Flanagan appeal upheld. Free to face Kilmarnock

Jaws2

Well-Known Member
Fast Track Notice of Complaint | Jonathon Flanagan, Player, Rangers FC

Player: Jonathon Flanagan, Player, Rangers FC

Match: Rangers FC v Celtic FC Sunday 12 May 2019

Competition: Scottish Premiership

Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 200 : Where any one of the sending off offences of (A1) serious foul play, (A2) violent conduct, and (A3) spitting at an opponent or any other person is committed by a player at a match, but that sending off offence was not seen by any of the match officials at the time that it was committed, the mandatory suspension for that sending off offence as provided for in Annex C of the Judicial Panel Protocol shall be applied to the player.

Any Fast Track Notice of Complaint alleging a breach of this Rule shall be Determined by a Fast Track Tribunal subject to the provisions of Section 13.

Fast Track Tribunal Hearing: Friday 17 May 2019

Outcome: Dismissed.
She needs to go. The Ref obviously saw it as he booked the player so what grounds does she have to bring the action?
 

Disco Deejay

Well-Known Member
It just shows how fucked up the current system is.

As far as I understand:

1. Clancy saw the incident and issued a Yellow Card (according to Brown, Clancy told him it was because he was struck on the chest, not the face).

2. The Compliance Bint decides that it merited a Red Card, but she can only act if none of the Officials saw the incident in full.

3. Clancy must then have told her that he did not see the incident in full, but now believes that it should have been a Red Card (otherwise she could not act).

4. After the incident was referred by the Compliance Bint, 3 former referee's viewed it and all 3 decided that it was worthy of a Red Card.

5. There was a hearing today and the Tribunal decided that either it wasn't a Red Card, or the Rules hadn't been followed.

Given that Clancy, the Compliance Bint and 3 ex-referee's must have all decided that it should have been a Red Card, otherwise it wouldn't have reached today's stage, I would be surprised if they over-ruled all of them and said that it wasn't a Red Card offence.

That then takes us to Rule 13.4.1.4 Notwithstanding the terms of Paragraph 13.4.1.3. above and subject to the remainder of this Paragraph 13.4.1.4, where the level of excessive force and/or brutality was exceptional and/or results in significant injury an alleged Sending Off Offence of Violent Conduct (as set out at A1 of Section 3 of Annex C may still be referred to Fast Track Proceedings even where some part of the physical act by the Party, which caused the alleged Violent Conduct has been seen by one or more of the Match Officials. The Compliance Officer may only refer a case under this Paragraph 13.4.1.4, to Fast Track Proceedings where the specific part of the physical act by the Party which caused the alleged Violent Conduct was not seen by any of the Match Officials.

That takes me back to Point 3..... Clancy must then have told her that he did not see the incident in full, but now believes that it should have been a Red Card (otherwise she could not act).

In which case, what did he miss? It was one elbow, there was nothing else. If he didn't see it, why did he issue a Yellow Card and why did he tell Brown that he did see it?

Clancy and the Compliance Bint have clearly been caught lying for it to get to the Tribunal Stage and the only possible result was no action.
 

Davy Young

Well-Known Member
So It should be
1..It wasn't an elbow it was a block I don't care how many '' experts' said it was an elbow it wasn't
2..It was saw by the reg and he dealt with it
3...Lavvyheed feigned injury to get Flanigan sent off
 

Ruben Sosa

Well-Known Member
None of that happens, this is what happens, Rangers beat the diddlers, Sportcene decide what punishment is applicable for said crime, claire agrees, bingo, ban for Rangers player.

Rangers produce evidence that one of their players did the same or worse, but they can't have him missing the cup final, so grudgingly recind Rangers ban but will get them next time.
Bingo!
 

WATPWATP

Well-Known Member
You been busy OP? A thread was started on this 90mins ago and is on page 4. :))
was it? lol damn it
yeah been busy working, as above,I'm actually in shock with the outcome. it's the correct outcome but we've been shat on all season,or maybe it's because the damage has already been done and their mission 8 in a row was completed so giving us the sympathy votes now to try and show they aren't against us after all. won't wash with me though,seeing right through them!
 

Forsyth73

Member
I’m afraid someone’s going to have sit me down and explain how there could have been a retrospective red card/ban when this is only competent if the referee misses the incident. Clancy obviously saw the incident and that’s why he booked JF. Why was that not the end of the matter?
 

Polar bear

Well-Known Member
None of that happens, this is what happens, Rangers beat the diddlers, Sportcene decide what punishment is applicable for said crime, claire agrees, bingo, ban for Rangers player.

Rangers produce evidence that one of their players did the same or worse, but they can't have him missing the cup final, so grudgingly recind Rangers ban but will get them next time.
In a nutshell.
 

huistra23

Well-Known Member
Got all the hallmarks of Naismith getting off for the tackle on Hayes at Tyncastle in August because they'd have to have done Brown for elbowing him.

Both were worse than Flanagan on Brown. Although if Simunovic hadn't did what he did Flanagan was on to plums.
Compliance woman finally proving she knows nothing about football,Flanagan winning his appeal,is a cover for the Tim not being cited.we should leave Flanagan out of this meaningless game tomorrow,
 

Disco Deejay

Well-Known Member
was it? lol damn it
yeah been busy working, as above,I'm actually in shock with the outcome. it's the correct outcome but we've been shat on all season,or maybe it's because the damage has already been done and their mission 8 in a row was completed so giving us the sympathy votes now to try and show they aren't against us after all. won't wash with me though,seeing right through them!
I've put quite a lengthy reply on the other thread about how the decision was likely reached and how Clancy and the Compliance Bint must have lied, otherwise, under the Rules, it could not have reached the Tribunal Stage.
 

mkgers

Well-Known Member
So all this talk of rangers need to stop bumping their gums looks a bit daft now.

Either that or the feeling is the SFA can arbitrarily decide to re-referee rangers matches retrospectively and we should just shut up and accept it.

Once again this illusive panel of Referees and Ms Whyte are proved to be incompetent.
 
Top