RicoS321 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Happened to McKenna already this season so suspect it was something that changed in the summer but cannot see anything official on it. Definitely last season if you had been booked an incident could not be referred. Do you mean McKenna's against the Tim? The ref never gave the free-kick, so it was deemed not seen (even though it clearly was seen but the ref didn't think that it was a foul - because it wasn't). To be honest Power's one is a yellow card all day long. It's clumsy and dangerous, but never deliberate. He's clearly looking at the ball. If one of our players had been hoofed in the face like that, I'd agree with the ref. It's a contact sport and sometimes you take a bad one even though there isn't intent. It happens all the time. The problem with these incidents is that you always get the impression they're determined to even things up for an easier life. If there is an "exceptional circumstances" get out clause then it defintely shouldn't be used in this instance (the Cammy Smith one v St Mirren was far more ridiculous from the weekend for example). The problem is that this type of incident is stoked up to be more controversial than it actually is. Pundits are paid to do that, but we shouldn't be taking the weight of their opinions without extracting a little of the hysteria. The incident shouldn't even be cited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggy89 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 It should be considered that this is a club that have tried to get one of their own players red card (for kicking an opposition player off the ball) rescinded on two separate occasion this season. By their own actions they are quite clear in their belief that making contact with an opposition player with your foot is a yellow card offence, even if you quite clearly intended to do it. I can't be arsed to go back and look for it, wasn't part of the decision to downgrade Morelos' red to a yellow, in the opening game, that he didn't injure or intend to injure? And I assume their attempt to have Morelos' yellow rescinded for his slap on Shinnie's face was that it didn't injure him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicoS321 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 It should be considered that this is a club that have tried to get one of their own players red card (for kicking an opposition player off the ball) rescinded on two separate occasion this season. By their own actions they are quite clear in their belief that making contact with an opposition player with your foot is a yellow card offence, even if you quite clearly intended to do it. I can't be arsed to go back and look for it, wasn't part of the decision to downgrade Morelos' red to a yellow, in the opening game, that he didn't injure or intend to injure? And I assume their attempt to have Morelos' yellow rescinded for his slap on Shinnie's face was that it didn't injure him. But they're right. Morelos' fanny kick on McKenna was a yellow according to the rules of the game. Intention to kick does not come into it, it has to be with the intent to hurt. That will be why Morelos' recent band was upheld, because he clearly tried to hurt McKenna with a stamp to the nads. I think that the argument in the Shinnie case was that it wasn't deliberate (which it clearly was, hence the ban was upheld). Rangers will not be putting forward any arguments in the case of Power, because it is not their case to argue. If it is deemed that Power intentionally tried to hurt Jack or was reckless or out of control then it will be changed to a red (again, I don't remember that ever happening before in this country). If it - correctly - is deemed that he just went for the ball, then the yellow will stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggy89 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 I may be incorrect but did Gerrard not state that he would be "interested" to see if the compliance officer looked at the incident? If he believes what you have stated as the reasons for these decisions, why mention it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicoS321 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 I may be incorrect but did Gerrard not state that he would be "interested" to see if the compliance officer looked at the incident? If he believes what you have stated as the reasons for these decisions, why mention it? Yes. He is interested to see whether the compliance officer thinks it was with the intent to hurt, thus a red card. The compliance office - not the hun - believes there is a case to be heard on those grounds. It's the constant comparison of every decision with the Morelos one that gets me (it was mentioned with regard to the McKenna sending off too for some bizarre reason, and the Devlin case too), hence why I was replying. They are not similar other than that a foot made contact with an opponent, so there is no precedent set by the Morelos incident that is relevant to this one. Rangers are not "clear in their belief that making contact with an opposition players with your foot is a yellow card offence" like you suggest - as that's not what they argued in the Morelos case - and nor would it matter if they were because they are not the compliance officer who is the only person who could cite this incident for further review. Basically, if we're going to call it a conspiracy, can we at least get the facts right? The contention is that the incident is being heard at all as it was a yellow card dealt with by the ref at the time (right in front of him too). If they find against Power, then there will be a further issue over what is deemed as reckless/out of control similar to the McKenna vs Tims incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggy89 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 I still do not accept that you can kick someone without intent to hurt them. Oh and I'm not calling it a conspiracy. I am comparing them as; 1) the first incident Morelos aims and kicks a player in a deliberate act, reduced to yellow as you say because "there was no intent to injure". 