Morelos in slow motion v mckenna

#51
Watching that, Alfie was clearly fouled before the got near the by line. Whistle should've gone earlier.
Clearly the tussle begins well away from the bye line with the pull by McKenna on Alfie ‘s shirt.Both ref and linesman have more than enough time to blow the whistle and stop the game and escalation of the incident.The officials have once again failed to do their job.A shirt pull is clearly a yellow card for McKenna and a Rangers free kick.The role or lack of it of the officials has been completely ignored .
 

Commentator

Well-Known Member
#52
Maybe you could humour me, what's my true intent?

This board is mad sometimes, whenever he has been guilty of previous misdemeanors on the park we have posters clamouring for us to sell him and that his behaviour will cost us. I don't really see any difference now? I know what we get from him, the good and the bad, and I accept that.

There's no hidden agenda on my part, I'm calling it how I see it. I love him, but a player like that doesn't change his spots overnight. He hasn't really shown he's capable of reining it in & cutting out the needless niggle.

I love how he bullies players but every time he gets involved in a particularly meaty tackle / altercation I wince as he's unable to control himself. This is particularly evident in games against Aberdeen it would seem. As I've said a couple of times now, he had a fly wee kick at someone after a robust challenge in the middle of the 1st half.

At least he's scoring goals, if he wasn't banging them in I fear that this whole episode would have been viewed entirely differently.
See Danger Zone's post above. Your intent is to misrepresent Alfie.
But, I see you've taken note of my advice to look at Dylan's style and have put much more waffle around your bile. I particularly like this empathetic piece "if he wasn't banging them in I fear that this whole episode would have been viewed entirely differently"
'you fear' - don't fret too much, now.
 

Blueranger45

Well-Known Member
#53
simply it's Alfie's reputation that has been built by the media for the last few months and his reaction that gets him the ban, the look up to see if the ref has seen it almost certainly went against him in the appeal

it's sad but it's Scottish football for you
 

LetsGo

Well-Known Member
#55
Maybe you could humour me, what's my true intent?

This board is mad sometimes, whenever he has been guilty of previous misdemeanors on the park we have posters clamouring for us to sell him and that his behaviour will cost us. I don't really see any difference now? I know what we get from him, the good and the bad, and I accept that.

There's no hidden agenda on my part, I'm calling it how I see it. I love him, but a player like that doesn't change his spots overnight. He hasn't really shown he's capable of reining it in & cutting out the needless niggle.

I love how he bullies players but every time he gets involved in a particularly meaty tackle / altercation I wince as he's unable to control himself. This is particularly evident in games against Aberdeen it would seem. As I've said a couple of times now, he had a fly wee kick at someone after a robust challenge in the middle of the 1st half.

At least he's scoring goals, if he wasn't banging them in I fear that this whole episode would have been viewed entirely differently.
What a plamf you are.
 

Der Berliner

Well-Known Member
#56
There are guidelines with regards to cautionable offences ...

CAUTIONABLE OFFENCES

B1 Unsporting Behaviour

There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour which include, but are not limited to, when a player:

a) Impedes an opponent with contact
b) Recklessly trips or attempts to trip an opponent
c) Recklessly tackles or challenges an opponent
d) Recklessly kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
e) Denies an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity as defined by Law 12
f) Holds or pushes an opponent
g) Commits an offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack outwith the penalty area
h) Excessively celebrates the scoring of a goal as defined by Law 12
i) Handles the ball deliberately
j) Shows a lack of respect for the game
k) Commits an act of simulation
l) Commits any other offence(s) deemed by a match official to be unsporting behaviour

B2 Dissent by Word or Action
B3 Persistently offending against Laws of the Game
B4 Delaying the restart of play
B5 Failing to respect the required distance at restart of play
B6 Entering or re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission

... and if you look long enough, Morelos always "failed" here or there. If the above was applied with equal measure though, how many players would Aberdeen, Kilmarnock and Co. have left on the park when playing us though?

To be found on the SFA's website, on the right under Judicial Panel Protocol (link downloads a PDF.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/

BTW, if anyone's got time on his or her hand, the link down on the right "Past JP outcomes" gives you access to pdf-files for all years up to now, so people can check how often teams have been cited et al. Would make an interesting statstic to have.
 

Lono

Well-Known Member
#57
Just seen it.

Any neutral watching that would have found Alfie not guilty.
I really defy a sane person to argue other!
We have been truly fckd over and Alfie has been cheated by a national football association disappearing down the drain of disgrace and corruption.

This is no longer a sporting competition.
This is a game played on a loaded table.

The people that banned Alfie are no better than the very worst brown envelope recipients of a small town Tammany Hall and no doubt they would be proud of the comparison.
Ironically known as the 'Columbian' Order(note the spelling). Remember reading that after seeing Gangs of New York at the cinema.

Realising they were enabling themselves with the upcoming vote of the soon to be, large, Irish immigrant populous was odd considering Jim Broadbent's compultion to enable Bill the Butcher.

The comparison to Tammany however, is horribly sobering. The video ? Completely vindicates our striker and proves a 'three man committee' could only sanction him guilty through bias.
 

Commentator

Well-Known Member
#58
I would love to hear "the impartial" :rolleyes: panels decision on how they thought Morelos was guilty.
There is far, far too much secrecy around this sinister process. Why the need to operate clandestinely? If the club has not received a convincing explanation of how this decision was arrived at they are failing in their duty of care to the players and need to up their game.

