Ryan Porteous' red card appeal has been rejected

It should have been increased to a 3 game ban.

The disciplinary process needs upgraded badly, as much as he's a thug against Rangers, the guy can be an effective player for Hibs.

This two match ban may hinder Hibs but it only serves to assist our other opponents. I know it has always been this way but certain players have lots of previous against us.

In this case I would like to see the rule changed, if you receive a straight red card and receive a two game ban, that ban should be served against the club you were playing at the time.

Ergo, Porteous would be banned for the next two Rangers games! That is the only effective way to rid ourselves of these self appointed plastic hard men.
 
Porteous will sit out his 2 games then come back and try to maim another fellow Pro next time he plays against us. Wanks like McManus want this to happen.
 
Commander Bjorklund said:
To add further to your message for Hibs lurkers.

Your behavior enables Ryan Porteus. Constantly excusing his rash challenges because he is 'Hibs as %^*&' is letting him down as a player. He could have stayed on his feet and won the ball no problem, instead he flys in like a reckless tit to try and please you goons. The guys already had a serious knee injury at a very young age due to him trying to hurt someone. Quit crying conspiracy and demand better from your player.
Click to expand...
Said this as well. He’ll never improve as his behaviour is excused. But fuk him. Bet that was the quickest decision by the panel.
 
RoyalBlue1 said:
This is why any ban served should be in games against us. The rule needs changed.
Click to expand...
The disciplinary rules are never going to be altered to that degree. The SFA compliance officer should be keeping a file of his thuggery. Bud Johnston had a shocking discipline record that was heavily punished by the SFA. One of the reasons why he left Rangers so it can be done.
 
Harrogate Bluenose said:
ye always thought it would be 3 and would miss the scum game
Click to expand...
There's no doubt in my mind that this should have been considered a 'frivolous' appeal. Kinda glad he gets the chance to kick some Dhims though:

15.9 Frivolous appeals and submissions

15.9.1 Where a Tribunal considers an appeal, it shall be open to the Tribunal to also consider whether:

15.9.1.1 The individual bringing the appeal had no prospect of success;

15.9.1.2 The appeal is considered by the Tribunal to have been an abuse of process or a delaying tactic for the sanction originally imposed; and/or

15.9.1.3 The appeal is considered by the Tribunal to have been a frivolous claim.

15.9.2 If Appeals Proceedings are considered by the Tribunal to fall within the parameters of Paragraph 15.9.1, an additional sanction may be imposed.
 
Happy to say it now… for you lurkers.

Hibs were going to beat us if it stayed 11vs11

It didn’t.

They didnt.

And were clear at the top of the league!
 
To think we have a minimum of 4 more games against them, what's the chances of 22 players still on the park after them o_O
 
EC54 said:
To think we have a minimum of 4 more games against them, what's the chances of 22 players still on the park after them o_O
Click to expand...
This will wind them up even more. We need the refs, especially in the cup, to be fair as they will no doubt be trying extra hard to break some more legs.
 
RoyalBlue1 said:
It should have been increased to a 3 game ban.

The disciplinary process needs upgraded badly, as much as he's a thug against Rangers, the guy can be an effective player for Hibs.

This two match ban may hinder Hibs but it only serves to assist our other opponents. I know it has always been this way but certain players have lots of previous against us.

In this case I would like to see the rule changed, if you receive a straight red card and receive a two game ban, that ban should be served against the club you were playing at the time.

Ergo, Porteous would be banned for the next two Rangers games! That is the only effective way to rid ourselves of these self appointed plastic hard men.
Click to expand...

Agreed, he could have made that tackle with 5 minutes to go, same result, 2 match ban and nothing for the team offended against.
 
Without reading thread, so maybe already covered, this was a bizarre appeal given the comments Jack Ross made after reviewing it on Saturday.

He all but said it didn't look great when he saw it from the camera angle behind the goal and that he'd given the ref a decision to make.

As far as a manager commenting on a decision in a game that's as much of an admission of guilt as you're likely to hear.
 
giphy.gif
 
El Jock Grande Sabia said:
Have they changed the rules? I thought a spurious appeal led to an increased punishment?
Click to expand...
There’s been no change to the rules:

15.9 Frivolous appeals and submissions

15.9.1 Where a Tribunal considers an appeal, it shall be open to the Tribunal to also consider whether:

15.9.1.1 The individual bringing the appeal had no prospect of success;

15.9.1.2 The appeal is considered by the Tribunal to have been an abuse of process or a delaying tactic for the sanction originally imposed; and/or

15.9.1.3 The appeal is considered by the Tribunal to have been a frivolous claim.

15.9.2 If Appeals Proceedings are considered by the Tribunal to fall within the parameters of Paragraph 15.9.1, an additional sanction may be imposed.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
There’s been no change to the rules:

15.9 Frivolous appeals and submissions

15.9.1 Where a Tribunal considers an appeal, it shall be open to the Tribunal to also consider whether:

15.9.1.1 The individual bringing the appeal had no prospect of success;

15.9.1.2 The appeal is considered by the Tribunal to have been an abuse of process or a delaying tactic for the sanction originally imposed; and/or

15.9.1.3 The appeal is considered by the Tribunal to have been a frivolous claim.

15.9.2 If Appeals Proceedings are considered by the Tribunal to fall within the parameters of Paragraph 15.9.1, an additional sanction may be imposed.
Click to expand...
Surely his falls under 15.9.1.1 &/or 15.9.1.3 at the least, thus resulting in an additional punishment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top