Morelos charged for Porteous stamp - McGregor cleared

[captcaveman]

It's not that Alfie should be cleared if this is the process it's that others go unpunished, that's the issue. Basically a lawyer gets to pick and choose which referee decision to scrutinise. This is why this process forces us to be squeaky clean on the pitch. We mostly do ok but Alfie throws a spanner in the works and until either the process changes which it won't soon as another law firm has just been appointed, it's as you were at the SFA, the only thing we can control is Alfie and he isn't learning.

we can't allow for the media to dictate when Alfie should be charged but let others walk away scot free

 

[Born a Barras Hick]

It's disappointing how many times we have let a no mark like Porteous get to us. He is a very basic footballer and falling for his shit is embarrassing. Now we will be without Morelos for 3 games.

It shouldn't make any difference to the season but still a stupid part of his game that he hasn't learnt from and it lets his team mates down.

IF it was a deliberate stamp, and I'm far from convinced it was, then Alfie made a right pigs ear of an attempt to injure Porteous. In short I don't believe Alfie 'fell for his shit'. Virtually any other player involved and there would be pundits queuing up to describe it as a 'coming together'.

McGregor confirmed on national TV that Clancy saw the incident, so I think the club have to appeal this otherwise it looks like we don't care about defending our players against contrived and retrospective charges.

 

[looway]

we can't allow for the media to dictate when Alfie should be charged but let others walk away scot free

That's the process mucka, and it's unfair. Only Rangers and/or the other clubs can campaign for change.

 

[monkey magic]

That's the process mucka, and it's unfair. Only Rangers and/or the other clubs can campaign for change.

It not though. The incident was clearly seen by Clancy and as such and according to their own rules that is the only reason retrospective action can be taken. Clancy admitted he saw the incident to McGregor

The Compliance Officer can only raise a Fast Track Notice of Complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.

When investigating a potential Fast Track case, the Compliance Officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the Laws of the Game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials.
When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the Compliance Officer seeks opinions from three independent experts.

Those experts are drawn from a pool of former Category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A Fast Track Notice of Complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence.

Compliance & Disciplinary Q&A | News | Scottish FA

www.scottishfa.co.uk

 

[KirkieRanger]

As we all expected.. bastards!


Rangers striker Alfredo Morelos has been charged with violent conduct by the Scottish FA for a stamp on Hibernian's Ryan Porteous.

The Ibrox striker faces a three-match ban following the incident in Wednesday's 1-0 win.

Morelos, who went on to score the winner at Easter Road, has been given a notice of complaint and Rangers have until Monday to appeal.

Exactly as we expected from the corrupt SPFL. No surprises there.

W.A.T.P.

 

[KirkieRanger]

That's the process mucka, and it's unfair. Only Rangers and/or the other clubs can campaign for change.

Rangers gave them all an opportunity to change things but most of them shat it.

W.A.T.P.

 

[bazil]

When Alfies gone, i hope i get Kent in the in the sweep for next player to be hounded, he did after all have a punch at Bhungle Bhoy Brown, no way will the Mhedia and friends allow that to be forgotten, must be the bookies favourite

 

[looway]

It not though. The incident was clearly seen by Clancy and as such and according to their own rules that is the only reason retrospective action can be taken. Clancy admitted he saw the incident to McGregor

The Compliance Officer can only raise a Fast Track Notice of Complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.

When investigating a potential Fast Track case, the Compliance Officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the Laws of the Game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials.
When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the Compliance Officer seeks opinions from three independent experts.

Those experts are drawn from a pool of former Category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A Fast Track Notice of Complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence.

Compliance & Disciplinary Q&A | News | Scottish FA

www.scottishfa.co.uk

It's the exceptional part of the incident that's key. It can be fast tracked according to the rules. It was fast tracked as they deemed Clancy missed the exceptional part - the stamp.

 

[monkey magic]

It's the exceptional part of the incident that's key. It can be fast tracked according to the rules. It was fast tracked as they deemed Clancy missed the exceptional part - the stamp.

That exceptional part could be used for every game of football in the SPFL every week, mate.

 

[looway]

Rangers gave them all an opportunity to change things but most of them shat it.

W.A.T.P.

Most clubs aren't adversely affected by the process.and don't object to it. We are crucified and in the best interests of the game they should back Rangers but they don't want the hassle.

 

[looway]

That exceptional part could be used for every game of football in the SPFL every week, mate.

I agree. If one game gets scrutinised, they all should. If not, we then get punishments for whoever's on TV most or at the whim of a selective compliance officer or lawyer who goes by the opinion of a biased TV commentary. A 3 man panel would have to review every challenge in the league for fairness or VAR at every game. We can't afford VAR so bin this process and let the referee's decision be final.

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

It not though. The incident was clearly seen by Clancy and as such and according to their own rules that is the only reason retrospective action can be taken. Clancy admitted he saw the incident to McGregor

The Compliance Officer can only raise a Fast Track Notice of Complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.

When investigating a potential Fast Track case, the Compliance Officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the Laws of the Game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials.
When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the Compliance Officer seeks opinions from three independent experts.

Those experts are drawn from a pool of former Category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A Fast Track Notice of Complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence.

Compliance & Disciplinary Q&A | News | Scottish FA

www.scottishfa.co.uk

So it reads as if they’ve went beyond their own procedures to nail us ?

Im wondering if the club are considering an appeal, as there’s been no comment by us yet MM.

Using this, plus other examples ignored, plus the comments by McGregor on telly who basically said he saw it all & Alfie never tried to hurt Porteous ?

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

I agree. If one game gets scrutinised, they all should. If not, we then get punishments for whoever's on TV most or at the whim of a selective compliance officer or lawyer who goes by the opinion of a biased TV commentary. A 3 man panel would have to review every challenge in the league for fairness or VAR at every game. We can't afford VAR so bin this process and let the referee's decision be final.

The ‘process’ is selective, opportunistic & lacking in objectivity.

And reading @monkey magic post, have they even adhered to their own so called rules within the selective ‘process’ ?

 

[looway]

The ‘process’ is selective, opportunistic & lacking in objectivity.

And reading @monkey magic post, have they even adhered to their own so called rules within the selective ‘process’ ?

Yep as it was deemed Clancy missed the exceptional part of the incident - the stamp. I've no issue with them punishing Alfie and clearing McGregor, the process worked fine on that occasion. The problem is that we are unfairly targeted as other players and other clubs escape citation when there is clear video evidence to merit an investigation. That is what makes the process flawed and not fit for purpose.

 

[Grigo Yossarian]

Yep as it was deemed Clancy missed the exceptional part of the incident - the stamp. I've no issue with them punishing Alfie and clearing McGregor, the process worked fine on that occasion. The problem is that we are unfairly targeted as other players and other clubs escape citation when there is clear video evidence to merit an investigation. That is what makes the process flawed and not fit for purpose.

Agree with your overall point, but you know I reject that being called a stamp.

Not even close to them, in terms of force used.

 

[Krissie]

Roll out the QC.....Appeal !