Rule 200...

[francobaresi]

After the latest comments on Leigh Griffith. - "In the eyes of SFA compliance officer Vincent Lunny, the 21-year-old is guilty of breaching rule 200 with "offensive, insulting or abusive gestures" deemed a sending-off offence."

I wasn't offended, insulted or considered it an abusive gesture... Have they even been to Ibrox or Parkhead... I'm offended every time I even look at them...

[Alfred E Newman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

After the latest comments on Leigh Griffith. - "In the eyes of SFA compliance officer Vincent Lunny, the 21-year-old is guilty of breaching rule 200 with "offensive, insulting or abusive gestures" deemed a sending-off offence."

I wasn't offended, insulted or considered it an abusive gesture... Have they even been to Ibrox or Parkhead... I'm offended every time I even look at them...

This Vince Loony guy seems to have suddenly become the most powerful man in Scottish football. He sits in the hoose, watching the telly and makes judgements to justify his existance. How the the game managed to survive so long wthout a compliance officer I`ll never know.

[El Gubbz]

Just a massive jobsworth who obviously doesn't support hibs. Must have been his week off when we got the pen v st J

[weecounty hibby]

This compliance officer job is an absolute joke. If the referees and linesmen along with the fourth officials were any good at their jobs there would be no need for this idiot to be anywhere near football. So far apart from LG x 2 he has spotted the worst dive I've ever seen from Aluko, the one at Pittodrie against us, the headbutt against us. All shocking decision that should have been picked up by the officials at the game. He has now offered Houston at Dundee Utd a two game ban for saying that these officials are rubbish. What a joke!

[Andy74]

I was offended. I've never given Griffiths abuse, nor did I hear any and was a bit shocked at his celebration at the time. Having done the same a few weeks ago he deserves another ban.

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was offended. I've never given Griffiths abuse, nor did I hear any and was a bit shocked at his celebration at the time. Having done the same a few weeks ago he deserves another ban.

Poor cherub. I wasn't, I was also at the game not giving him abuse. I was however offended by you calling me a Jambo yesterday which is a far worse offence in my book. However, I've got a thick skin and will get on with it rather than crying about it days later.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Poor cherub. I wasn't, I was also at the game not giving him abuse. I was however offended by you calling me a Jambo yesterday which is a far worse offence in my book. However, I've got a thick skin and will get on with it rather than crying about it days later.

I think I called you deluded. Not a Jambo.

And you are kind of crying about it.

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think I called you deluded. Not a Jambo.

And you are kind of crying about it.

If you check you will find you said I was like a "deluded jambo" for simply expressing surprise and a bit disappointment we hadn't got more players in yet.

[Lang Toun Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was offended. I've never given Griffiths abuse, nor did I hear any and was a bit shocked at his celebration at the time. Having done the same a few weeks ago he deserves another ban.

Please tell me you are kidding about being offended?

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Please tell me you are kidding about being offended?

Yip

[H113EE5]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was offended. I've never given Griffiths abuse, nor did I hear any and was a bit shocked at his celebration at the time. Having done the same a few weeks ago he deserves another ban.

What an erse, only a couple of weeks after his sole contribution to the Rangers game, as well.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you check you will find you said I was like a "deluded jambo" for simply expressing surprise and a bit disappointment we hadn't got more players in yet.

I think I said your were deluded as your average Jambo. Unless my phone missed out a word or two!

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Please tell me you are kidding about being offended?

A wee bit. But I wasn't impressed really either. After his previous ban it was very, very stupid.

I didn't really understand it. Didn't hear him getting any stick.

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think I said your were deluded as your average Jambo. Unless my phone missed out a word or two!

Inference is still there though. Not a nice thing to accuse a Hibby of being. It was also totally uncalled for as I didn't even hint at spending large amounts of cash just highlighted the fact we haven't yet signed players for our weakest positions. What is deluded about that?

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Inference is still there though. Not a nice thing to accuse a Hibby of being. It was also totally uncalled for as I didn't even hint at spending large amounts of cash just highlighted the fact we haven't yet signed players for our weakest positions. What is deluded about that?

Not at all. If I said you were white as a sheet I'd be saying you were white, not a sheet.

You'd gone a bit further and suggested Hibs just sat about doing nowt in the window until suddenly deciding to sign people later.

I suggested if you actually believed that then you were deluded. Which is true.

[Lang Toun Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A wee bit. But I wasn't impressed really either. After his previous ban it was very, very stupid.

