its a conspiracy!!!
-
17-03-2011 11:51 AM #4
What an absolute farce!!
So, he is only serving one 4 match ban then, rather than both.
What a joke of a league we really are in!!
-
17-03-2011 12:07 PM #5This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/DisciplineExplained/DisciplinaryProcedures/2%20DP-Club%20Officials%20(July%202010).pdf
7.0 Starting Date of Suspension
A suspension will be imposed from the 14th day following the date of the match when the misconduct
occurred.
-
17-03-2011 12:16 PM #6This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 12:16 PM #7
Irrespective of the rules being badly framed or not, everyone knows how they are meant to operate. This is tantamount to cheating and has no place in sport.
Celtic clearly have no self-respect and deserve no respect from anyone with any interest in football.
-
17-03-2011 12:20 PM #8This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I don't really blame Celtc at all. They are only interpreting an outdated, badly worded rule book in a way that suits them.
-
17-03-2011 12:25 PM #9This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 12:58 PM #10This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 01:07 PM #11
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 3,095
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
So there.
Celtc are bursting ma heid.
-
17-03-2011 01:25 PM #12This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 03:09 PM #13
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 3,095
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 04:04 PM #14
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 2,397
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Also I think that Rangers attempt to appeal McCoist's 2 game ban is far worse.
-
17-03-2011 04:31 PM #15
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 3,095
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I agree that Rangers have no business appealing McCoist's ban, but I'm struggling to see how it is far worse than the Lennon one?
-
17-03-2011 04:50 PM #16RemovedLeft by mutual consent!This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 05:07 PM #17This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 05:15 PM #18
This kind of thing happens in the law courts every day they sit. People convicted of multiple crimes are given sentences on each count and then told that they will run concurrently. So what is the problem here.
-
17-03-2011 05:17 PM #19This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show QuoteEvery gimmick hungry yob,
Digging gold from rock and roll
Grabs the mic to tell us,
He'll die before he's sold.
-
17-03-2011 05:20 PM #20RemovedLeft by mutual consent!This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Now we all know that McCoist was being clever and looking for a reaction, and it worked. Lennon took the bait. If that was a Hibs member of staff we would be going radge and rightly so imo.
-
17-03-2011 05:27 PM #21
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Posts
- 5,253
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 05:31 PM #22RemovedLeft by mutual consent!This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 05:36 PM #23
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 3,095
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 07:32 PM #24This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 07:34 PM #25This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 07:37 PM #26RemovedLeft by mutual consent!This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 07:38 PM #27
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 3,095
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
17-03-2011 09:10 PM #28
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Posts
- 3,588
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ic/9427235.stm
-
17-03-2011 10:03 PM #29This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
eg if a player was suspended for yellow card accumulation, under SFA rules that would take 14 days to kick in. If he was then sent off in a game in the meantime the suspension from the red card would be tacked on to the original suspension, he wouldn't serve two suspensions at the same time.
Celtic are trying to wriggle out of Lennon's suspension early by applying a literal interpretation of the rulebook. There are other ways of interpreting it, that will be up to the judge who decides one way or the other. Celtic are sounding uber-confident because the rulebook, taken literally, is on their side, but it will be up to the judge. That is assuming both sides pursue the case as far as possible, as seems likely now.
Literal interpretation is the primary way of following law, but only if the law is clear. The SFA will point out in any case that the rulebook does not specify whether bans should be served concurrently or consecutively (which it doesn't) and therefore isn't clear.
http://legal-directory.net/english-l...teral-rule.htm
The literal rule is strongly criticised by many lawyers. It has been said to be ‘….a rule against using intelligence in understanding language. Anyone who in ordinary life interpreted words literally, being indifferent to what the speaker or writer meant, would be regarded as a pedant, a mischief-maker or an idiot’.
Last edited by Part/Time Supporter; 17-03-2011 at 10:05 PM.
-
17-03-2011 10:57 PM #30This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Here's my £1, Mr Shopkeeper.
Log in to remove the advert |
Bookmarks