Disciplinary process is no longer black and Whyte

Aye it’s no longer black and white, it’s green and white. The question is why do the rules only change when it conveniently leads to punishment for a Rangers player.

I’m sure it’s just a giant coincidence. Just as it’s a giant coincidence her team are the only side who haven’t felt the wrath of this new ‘system.
 
Last edited:
Mexi said:
The whole thing won't stand up to scrutiny by somewhere like CAS. I doubt the have any documented procedures, or minuted meetings
Click to expand...
You can just see it now...

‘So, we open these proceedings into the savage, unprovoked sectarian attack by hun, Orange bast@rd, ahem Rangers player Jon Flannagan.’
 
So, there's more to come with regards the compliant officer?

I am not ITK. But, I think the delay to the appeal was due to SFA knowing they were on a loser - as Rangers would take it further. After all, their panel was in the building on Thursday for Steve Clarke.

The appeal result merely gives more questions of the process.

Where is the proof this "panel" looked at the Simunovic elbow? "A source said" isn't anywhere near enough.

Who decides which incidents go to the "panel" on a Monday/Tuesday?

Don't you find it strange that the picture in the article is the ONLY one there seems to be of Clare Whyte? Why has her "history" been wiped?
 
thechosenone said:
The process and personnel have to be changed. They simply cannot use Sportscene as the main driver for citing people.
Click to expand...

There also needs to be an investigation into how the process has been mishandled thus far also.

Whyte needs fired, not paid off.

Cheating match officials and Compliance Officers have had a material influence on league standings since our return to the top flight
 
Thats a decent article and the only one I've read to date that highlights one of the biggest flaws in the process - the "Rangers clause". Namely, that a panel has a right to review an incident that the ref already clearly saw and took action for at the time. It's the one that allowed them to cite McGregor and Flanagan (anyone surprised to learn no celtic players have been on the wrong end of this?).

I don't have too much of an issue with retrospective action where the ref missed an incident completely, as long as review process is fair and compliant. This happens in most leagues in Europe, as far as I am aware. But this re-refereeing of games where the ref made his decision, rightly or wrongly, needs to stop as it is open to abuse and would imagine is specific to our shambolic regulators.
 
It is very clear Rangers are judged by a different set of rules.

The whole system needs ripped up and started again.

Slightly off topic - this is a very decent article. Anyone know is the write Chris Jack is usually fair minded when it comes to Rangers? If so might be worth remembering next time we are looking for a journo to print our side of a story.
 
How it can be allowed that one Vatican voter can then nominate the next Vatican voter into this position with no questions asked it is just unbelievable, 3 in a row isn't just coincidence.
Even worse is the situation where the people who choose what to put in front of her are totally unknown and answerable to no one, trial by mhanks influence in the media is also not on.
This is not a democratic process it is a dictatorship who are the mystery ex refs ?
We need clarity not Opus Dei style secrecy, it needs to change and now, we don't need another season of changing the rules against Rangers and making them up to suit the agenda.
A good barrister would tear them to shreds, let's hope our club is preparing a case god knows they have all the evidence they require.
 
Last edited:
If this "Trial By Sportscene" is to carry on next season, we may as well bin the officials and have Craig Gordon and his fellow judges decide players punishment. It will save the SFA a lot of money.Khunts!!!:mad:
 
What “young” lassie these days doesn’t have a social media history? What age is she? She’s bound to have had a Facebook account, a twitter account, Snapchat and Instagram. It’s clear that she has been “cleansed” they’ve gone over the top though because the fact that they’ve wiped her presence altogether tells a very sinister story. Wanna bet posts supporting the tramps? Wanna bet the odd HH, the odd COYB?

It would surprise me not one bit if she at some point has had a season ticket to the stad de Gadd.
 
My biggest issue with this so called process is the role the BBC play in all this it's blatantly obvious they concentrate on an incident in a game and it always seems to end up on her desk for review .
The perfect example is Flanagan on the scum captain and Defoe and the scum centrehalf .
Flanagan was highlighted umpteen times and from about 10 angles and speeds.
The scum defender on Defoe one angle and shown at game speed once only.
Know it wasn't BBC but Sky cameras done the game ,so your not telling me they could not have dissected the scum defenders assualt on Defoe like how they done Jon's
Someone decided at sky not to why? This question must be answered.
Sportscene then get there hands on it and again the same things happen it's corruption no other word for it
This has happened every week no exaggeration every week .u
Then it falls on her table every incident they dissect it's no coincidence
I would not mind if sportscene used this apparent power in a totally neutral way but no they don't stats like 17 citations to Rangers and 1 to the scum ,I think that's the figures taken from memory.
So to me there has to be contact phonecalls maybe between producers on sky ,sportscene and the SFA compliance and I call it as it mentally challenged corruption
Var is the only answer but again it has to be done totally neutral . That will be the hard bit
 
Buster said:
My biggest issue with this so called process is the role the BBC play in all this it's blatantly obvious they concentrate on an incident in a game and it always seems to end up on her desk for review .
The perfect example is Flanagan on the scum captain and Defoe and the scum centrehalf .
Flanagan was highlighted umpteen times and from about 10 angles and speeds.
The scum defender on Defoe one angle and shown at game speed once only.
Know it wasn't BBC but Sky cameras done the game ,so your not telling me they could not have dissected the scum defenders assualt on Defoe like how they done Jon's
Someone decided at sky not to why? This question must be answered.
Sportscene then get there hands on it and again the same things happen it's corruption no other word for it
This has happened every week no exaggeration every week .u
Then it falls on her table every incident they dissect it's no coincidence
I would not mind if sportscene used this apparent power in a totally neutral way but no they don't stats like 17 citations to Rangers and 1 to the scum ,I think that's the figures taken from memory.
So to me there has to be contact phonecalls maybe between producers on sky ,sportscene and the SFA compliance and I call it as it mentally challenged corruption
Var is the only answer but again it has to be done totally neutral . That will be the hard bit
Click to expand...
Even going back to the Aluko one, it happened on the Saturday, BBC Scotland were telling on Sunday he was going to be cited and Lhunny wasn't even back in the office until the Monday!

Who told them?


Even if the BBC analysis was a variety of people then it may not be quite so bad - but, it's Stewart and Thompson EVERY week!

For all the penalties we got last season, be lucky if Stewart said 2 of the given ones weren't debatable. He may say others not given were - but, that's easy to say and try to make out some sort of balance.
 
True Blue Avenger said:
Thats a decent article and the only one I've read to date that highlights one of the biggest flaws in the process - the "Rangers clause". Namely, that a panel has a right to review an incident that the ref already clearly saw and took action for at the time. It's the one that allowed them to cite McGregor and Flanagan (anyone surprised to learn no celtic players have been on the wrong end of this?).

I don't have too much of an issue with retrospective action where the ref missed an incident completely, as long as review process is fair and compliant. This happens in most leagues in Europe, as far as I am aware. But this re-refereeing of games where the ref made his decision, rightly or wrongly, needs to stop as it is open to abuse and would imagine is specific to our shambolic regulators.
Click to expand...

We were told when Simpson dismantled Durrant's career that the ref booked Simpson, so there was nothing else could be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top