I didn't really understand it. Didn't hear him getting any stick.

I can think of a number of different ways to celebrate a goal but cannot accept the sfa taking this kind of action - rather than safe guarding the game they are intent on destroying it. This is a game of passion and emotion, without these it will be very drab and boring and I believe continuing to take actions like this will simply drive fans away and make the 'product' even harder to market and retain any kind of value.

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not at all. If I said you were white as a sheet I'd be saying you were white, not a sheet.

You'd gone a bit further and suggested Hibs just sat about doing nowt in the window until suddenly deciding to sign people later.

I suggested if you actually believed that then you were deluded. Which is true.

What I actually said was "I can't believe no new signings have been made yet. (Both Doyle and Griffiths could well have been sorted before window opened.) I am really disappointed that no centre half, right back and or a leader on the park in midfield has been secured."

Exactly where did I say people were sitting on their hands and leaving it to the last minute? I am stating that I am disappointed that none of our worst positions have been signed. Frustrated yes, deluded definately not.

Finally I still believe you were inferring I was behaving like a deluded Jambo even if you want to paint it differently

[Twa Cairpets]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can think of a number of different ways to celebrate a goal but cannot accept the sfa taking this kind of action - rather than safe guarding the game they are intent on destroying it. This is a game of passion and emotion, without these it will be very drab and boring and I believe continuing to take actions like this will simply drive fans away and make the 'product' even harder to market and retain any kind of value.

Nothing to do with a goal celebration - it was when he gave did a gerrup it ye gesture after he got a "wahayyy" for falling on his erky.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

weecounty hibby
This compliance officer job is an absolute joke. If the referees and linesmen along with the fourth officials were any good at their jobs there would be no need for this idiot to be anywhere near football. So far apart from LG x 2 he has spotted the worst dive I've ever seen from Aluko, the one at Pittodrie against us, the headbutt against us. All shocking decision that should have been picked up by the officials at the game. He has now offered Houston at Dundee Utd a two game ban for saying that these officials are rubbish. What a joke!

Small minded attitude from the Wee County.

The CO as far as I can tell is designed to be a safety net to get players who are caught cheating or of some other serious misdemeanour after a game. Why is that a joke? A player dives very effectively - referee sees it as a pen, and its given. It turns out after analysing it from half a dozen angles that the player was at it. Look at the Aberdeen open against us - the pundits in the studio were split 50/50 on if it was valid or not after upteen replays - what chance does a ref have of being 100% correct in an instant. You give what you see.

I wasnt convinced that the Ivan iver reacted to the Yam boys butt at the derby - I thought there was fair chance hed get a second yellow for simulation himself.

So, frankly, you're spouting drivel.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why is that a joke?

I don't think it's a joke that there is a post like the CO. Can come good if applied fairly and with an open mind. What I think is a joke is the fact that there is a "Rule 200". Two hundred??? and probably in excess of that!! Pen pushers making up rules for other pen pushers to apply.

[Lang Toun Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nothing to do with a goal celebration - it was when he gave did a gerrup it ye gesture after he got a "wahayyy" for falling on his erky.

That was different in my view - against Rangers he made a gesture towards the away fans who appear to have got upset - personally I think he was just feeling his arm after the fall!

Against Cowdenbeath he was celebrating his goal - entirely different in my view. Was it a good idea? Probably not. Was anyone other than the compliance officer genuinely upset by it? I d. I doubt it. Is there a need for the SFA to act? Not in my opinion. What should any player do in future after scoring? Show no reaction to ensure they do not offend the Compliance Officer or anyone else for that matter. Should the supporters follow suit just in case the oposing fans get upset at our team scoring? Probably better just in case! Does football benefit? No.

I know I'm going to extremes here but where exactly do you stop before all the passion and emotion disappears?

[Twa Cairpets]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think it's a joke that there is a post like the CO. Can some good if applied fairly and with an open mind. What I think is a joke is the fact that there is a "Rule 200". Two hundred??? and probably in excess of that!! Pen pushers making up rules for other pen pushers to apply.

Do you genuinely believe that rules are drawn up purely for the sake of it?

The reason for the need for the rules is the constant attempts of clubs and players to circumvent them for their own gain. In fairness, Stewart Regan has recognised the too great level of bureacracy within the SFA and has addressed it (worth downloading the "Scotland United" document from the SFA to see what the goals of the gam eare now - quite refreshing.

