Happy Friday everyone (except shift workers and those in retail-stinger for you guys)!!!
First off, I am not going to deny that Aluko went down easily last Saturday. The SFA have deemed it a dive and it's easy to see why they did so.
My question relates to Stewart Regan's comments after, primarily "Separate panels sit for every case and consider the evidence. You cannot compare one case against another."
I thought we had a rule book for football? My understanding was that the rules were designed so that every played within the same parameters?
Surely the appeals process is specifically designed to mitigate for refereeing errors and therefore every case should be comparable to others? Or else it just seems that this is a case of the SFA doing as they please with no liability for their decisions.
I know there will be some fans of other clubs who revel in this decision, lap it up by all means, but the precedent has been set and every club will be affected by this "justice" at some point.
You cannot compare one case against another
posted on 9/12/11
TCD- The whole point of the review panel is to eliminate the inconsistencies of referees. Ref's will make mistakes, they are human.
++++++++
Bollox...Sone was before them to be judged on an article where he was alleged to have deliberately dived...they found him GUILTY.
The referee cannot be blamed for con men
________________________________________
Don't think the venom in your reply was in keeping with my point but if that's your feelings so be it. Still doesn't actually address my point about O'Connor's dive, punishment and subsequent overturn in relation to Aluko but.
The panel is there it be consistent and iron out grievances, they haven't been so and have created more grievances. Just imagine for a second this was Anthony Stokes that we were discussing. This would be another example of the Establishment etc.....
It's not a conspiracy, but it does not bode well for the SFA's new procedures and every appeal from now on will be forensicaly examined.
posted on 9/12/11
number6994- What are you on about? This isn't about decisions made on the park or anything to do with Willie Collum which I believe your establishment jobe concerns.
This is about the review panel, something that only started this year and is already showing signs of ineptitude. If this continues it will affect ALL teams at some point.
Just imagine some Celtic player gets brought up before them just before an Old Firm game and they get banned, with a more obvious precedent showing they could have got off with it? How's that going to feel?
For a second, remove the green tinted specs, the point is the SFA are not consistent when the aim is to be the very model of it.
posted on 9/12/11
Fingers crossed they are consistent from here on in.
You really have a brass neck talking about consistency, as does your manager.
We could go back and discuss numerous instances where the sfa have given Rangers preferential treatment over to the detriment of Celtic.
But what's the point? Let's just say that this is now a line in the sand. The precedent has been set.
posted on 9/12/11
Think you'll need to cross more than your fingers Tim, It aint gonna happen. The panel are human as is the ref.
posted on 9/12/11
The same as a court of law will judge, breach of the peace, murders etc...with the merits of the individual cases
---------------------------------------------
Yes but previous precedents will also be considered.
No-one here is actually arguing against Aluko's ban, although I would like to know when diving became a two match ban offence.
The fact is the SFA claims it has improved it's processes and yet they have been shown to be as inconsistent as ever.
O'Connor's own assistant manager admitted live on TV that his player dived and then the SFA found him not guilty. This is the kind of moronic association that runs our game!!!
posted on 9/12/11
It really is a black and white case.
The majority of Rangers fans I know accept that Aluko dived.
When the case is as straightforward, the retrospective punishment should apply.
As I said, a line in the sand has been drawn.
posted on 9/12/11
Sand tends to shift aboot a bit..
posted on 9/12/11
Just a question on the whole farcical process. Who decides what Vincent Lunny reviews? Is it only games that have been televised that he reviews? Presumably it can only be that as how else would the 3 man panel base their (flawed) judgement on ?
If that is the case then surely the two teams who are mostly going to be affected detrimentally by this is Celtic and Rangers?
posted on 9/12/11
Every Spl game is televised
posted on 9/12/11
You really have a brass neck talking about consistency, as does your manager.
We could go back and discuss numerous instances where the sfa have given Rangers preferential treatment over to the detriment of Celtic.
But what's the point? Let's just say that this is now a line in the sand. The precedent has been set.
__________________________________
No. You're comparing apples with oranges here or to be more accurate paranoia with inconsistencies.
We are talking about different levels of governance. Yours concerns the ref's and the "Establishment conspiracy". There is no evidence to support this, only paranoid examples of individual instances whilst a wilful ignorance of other pieces of evidence (for example Celtic got more penalties than any other team in Britain ever has last season, this hardly supports a conspiracy).
We are talking about the review process this season. Something set up, partly, to deal with paranoia from last season. It is supposed to be fair, consistent and address errors on the pitch.
It does not.