Flanagan appeal upheld. Free to face Kilmarnock

Surely this just means that the opportunity for appeal has been granted and not that the decision to ban him for 2 games have been removed? Or am I reading this incorrectly.
 
Hehaw said:
Surely this just means that the opportunity for appeal has been granted and not that the decision to ban him for 2 games have been removed? Or am I reading this incorrectly.
Click to expand...
I'm reading that we appealed and that appeal has been upheld. Don't think you need to appeal to be allowed to appeal.
 
Hehaw said:
Surely this just means that the opportunity for appeal has been granted and not that the decision to ban him for 2 games have been removed? Or am I reading this incorrectly.
Click to expand...

You are reading it incorrectly. He has won appeal.
 
le suede said:
I'm reading that we appealed and that appeal has been upheld. Don't think you need to appeal to be allowed to appeal.
Click to expand...


Exactly this, surely it would say overturned if it was successful. Wrong choice of wording. Upheld would mean the decision is upheld, meaning they kept with the original decision
 
ID10 said:
With the precedent set then anything other would have been a scandal
Click to expand...

Breached Article 5 when they did McGregor for his tackle on Ferguson of Aberdeen. Ref saw it gave a yellow. This time I suspect we have gone in lawyered up and read their own rules to them. Suspect Robertson due to meet the ECA where I am sure they will have shown concern what is going on in Scotland may have sent the shitters up them.
 
lemmon-flano.gif
 
BrownBrogues said:
Breached Article 5 when they did McGregor for his tackle on Ferguson of Aberdeen. Ref saw it gave a yellow. This time I suspect we have gone in lawyered up and read their own rules to them. Suspect Robertson due to meet the ECA where I am sure they will have shown concern what is going on in Scotland may have sent the shitters up them.
Click to expand...

Don't think the ref gave a yellow to McGregor against Aberdeen.
 
@David Edgar Mentioned on the h&h daily update that the tims go in to these meetings lawyered up to the max and that it's something we should be doing (which i agree with). I'm curious as to whether we did in this case.
 
KGR98 said:
If this weekend was a helicopter Sunday I could guarentee that he would have got his appeal dismissed a token gesture although our statement probably had an affect on the decision also
Click to expand...
Which is why the club need to fight everything they throw at us

It's why they think twice before daring to go after the bheasts
 
I assume now that Brown will get a retrospective red card for play acting and trying to get an opponent sent off fraudulently?
 
Deek said:
No chance he would have got off if there was something to play for. Free hit for them to try and claim impartiality.
Click to expand...
There is something to play for though, the ban was for two games and would have carried over to the start of next season.
 
It wouldn’t surprise me if they now appeal their own decision?
The whole system is a complete and utter waste of time.
 
We must have had serious legal firepower in there. Nice marker for next season - you no longer treat us like shit on your shoe. On a side note surely Clair Whites position is now untenable?
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Regardless of the right or (mainly) wrong conclusions of the CO and the panel this just casts further light on the joke that is Scottish football's disciplinary system.

I'm pleased for Flanagan and for the Club - but it's yet another disciplinary shambles. I wouldn't be surprised to see (not so) wee Clare gone by the start of next season.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It’s utterly shambolic.

Flanagan does elbow Brown, so if retrospective punishment via video evidence is allowed, we have to agree that the decision to ban him is actually the correct one.

That was never the grievance for me, it was the inconsistency that ignored the similar offence by Simunovic.

That they’ve since decided they got the Flanagan decision wrong actually makes them look even more indecisive and clueless.

Time to scrap this charade.
 
Its absolutely mental the amount of Celtic fans who think the system is geared to benefitting Rangers.

Absolutely baffling how they can think the authorities are pro us.
 
Stick the kettle on Claire
And as for Colt Seavers what an embarrassment for a captain
But a great fit for the paedos
 
The whole thing is a joke.
It was arguably a red for Flanagan for raising his arms intentionally and a red or yellow for turd for rushing towards Flanagan and faking.
Ref gave Flanagan yellow and turd nothing, probably a fair decision. That should have been the end of it.

The real joke is that instead of leaving it be they upped it to a red, and the only reason I think it's been rescinded is because we called them out for double standards.
If they kept the red, they'd have to do simunopish as well.

A farce of a system.
 
AHbear said:
Exactly this, surely it would say overturned if it was successful. Wrong choice of wording. Upheld would mean the decision is upheld, meaning they kept with the original decision
Click to expand...
His appeal was successful therefore upheld, if it was rejected his appeal would have been overturned.
 
Can someone please educate me?

So the Compliance Officer sees it and thinks it should be a red. Then a 3 man panel is shown it and they must unanimously think it’s a red.

Then we appeal. So who takes the decision on the appeal? A separate 3 man panel?
 
Rangers' Jon Flanagan wins red card hearing after elbowing Celtic's Scott Brown


  • 4 minutes ago
  • From the sectionRangers
Sharethis page


Monday jury: Should Flanagan's yellow have been a red?
Rangers defender Jon Flanagan has been cleared of further punishment after elbowing Celtic captain Scott Brown in Sunday's Old Firm derby.
Flanagan, 26, was booked after the incident in the Ibrox side's 2-0 win but was charged after a three-man panel decided it was a red-card offence.
Rangers said they would "vigorously defend" Flanagan and, at a hearing on Thursday, the case was dismissed.
It means he is available for Sunday's game at Kilmarnock.
After the notice of complaint was issued on Tuesday, Rangers issued a statement in which they cited a separate incident from the derby involving Jermain Defoe and Celtic's Jozo Simunovic.
"We cannot understand how these two incidents could be studied yet only one be considered worthy of punishment," the statement read.
"It seems as if Rangers' players are being held to a different code of conduct from players at other clubs."

Hahaha. Looks like BBC Scotland are taking it bad. Delicious. GIRUY
 
Shows you how corrupt and biased against Rangers these bastards are in the first place.

SFA Scum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top