I couldnt find the rules easily of which the Griffiths' one is 200, but Im guessing a lot of it is procedural stuff that is dull, seldom referred to but necessary as a framework. It would be great if everyone could turn up, play the game and then go, but sadly life just aint like that.

[Twa Cairpets]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That was different in my view - against Rangers he made a gesture towards the away fans who appear to have got upset - personally I think he was just feeling his arm after the fall!

Against Cowdenbeath he was celebrating his goal - entirely different in my view. Was it a good idea? Probably not. Was anyone other than the compliance officer genuinely upset by it? I d. I doubt it. Is there a need for the SFA to act? Not in my opinion. What should any player do in future after scoring? Show no reaction to ensure they do not offend the Compliance Officer or anyone else for that matter. Should the supporters follow suit just in case the oposing fans get upset at our team scoring? Probably better just in case! Does football benefit? No.

I know I'm going to extremes here but where exactly do you stop before all the passion and emotion disappears?

Oops my apologies, getting mixed up.

I tend to agree that we need to be careful not to over santise the game. Griffiths however was stupid having gone through the Rangers thing to go gesturing again. You can celebrate, but dont be a fud would be the rule of thumb...

[allezsauzee]

Never mind that the quality of Scottish football is going down the pan fast, as long we have men at the SFA determined to stamp out the evil of slightly offensive gestures on the field of play our game is in safe hands

[Jones28]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What an erse, only a couple of weeks after his sole contribution to the Rangers game, as well.

Silly laddie, should have learnt his lesson. As a result we're without one of our most promising strikers for the DAFC game...I think? Or is he suspended for the next round?

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you genuinely believe that rules are drawn up purely for the sake of it?

Knowing how the SFA operate and how for years they have set out to suck out most of the enjoyment people take from the game in this god forsaken footballing backwater, yes.

The reason for the need for the rules is the constant attempts of clubs and players to circumvent them for their own gain.

What, like celebrating goals with your own fans, not being able to "discuss" refereeing decisions - and other such things?

In fairness, Stewart Regan has recognised the too great level of bureacracy within the SFA and has addressed it (worth downloading the "Scotland United" document from the SFA to see what the goals of the gam eare now - quite refreshing.

He's addressed the issue of too much bureacracy by producing a paper?

Football in Scotland is donald ducked. Has been for decades. The level of bureacracy is one thing (which hasn't been addressed, not really, just because he's produced a paper with "goals" doesn't mean we won't get another nil-nil draw a la Ernie Walkers' Think Tank), but the problems are far deeper than non-footballing pen-pushers pushing pens around. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic springs to mind.

I couldnt find the rules easily of which the Griffiths' one is 200, but Im guessing a lot of it is procedural stuff that is dull, seldom referred to but necessary as a framework.

No evidence to support what you are saying there. Your guess sounds like blind faith. My guess would be in excess of 200 hundred rules some of which are your normal common sense stuff but a lot of which will be built on the spurious grounds of presuming people taking "offence", player "behaviour" and most of ignored a lot of the time when it comes to the Old Firm.

200 rules is a lot. The game itself only has 17.

It would be great if everyone could turn up, play the game and then go, but sadly life just aint like that.

Exactly. There are a lot of unemployed university graduates out there with degrees that are totally useless but who require employment. Pen pushers love nothing better than expanding there empire with superfluous crap that requires new pen-pushers to implement that crap.

200+ rules is a joke. The "Ungentlemanly Conduct" rule would cover a plethora of what we've seen in recent years including Griffiths offence.

[Saorsa]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nothing to do with a goal celebration - it was when he gave did a gerrup it ye gesture after he got a "wahayyy" for falling on his erky.



Small minded attitude from the Wee County.

The CO as far as I can tell is designed to be a safety net to get players who are caught cheating or of some other serious misdemeanour after a game. Why is that a joke? A player dives very effectively - referee sees it as a pen, and its given. It turns out after analysing it from half a dozen angles that the player was at it. Look at the Aberdeen open against us - the pundits in the studio were split 50/50 on if it was valid or not after upteen replays - what chance does a ref have of being 100% correct in an instant. You give what you see.

I wasnt convinced that the Ivan iver reacted to the Yam boys butt at the derby - I thought there was fair chance hed get a second yellow for simulation himself.

So, frankly, you're spouting drivel.

I dinnae disagree with the role of the CO but I do however disagree with the punishment system, it's too simplistic IMO.

