consistency is what we need. Imagine if Aluko got off and then next week a celtic player got done? TIMPLOSION!! 
Aluko ban upheld
- Thread starter Girvan Loyal 1690
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
consistency is what we need. Imagine if Aluko got off and then next week a celtic player got done? TIMPLOSION!!
Similarly, if we get a free kick without the player being chibbed against Hearts tomorrow, Follow Follow might actually combust
Which i believe i answered afterwards, the sooner video replays come the better but just now retrospective punishments doesn't cut it for me.
No, did you read all of my answers or not? why ask the questions if you don't care about the answers?
MD 20/20 said:
Rangers also moaned about the three man panel set up that punished Aluko. Guess who put that system into play ??? Gordon (rangers for me ) Smith while chief executive of SFA. To think Rangers fans moan about Regan and Lawell being friends , yet Gordon Smith held that post despite his love of Rangers.
I don't see how but ok, i answered the questions now I'm out.
People to be places to do etc.
So "retrospective punishment is not the way forward"?
He got a 2 game ban for a breach of rule 202 which states that 'no player shall cause a match official to make an incorrect decision and/or support an error of judgment on the part of a match official by an act of simulation'
It is beyond dispute that he dived (even you have agreed) so did he or did he not cause a match official to make an "incorrect decision"?
He clearly did so how can that be sorted on the pitch at the time without "Instant replays" (which is what I assume you meant by "TV Replays")?
It cannot because we don't have "instant replays yet", all we have is a disciplinary panel which judges these matters when necessary. He made (or conned) the ref into awarding his team a penalty and probably altered the course of the game and the result, how would a 1 match ban be any punishment?
If we want to stamp out cheating like this in the Scottish game then a 2 game ban for such actions is the minimum a player should receive in my opinion, but let's not forget that your manager said Aluko did not dive.
I said i didn't believe in retrospective punishment because i believe TV replays should be the only way forward, i didn't say there was no purpose for them to exist until then.
A one match ban is half way between a red card (2 match ban) and a yellow card.
Until diving is a red cardable' offence (which i believe it should be) and video replays are introduced then i don't believe a panel should be allowed to award a red card after a match when it was the referees mistake that cost the panel time and money to decide what ban to dish out.
A one match ban is half way between a red card (2 match ban) and a yellow card.
Until diving is a red cardable' offence (which i believe it should be) and video replays are introduced then i don't believe a panel should be allowed to award a red card after a match when it was the referees mistake that cost the panel time and money to decide what ban to dish out.
I don't see how its Alukos fault the referees eyes weren't working.
Sounds like a 9/11 cover up to me.
Fine. Aluko dived and should get what's coming to him. A two game ban is equivalent of 12 yellow cards. A dive is a yellow card if seen by an official. He deserves to get punished as diving needs to be done away with.
However what is needed, as all the ****ing moaning faced yahoos have been going on about since time immemorial, is a level playing field.
O'Connor got away with it. What a gross error of judgement that was on behalf of the panel and in order for them to look less like the incompetent ****-ups we know they are, they probably did the right thing with Aluko.
Now, next time some **** dives there had better be some consistency.
Aye Samaras you massive ****ing **** - I'm talking aboot you.
However what is needed, as all the ****ing moaning faced yahoos have been going on about since time immemorial, is a level playing field.
O'Connor got away with it. What a gross error of judgement that was on behalf of the panel and in order for them to look less like the incompetent ****-ups we know they are, they probably did the right thing with Aluko.
Now, next time some **** dives there had better be some consistency.
Aye Samaras you massive ****ing **** - I'm talking aboot you.
'no player shall cause a match official to make an incorrect decision and/or support an error of judgment on the part of a match official by an act of simulation'
Not sure if you put the full quote in but there is no mention of penalty and by your own admission the ref boobed. This was because of Samaras holding the wrong side of his face, simulating injury.
Ok i'll give you an example if you like.
When Kyle Lafferty "simulated" being headbutted by Chuck Mulgrew a few years back do you think a Yellow card for Lafferty would have sufficed as punishment? Or seeing as how no penalty was wrongly awarded to Rangers in that game - off the back of Lafferty getting Mulgrew a Red card - are you suggesting that Lafferty should not have been punished at all?
Who was to blame in that incident, Lafferty for cheating or the Referee for not seeing that Lafferty had cheated? Is Lafferty's behaviour in that disgraceful display of outright, blatant, cheating, to be excused because the "Referee's eyes were not working"?