Can someone explain the Darnell Johnson incident?

dt17

Well-Known Member
#1
As far as I was aware, if a player gets booked then they can't be cited by the compliance officer, yet he has been?

Has this happened before?

Fraser Wishart was saying yesterday on Clyde SSB that he thinks it's opening a huge can of worms basically re-reffing a game.

Also, was Johnson's challenge any worse than Scott Allan's on Rossiter last year? Or even more recently Porteous' on Coulibaly?
 
#6
If he gets done then I hope Hibs go fucking tonto about Brown and Simunovic not getting pulled up. We can also add in Lewis Ferguson and the two from Killie.

As a support we really have to take the same attitude of reporting incidents as they do. It’s a shit state of affairs but probably the only way to level the playing field. The club may have to look into employing a couple of guys with knowledge of the rules to check over all the games and then report incidents to the co. It may be the only way we see parity in terms of numbers of notices of complaint.
 

Oshahoorsir

Well-Known Member
#7
If I didn’t know better I’d say someone has got a bit over confident and made a bit of a James Hunt of things.

Also seemed to have binned “ref didn’t see it” justification for McGregor citation.

Clubs need to seriously challenge system and the apparent lack of any sort of objectivity ( or consistency) in the process.
 
#8
From another thread:

The SFA have this covered in their Judicial Protocol. See the extract below, in particular, 13.3.3 which lets the officials say they saw some part of the incident. A paragraph included, I suspect, for just such an instance where the officials are perceived to have got it wrong. I think they've used exactly this clause to 'do' McGregor and the Hibs lad and could easily use it for Power. They simply deem it 'exceptional' and the officials say they missed a 'part' of the incident (as ludicrous as that seems).

13.3 Fast Track Notices of Complaint may be raised alleging a breach of Disciplinary Rule 200 where an Alleged Party in Breach has committed any one of the sending off offences of serious foul play, violent conduct, or spitting and the act alleged to constitute the sending off offence was “not seen” by any of the match officials at the time that it was committed.

13.3.1 For the purposes of Disciplinary Rule 200 the act alleged to constitute the sending off offence is deemed to be “not seen”, subject to the terms of 13.3.3 below, where no part of the act alleged to constitute the sending off offence was seen by any of the match officials at the time that it occurred.

13.3.2 However where the Compliance Officer obtains written evidence from each of the match officials that no part of the act alleged to constitute the sending off offence was seen at the time that it occurred, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the act that is alleged to constitute the sending off offence was “not seen”.

13.3.3 Notwithstanding 13.3.1 a Fast Track Notice of Complaint may be raised by the Compliance Officer in respect of serious foul play and violent conduct where some part of the act alleged to constitute the sending off offence was seen by one or more of the match officials, provided that:

13.3.3.1 the serious foul play and/or violent conduct was exceptional in nature; and

13.3.3.2 that the part of the act by the Alleged Party in Breach that renders it as exceptional was not seen by any of the match officials.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/3997/scottish-fa-jpp-18_19.pdf
 

dt17

Well-Known Member
#10
I mean in terms of the rules of the game though, why can the CO override the ref? Surely Craig Thomson (and the linesman) saw the Johnson tackle on Izaguirre and deemed it a yellow card?

FWIW I think it should've been a red, but why does that incident get looked at yet many more are ignored?
 

coplandrearl36

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
#14
I mean in terms of the rules of the game though, why can the CO override the ref? Surely Craig Thomson (and the linesman) saw the Johnson tackle on Izaguirre and deemed it a yellow card?

FWIW I think it should've been a red, but why does that incident get looked at yet many more are ignored?
Because Brenda highlighted it in his post match interview, whilst conveniently ignoring, Simonovic, Brown and Burke.
 
#15
Basically re-reffing the game now if this happens.
This whole compliance thing is now farcical- unless you are a team from the east end of course

This needs binned or totally revamped, and controlled by none Tim minded people.
 

dh1963

Well-Known Member
#16
Earlier this season, McKinnon of Hamilton got a yellow fir a bad tackle in a game at Rugby Park then he got cited and it got changed to a red and 2 game ban.

There is a precedent
 
#17
I would guess as the ref was Thomson he would have made a point of telling his boss or whoever he wants to change the colour of the card as tims/tim manager/press are annoyed with the injury for Celtic. The other decisions in the game were all perfect in his view and i doubt he would have to comment on them anyway.

Also in our game Madden would have been asked about the AM incident which he obv seen but would say he didnt because the press would go mental and want him sacked... so then he says i missed it then the panel of ex tim refs can go ahead and ban the player.
 

WATP

Well-Known Member
#18
As far as I was aware, if a player gets booked then they can't be cited by the compliance officer, yet he has been?

Has this happened before?

Fraser Wishart was saying yesterday on Clyde SSB that he thinks it's opening a huge can of worms basically re-reffing a game.

Also, was Johnson's challenge any worse than Scott Allan's on Rossiter last year? Or even more recently Porteous' on Coulibaly?
Wishart needs to leverage the player power across his Union and threaten a player strike of the SFA competitions if the Compliance role is not removed entirely!!!
 

sifter

Well-Known Member
#19
I mean in terms of the rules of the game though, why can the CO override the ref? Surely Craig Thomson (and the linesman) saw the Johnson tackle on Izaguirre and deemed it a yellow card?

FWIW I think it should've been a red, but why does that incident get looked at yet many more are ignored?
I agree on it being a red. The ref has booked him and it's put down to a referee error. This will be a massive can of worms if they don't chuck out Johnsons citing and put an end to it if the ref has already seen a tackle and deemed it a yellow or even no card at all.
 