If a player gets caught diving during a game and gets booked and nae penalty is given the result of the game insnae really influenced. If the dive is missed and the penalty given resulting in the outcome of the game being influenced by the cheating, then I'm all for the punishment being much more severe as it may help cut it out. Cheating is a bit different tae making a silly gesture and a ban for that sort of offence is nonsense IMO, a retrospective yellow should IMO be the punishment. Ban for this, ban for that, is nonsense IMO, the punishment should fit the crime.

[JimBHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Silly laddie, should have learnt his lesson. As a result we're without one of our most promising strikers for the DAFC game...I think? Or is he suspended for the next round?

He is out of the next round of the Scottish.

[Twa Cairpets]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Knowing how the SFA operate and how for years they have set out to suck out most of the enjoyment people take from the game in this god forsaken footballing backwater, yes.

The Association managing the sport has deliberately set out to "suck most of the enjoyment from the game"? Yeh. Right.

The SFA have done many, many stupid things - farting about with kick off times for the benefit of TV is the biggest crime in my view. Making stuoid decisions on when games should be played, but the accusation that this is deliberate rather than historical incompetence is ridiculous. Is it populated by undercover operatives from the world of rugby?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What, like celebrating goals with your own fans, not being able to "discuss" refereeing decisions - and other such things?

Discussed on many other threads, but I entirely agree with this stance. Refs are on a hiding to nothing. Managers slating refs directly or implicitly only increases the paranoia and blind stupidity that exists.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He's addressed the issue of too much bureacracy by producing a paper?

Football in Scotland is donald ducked. Has been for decades. The level of bureacracy is one thing (which hasn't been addressed, not really, just because he's produced a paper with "goals" doesn't mean we won't get another nil-nil draw a la Ernie Walkers' Think Tank), but the problems are far deeper than non-footballing pen-pushers pushing pens around. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic springs to mind.

What an ignorant response. But you feel free to slate something without taking the time to read it. Presumably if he hadnt been open and clear about what they were trying to do ypou would accuse them of being secretive or doing nothing? For your benefit, in essence it says: "The SFA was pretty crap - too much bureacracy, not enough joined up thinking. Here's where we want to be in the next ten years, and heres how we're planning to get there."

But it's much easier to sound off without suggesting anything vaguely constructive isn't it?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No evidence to support what you are saying there. Your guess sounds like blind faith. My guess would be in excess of 200 hundred rules some of which are your normal common sense stuff but a lot of which will be built on the spurious grounds of presuming people taking "offence", player "behaviour" and most of ignored a lot of the time when it comes to the Old Firm.

Well the evidence is that being involved at amateur an youth levels for years the articles of association for almost any league or body is long, boring and primarily procedural, so no blind faith and as it turns out I found it. And it is long, dull and procedural. Again, the reason for this is not to block people doing things (although this will of course happen), but to stop people taking advantage of loopholes. These people tend not to be the SFA, but are the clubs, players and officials of clubs.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

200 rules is a lot. The game itself only has 17.

No. It doesnt have any rules. It has Laws.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Exactly. There are a lot of unemployed university graduates out there with degrees that are totally useless but who require employment. Pen pushers love nothing better than expanding there empire with superfluous crap that requires new pen-pushers to implement that crap.

200+ rules is a joke. The "Ungentlemanly Conduct" rule would cover a plethora of what we've seen in recent years including Griffiths offence.

I dont really understand what you're on about here - reads a bit like you're jealous of University Graduates with their high-falutin' ideas, but maybe I'm wrong.

Ungentlemanly Conduct doesnt exist any more, and even if it did in its previous incarnation, it wouldnt cover the Griffiths case in the eyes of the SFA.

[Cropley10]

Pp

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Association managing the sport has deliberately set out to "suck most of the enjoyment from the game"? Yeh. Right.

Yeh, right. It's the SFA we're talking about - remember, Jim Farry, Ernie Walker - brought nothing to the game in Scotland except treading water and pandering to the Old Firm.

The SFA have done many, many stupid things - farting about with kick off times for the benefit of TV is the biggest crime in my view.

