Flanagan appeal upheld. Free to face Kilmarnock

Cannot possibly be correct

BBC Radio Teuchtar on Sunday during the game spoke about it for 20 minutes solid.....whilst the gasme was on ......saying how bad the assault was.
 
I was never convinced that there was an elbow thrown. JF made a motion with his shoulder, footage was inconculsive imo. A poster made a good thread about this the other day which was deleted for whatever reason.
 
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.
I was thinking the same mate. Since we specifically brought up their players incident it backed them into a corner just like the Naismith case.
 
I suspect we would have went in mob handed with legal representation like Celtic, which might have accounted for the delay. It has shown up the system to be incompetent at best corrupt at worst,with the initial sighting and then the 3 man panel pronouncement being overturned.
 
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.
 
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?

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.
 
Justice done. GIRUY Timmy.

Well done to Rangers for sticking by him. Now to go after those clowns heading up the system.

You kill a snake by cutting off it’s head.
 
So, what happens now?

Over the longer term, this means absolutely hee-haw.

We simply HAVE to keep pressure to get rid of that rancid cow.

The whole positiion is a joke.

This strikes me as a token gesture over a meaningless potential ban too.

In a normal world, her position should be untenable given her background, but this is Scotland 2019. We HAVE to keep up the pressure on her and the position.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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!
 
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!
 
gZQHJpU.gif
 
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?
 
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.
 
Back
Top