SFA provide written reasons for Alfie and McGregor bans

So because rangers didn't supply real time footage they threw evidence from us out, c'mon tae fook, what is all that crap about, any reason to find Alfie and us guilty, broon to the head, ankles and legs is deemed ok though
 
I would love to know how anyone can say that Alfie used excessive force to McKenna's groin area as mentioned in the judgement, at best in is a tap.

With the Killie keeper getting off for his elbow to Kamara it makes the decision on Alfie more annoying.
 
Last edited:
McGregors case states that they accepted there was no malice or excessive force used, yet he got a two game ban for "endangerment to the safety of the opponent".

Every game played will see players safety being endangered, but if no malice or excessive force is used then it is simply a normal challenge.

Morelos is subjective, you jst need the right people on the panel to convict.
 
Proves Madden lied, we should highlight that and UEFA should be informed of his lying. The Morelos reasoning is a farce. The three officials need to be named if they are making such vital decisions.
 
Well next time (and there will be) , we should take slow motion and real time footage from all angles
 
Thasunke Witko said:
So because rangers didn't supply real time footage they threw evidence from us out, c'mon tae fook, what is all that crap about, any reason to find Alfie and us guilty, broon to the head, ankles and legs is deemed ok though
Click to expand...
They own the rights to the footage, but the club needs to supply it? They're not even trying to invent a plausible excuse
 
The problem the SFA have here is that both players 100% didn't do what they said. So, the written reasons mean nothing. Absolutely nothing as they are wrong. They've made it up and they're sticking to it.
 
Rangersmandownunder said:
McGregors case states that they accepted there was no malice or excessive force used, yet he got a two game ban for "endangerment to the safety of the opponent".

Every game played will see players safety being endangered, but if no malice or excessive force is used then it is simply a normal challenge.

Morelos is subjective, you jst need the right people on the panel to convict.
Click to expand...

why was bachmann done for endangerment of the opponent
 
How the fuck can they have seen the Morelos incident from all angles and still say he used excessive force!?

And save me all this pish about the view being of ‘the generality’ of Greegsy’s one.

Absolute bollocks it really is
 
Said the other week that the club should appoint it's own Compliance Officer and get our case out immediately after each incident. We're letting them control everything.
I'll say it again, wtf does Traynor do? Get rid and put the money wasted on him towards someone competent who'll get off their arse and competently represent the club. This is not a job for the manager.
 
McKenna's groin moved towards Alfredo's foot with more force than his foot moved towards his groin (if at all), due to the fact he was in the process of booting Morelos in the face o_Oo_Oo_O Mental.
 
barrheadbear said:
I would love to know how anyone can say that Alfie used excessive force to McKenna's groun area as mention in the judgement, at best in is a tap.

With the Killie keeper getting off for his elbow to Kamara it makes the decision on Alfie more annoying.
Click to expand...
Said as much yesterday , Morelos was sent off for less .

Let's just call a spade a spade here ,we are being trolled and then shafted for good measure.
 
This and the Bachmann appeal result is just them showing they can do what ever they want to damage our club and suspend our players by manipulating their rule book to suit . This is only the start and will get worse if not stopped , how that's done , I dont know as they are so entrenched in the SFA now
 
At what point does the club get UEFA involved? These are just fouls, it's constant violent conduct
 
It's all about causing a stir so the real scandal in world football is quietly put to bed as usual...
 
"A player who when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or another person on the head or face with the hand or arm is guilty of violent conduct unless force used was negligible".

Can't wait to read the written reason for the Kilmarnock keepers appeal...

Also how can the first game of the season get overturned when this one can't? They aren't even applying their own rules consistently. .
 
StirlingGer said:
"A player who when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or another person on the head or face with the hand or arm is guilty of violent conduct unless force used was negligible".

Can't wait to read the written reason for the Kilmarnock keepers appeal...

Also how can the first game of the season get overturned when this one can't? They aren't even applying their own rules consistently. .
Click to expand...

"A player who when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or another person on the head or face with the hand or arm is not guilty of violent conduct unless force used was negligible".
Click to expand...

There you go.
 
allyscott said:
Proves Madden lied, we should highlight that and UEFA should be informed of his lying. The Morelos reasoning is a farce. The three officials need to be named if they are making such vital decisions.
Click to expand...

Starting to sound like that other lot with talk of going to UEFA, calm down and don't lower yourself to their paranoid level.
 
Serious question as unsure but is VAR replayed in real time or do refs get slowmo versions and so they get various angles?
If so then using slowmo in an appeal should be allowed...
 
The more they try to defend this ridiculous CO guff the bigger a hole they dig for themselves.

Those explanations are hilariously bad.

BTW - Are they going to make all decisions public like this or just the Rangers related ones (at the request of the bheasts no doubt).
 
barrheadbear said:
I would love to know how anyone can say that Alfie used excessive force to McKenna's groin area as mentioned in the judgement, at best in is a tap.

With the Killie keeper getting off for his elbow to Kamara it makes the decision on Alfie more annoying.
Click to expand...
If Morelos used excessive force into the nether regions of the player that's quite incredible,the player he's accused of booting in the balls has just stood up and not even bent over holding said nether regions which you would be doing if someone booted you in the balls.
 
"it was clear to the Fast Track Tribunal that there was a clear and deliberate movement of Mr Morelos foot towards his opponent’s groin area which demonstrated he used excessive force against an opponent when not challenging for the ball."


tossers
 
Damn pdf's :confused:

Here they are without downloading them.

Alfie.

gn779.png
gn780.png


Shagger

gn781.png
gn782.png
 
Madden never took the decision to send Alfie off. He was clearly advised to send him off by the linesman. That explanation is total shite.
 
"The Referee provided a statement explaining the act which he decided was violent conduct
because at the time he witnessed Mr Morelos, after challenging for the ball with opponent,
kicking out at his opponent and making contact with his boot in his opponent’s nether regions."

This, this right here is blatant lies. The TV footage clearly shows Madden sprinting over to send MCKenna off. Only after being surrounded by Sheep players does he then start speaking with the linesman.

Until that point his entite focus was on McKenna.

This is shameful from Madden.

%^*& the SFA
 
mad4rfcme said:
I still cannot get over that boot to Ryan Jack's face.
Click to expand...

The thing is, going by what they’ve said about McGregors “incident”, there’s no way they couldn’t do Power for the same reason.

Although there was, in the SFA’s words, “no intent or malice, it could be deemed that he still endangered an opponent.”

How a clear, full boot to the head doesn’t count as that, I don’t know.
 
The_Hammer1990 said:
The thing is, going by what they’ve said about McGregors “incident”, there’s no way they couldn’t do Power for the same reason.

Although there was, in the SFA’s words, “no intent or malice, it could be deemed that he still endangered an opponent.”

How a clear, full boot to the head doesn’t count as that, I don’t know.
Click to expand...

Power wasn't cited. It didn't go through this process. So either Muir said he saw the totality or Clare ignored it completely.
There have been posters who said that they heard that Muir did not see it in its entirety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top