Off the top of my head the club should know and be fully on board with ....
How are incidents referred?
Who then determines from the referred incidents which ones are looked at by the CO?
What is the process used at this step?
How is the CO review conducted, specifically in each case, not generally. What evidence is used?
What is the criteria for determining an offence worthy of action has been committed?
What is the process for reviewing this initial determination?
What process is used to determine the length of the ban?
What analysis is done of the complaint referers? Is there a pattern - In those who refer? - In the teams referred? - In the players referred? Is there a pattern in teams/players not referred?
If there is a pattern, and we know there is, what process is used to ensure the CO referrals aren't being corrupted?

If we do not have all of the above, at least all of that, they should immediately call for the suspension of the CO process until it can be demonstrated that it operates equally for all clubs,
 

steve1873

Well-Known Member
#59
There is far, far too much secrecy around this sinister process. Why the need to operate clandestinely? If the club has not received a convincing explanation of how this decision was arrived at they are failing in their duty of care to the players and need to up their game.

Off the top of my head the club should know and be fully on board with ....
How are incidents referred?
Who then determines from the referred incidents which ones are looked at by the CO?
What is the process used at this step?
How is the CO review conducted, specifically in each case, not generally. What evidence is used?
What is the criteria for determining an offence worthy of action has been committed?
What is the process for reviewing this initial determination?
What process is used to determine the length of the ban?
What analysis is done of the complaint referers? Is there a pattern - In those who refer? - In the teams referred? - In the players referred? Is there a pattern in teams/players not referred?
If there is a pattern, and we know there is, what process is used to ensure the CO referrals aren't being corrupted?

If we do not have all of the above, at least all of that, they should immediately call for the suspension of the CO process until it can be demonstrated that it operates equally for all clubs,
Absolutely outstanding post Sir, cap doffed.
 

bluenosebazza

Well-Known Member
#60
*Applauds*

I find it utterly staggering that people can possibly see it any other way. He has left a bit on him, it's a follow through! NO IT QUITE BLATANTLY ISNT!!!
You can even see Morelos turning away as McKenna kicks out. Hes been very careful not to move his foot once its in the air.

Fair enough seeing it as something in real time but it to then be reviewed by the complaince officer, and some of our own support, and still see it as a kick out/stamp worthy of a red is staggering.
 

BentleyBear

Well-Known Member
#62
I’m not sure mate, quite a few alleged fans on here genuinely seemed to agree with the officials decison.

Though I think to anyone who knows the rules and has reasonable eyesight and no agenda, it’s very clearly not a red card.
I agree, it may just be my eyesight lol but as Morelos brings his foot down the first time, his studs appear to catch Mckennas shorts, Morelos then lifts his foot again towards Mckenna, as if to free it before then being struck himself by Mckennas boot. This then causes Alfies' foot to go down in the apparent "stamp" motion?
 

steve1873

Well-Known Member
#63
You can even see Morelos turning away as McKenna kicks out. Hes been very careful not to move his foot once its in the air.

Fair enough seeing it as something in real time but it to then be reviewed by the complaince officer, and some of our own support, and still see it as a kick out/stamp worthy of a red is staggering.
I agree. I can totally see why the linesman and/ or referee feel they have seen something as there is a movement of Morelos leg and foot which is indicative of a stamp, however as you say with the benefit of the replay it is quite clear that Morelos foot has been manipulated in to a fairly unnatural position by the movement of McKenna's left foot primarily and his right foot almost brings Morelos foot directly in line with his groin. As I said, Morelos is moving forward and is attempting to put the brakes on so that momentum and his own inertia means he has to really concentrate on keeping his balance, which you can see with the 2 little hops on his standing foot.

There is no way that incident has been reviewed objectively and the decision upheld on the basis of the review. No way whatsoever.
 

Der Berliner

Well-Known Member
#64
Has anybody seen any impartial source who says Morelos should not have seen Red?
"Funnily enough", Andy Walker was impartial for about 2 minutes ... for as long as Morelos was being treated and he saw ALL the slow motions of the incident. He said that Morelos made no aggressive movement et al. Then the card came out and Walker changed his talk to "indicipline" and all that.

As I said above, those cited by the media all are either Yahoos or have an axe to grind with us.
 
#65
See Danger Zone's post above. Your intent is to misrepresent Alfie.
But, I see you've taken note of my advice to look at Dylan's style and have put much more waffle around your bile. I particularly like this empathetic piece "if he wasn't banging them in I fear that this whole episode would have been viewed entirely differently"
'you fear' - don't fret too much, now.
Yes...I have concerns for the stinking attitude of posters on this board, some of who will undoubtedly be in the stands, who are quick to demonise players and get on their backs. Are you trying to pretend that hasn't happened to Morelos (sorry, I mean Alfie), you can't be that naive?

Don't bother replying, you seem incapable of a reasoned debate and prefer to cast aspersions to fellow supporters.
 

Commentator

Well-Known Member
#66
Yes...I have concerns for the stinking attitude of posters on this board, some of who will undoubtedly be in the stands, who are quick to demonise players and get on their backs. Are you trying to pretend that hasn't happened to Morelos (sorry, I mean Alfie), you can't be that naive?

Don't bother replying, you seem incapable of a reasoned debate and prefer to cast aspersions to fellow supporters.
Ahhhh, I see. You're actually defending Alfie from 90% of the posters on this thread?
And look, you're now playing the victim.
Let me think. Whose playbook is that from?
No, don't help me. I'll get it, I will.

You should change 'Opalescent' to 'Transparent' or 'Translucent'.
 
Top