GEODGC

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
#20
The ref gets a chance to watch it again, if he says he never saw the incident in its entirety the first time then the player can be cited. Basically the ref can say ‘I saw the incident but missed that bit, it looks worse when I see that’.
 

dt17

Well-Known Member
#23
The ref gets a chance to watch it again, if he says he never saw the incident in its entirety the first time then the player can be cited. Basically the ref can say ‘I saw the incident but missed that bit, it looks worse when I see that’.
OK but why isn't it implemented on a more regular basis then? There are plenty of fouls that easily fall into this category, so it doesn't seem fair that only some referees will apply it some of the time.
 

GEODGC

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
#24
OK but why isn't it implemented on a more regular basis then? There are plenty of fouls that easily fall into this category, so it doesn't seem fair that only some referees will apply it some of the time.
I have no idea mate, I only gave you my interpretation of the rules. Explaining how the how they implement them is something I can’t explain, I doubt anybody could do that to be fair.
 
#26
I can understand a ref saying he never saw a tackle properly and therefore it should be a red instead of a yellow.
What I can't get is a ref looking at for example Allan on Rossiter or Porteous on Coullibally again and saying a yellow was correct.
The whole system doesn't make sense
 
#28
I would guess as the ref was Thomson he would have made a point of telling his boss or whoever he wants to change the colour of the card as tims/tim manager/press are annoyed with the injury for Celtic. The other decisions in the game were all perfect in his view and i doubt he would have to comment on them anyway.

Also in our game Madden would have been asked about the AM incident which he obv seen but would say he didnt because the press would go mental and want him sacked... so then he says i missed it then the panel of ex tim refs can go ahead and ban the player.
There's no way madden didn't see the AM incident in full.
It was mentioned that an offence if seen gets a yellow,
The same offence unseen can get a two game ban.
 
#32
The CO doesn’t make these decisions on her own, they have a staff who look at these incidents.Technically, anyone can make a complaint for investigation, but you wonder what ones they choose. The whole thing needs transparency
 

rossgers

Well-Known Member
#33
As far as I was aware, if a player gets booked then they can't be cited by the compliance officer, yet he has been?

Has this happened before?

Fraser Wishart was saying yesterday on Clyde SSB that he thinks it's opening a huge can of worms basically re-reffing a game.

Also, was Johnson's challenge any worse than Scott Allan's on Rossiter last year? Or even more recently Porteous' on Coulibaly?
The compliance process has the following objectives.

Ban Rangers players
Don't ban celtic players
Ban players who might damage Celtic in upcoming matches.
Remind refs that hard tackles by Rangers players are automatic red cards.
Remind refs that hard tackles against Celtic are automatic red cards.
 
#34
I can understand a ref saying he never saw a tackle properly and therefore it should be a red instead of a yellow.
What I can't get is a ref looking at for example Allan on Rossiter or Porteous on Coullibally again and saying a yellow was correct.
The whole system doesn't make sense
Well i see your point but it makes perfect sense if you just think about the media and how they report on the games. Its obviously a lot easier for a ref to say these decisions you mention were correct(i doubt hes even asked about them anyway) than it is for say Bobby Madden to say i seen the AM incident at Aberdeen.

Basically everything is set up to help Celtic/damage Rangers and get the media to calm down if theres a decision people like Hugh Keevins or Michael Stewart is unhappy or angry about over the weekend.

I find it very interesting that none of the refs seem to have a problem with it as every single one of them must have noticed just how unfair and shameful it really is. But its all about survival and positive coverage.
 
#41
If the ref is saying he didnt see the tackle in its entirety then how can he award it in the first place? Has he just guessed.
Bit like an incident in our game with killie.there was a slight trip by tav on one of their players, but the ref couldnt see it cos there was a few players in his line of vision.the trip happened, no foul blown for, the ref then peers round the players that had blocked his view, sees their guy on the deck and then decides to award the foul.he’s clearly just guessed that a foul took place
 
#42
It is opening a can of worms but I heard a call on Clyde last night (I listened very briefly) where the caller suggested that if a player is sent off then he should miss "the next game against the same opponent" rather than the next game. Whilst I appreciate this would be a little more difficult to implement I think it did make some sense i.e. why should the next opponent receive the benefit of not facing the red carded player

For example did Kilmarnock benefit from not facing Morelos (probably yes) but look at it the other way. Would Rangers benefit from not facing McKenna the next time we play Aberdeen (albeit minus Morelos in this example)
 

dt17

Well-Known Member
#43
It is opening a can of worms but I heard a call on Clyde last night (I listened very briefly) where the caller suggested that if a player is sent off then he should miss "the next game against the same opponent" rather than the next game. Whilst I appreciate this would be a little more difficult to implement I think it did make some sense i.e. why should the next opponent receive the benefit of not facing the red carded player

For example did Kilmarnock benefit from not facing Morelos (probably yes) but look at it the other way. Would Rangers benefit from not facing McKenna the next time we play Aberdeen (albeit minus Morelos in this example)
How would that work if you've already played that team the full quota for the season? What if the player transfers elsewhere?
 
#44
How would that work if you've already played that team the full quota for the season? What if the player transfers elsewhere?
That's why I said it was a can of worms but had some merit too.

Maybe he's banned for the first game next season or if they don't face each other again then the following game or if he leaves then should he return the ban comes into effect again.
 

Latest posts

Top