The SFA has little to do with changing kick-off times. That's down to ESPN/Sky and the SPL. (I'm trying to come over as pendantic as you do here). However to say that this is worst thing the SFA has done is monumentally dumb. Do you remember Argentina 78? The promises given to fans back then about changing the structure and outlook of youth football which were never carried out? That seems maybe a tad more important than messing up kick-off times. They had a chance back then to take the game forward just at the same time other similar countries were starting to invest heavily in infrastructure and applying modern techniques for bringing young players through and did nothing, they still haven't done a thing. When Ernie Walker's think tank advocated bringing the game under one organisation and cutting the amount of teams in the leagues the game suddenly had three bodies (league, spl and sfa) running it and they added more teams to make four leagues of ten. There are papers in the National Library of Scotland in which George Graham, then President of the SFA, wanted to change the style of bringing through youth and provide more facilities but had to abandon any plans as the appetite for change just wasn't there. That was in the 1950's and still, after 60 years nothing done. The result is we've gone backwards each and every decade since.

The SFA are guilty of doing nothing to help the game here, they are more concerned about placating the Old Firm and after those two the general well being of the game is a poor second.

Making stuoid decisions on when games should be played, but the accusation that this is deliberate rather than historical incompetence is ridiculous. Is it populated by undercover operatives from the world of rugby?

No it's populated by blazers, a lot of whom are Rangers fans. If destroying the game here meant Rangers going to the EPL why couldn't the incompetence be deliberate?

Discussed on many other threads, but I entirely agree with this stance. Refs are on a hiding to nothing. Managers slating refs directly or implicitly only increases the paranoia and blind stupidity that exists.

If managers were allowed an explanation on the day and could talk to the officials in a normal manner then maybe a culture would grow that got rid of the slating and paranoia. Given that rarely happens and many times the Ref's think they are the star of the show I can understand the frustration however wrong it is.

What an ignorant response. But you feel free to slate something without taking the time to read it.

Ignorant in that the SFA have issued dozens of "things are gonna change" statements in my life time but things seem to always stay the same? That's not ignorance, that's experience.

Presumably if he hadnt been open and clear about what they were trying to do ypou would accuse them of being secretive or doing nothing?

I'd just accuse them of being that anyway, as that is exactly what they do - be secretive and do nothing - other than pander to the OF.

For your benefit, in essence it says: "The SFA was pretty crap - too much bureacracy, not enough joined up thinking. Here's where we want to be in the next ten years, and heres how we're planning to get there."

Cheers and thanks. Heard it all before. As I said they have brought out a paper about cutting down paper-pushing. Do you do irony?

But it's much easier to sound off without suggesting anything vaguely constructive isn't it?

Build football barns, take control of youth football from the petty fiefdoms that rule in that area and impose modern techniques in football schooling for under tens. Make it happen rather than suggest it happens. In the 80's under Roxburgh they "suggested" change to youth football rather than make it happen, it was rejected as coaches back then wanted to hold on to their little empires. All progressive footballing nations have invested in youth coaching and infrastructure since the late 70's but the SFA waits and waits and we go backwards but don't worry they have published a paper saying that things will be different in ten years.

Well the evidence is that being involved at amateur an youth levels for years the articles of association for almost any league or body is long, boring and primarily procedural, so no blind faith and as it turns out I found it. And it is long, dull and procedural. Again, the reason for this is not to block people doing things (although this will of course happen), but to stop people taking advantage of loopholes. These people tend not to be the SFA, but are the clubs, players and officials of clubs.

All I suggested was that 200 rules seemed a lot when the laws (thanks, pedant) of the game seemed to cover Griffiths offence - looking at it it doesn't seem so bad given it's breadth. I'm for having someone look at incidents after a match.

No. It doesnt have any rules. It has Laws.

Give yourself a big brownie point.

I dont really understand what you're on about here - reads a bit like you're jealous of University Graduates with their high-falutin' ideas, but maybe I'm wrong.

Your wrong. Just as you are wrong about changing kick-off times being the worst aspect of what the SFA has to offer football (amazed at that comment). I'm talking about bureaucracy breeding more bureaucracy, not just in football but in organisations in general, and pen-pushers pushing pens while the game in Scotland languishes in a huge rut.

Ungentlemanly Conduct doesnt exist any more, and even if it did in its previous incarnation, it wouldnt cover the Griffiths case in the eyes of the SFA.

The term may have changed given the rise of women's football but the law (cheers again) still exists. If you can't see how Griffiths offence comes under these then fair enough, be awkward.

1994 edition

http://www.wfms.org/Other/Football/FIFA/law12.html

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

(m) he is guilty of ungentlemanly conduct.

and/or/also

(p) uses foul or abusive language;

current edition

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/la...d=1290868.html

press "next" a few times to....
Cautionable offences

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following .....

* unsporting behaviour
* dissent by word or action


No need for Rule 200