2) The second they appealed based on, either a claim that Morelos's got tangled up with McKenna and it wasn't a deliberate act or he didn't injure him or intend to injure him. 3) Power neither deliberately intends to make contact, nor injures Jack, yet the huns are interested to see if the compliance officer takes further action. It's double standards. If the huns are going to appeal everything that their players do and get punished for then they have no right to call others out for further punishment. Particularly in a week when Gerrard himself calls out another manager for "trying to get one of his player banned". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicoS321 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 There is no double standard over appealing. The huns can appeal as many incidents as they like, that is not a double standard. You seem to conflating appealing with having a decision overturned/go in their favour. I think the term you're looking for is hypocrite. The only double standard is the decision to call in a case where an incident has been clearly seen and dealt with by the referee, because that has not happened in many other cases (see Cammy Smith v St Mirren) which were worse. There is no double standard being applied to Power until such time as he's actually charged with anything, other than the decision to review. If he's given a ban, then there is still no double standard there as the incident doesn't really compare to any other, it's just a poor decision. If we're being picky, we could say that the nearest possible incident is McKenna versus the Tims, in which he was red carded so Power should get a red card based on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewart Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 No further action to be taken for Power & McGinn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A96red Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Not entitled to get....they are are entitled to request that amount but will be subject to the geography of the ground ( segregation capability) and to police agreement. They will get the usual away section therefore not a hope in hell of them getting anywhere near 20%.... If the new Huns ask for 20% of the tickets , they'll be given the middle bit of the South Stand that the old Huns used to get, as well as the current away section. The segregation'll just take the form of a swathe of seats being left empty or covered by tarpaulin or something like that with stewards and cops between the two sets of fans. The same way as visitors' fans are kept apart from the unwashed at Parkhead and Ibrox. Same as Tynecastle and Easter Road as well. Can't see the coppers having much objection as the Huns'll be able to get access to the middle sections of the SS via the Golf Road entrance which is kept for the sole use of the away fans. And let's face it , we'll struggle to sell 16,000 tickets, let alone 18K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten Caat Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Live on telly for sure so probably not a sell out but I cannot see Plod Scotland agreeing to such a plan. A double line of stewards or rozzers ain't going to stop a riled up set of fans going for the opposition fans when the inevitable missiles start flying. There would be a riot.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A96red Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Live on telly for sure so probably not a sell out but I cannot see Plod Scotland agreeing to such a plan. A double line of stewards or rozzers ain't going to stop a riled up set of fans going for the opposition fans when the inevitable missiles start flying. There would be a riot.... The Glasgow rozzers clearly think that form of segregation’s enough for a game between the uglies at Parkhead, so I can’t see the Aberdeen rozzers taking a different view. Anyway , let’s hope Killie stuff them and we never find out ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_widdows Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 Not one of the quater finals has a 3pm Saturday kick off Sat 2nd March - 17:15 Hibs Vs Tic Sun 3rd March - 13:30 Dons vs Sevco Sun 3rd March - 15:30 Arabs Vs (Caley or County) Mon 4th March - 19:05 Thistle vs Jambos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc_don Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Not one of the quater finals has a 3pm Saturday kick off Sat 2nd March - 17:15 Hibs Vs Tic Sun 3rd March - 13:30 Dons vs Sevco or Killie Sun 3rd March - 15:30 Arabs Vs (Caley or County) Mon 4th March - 19:05 Thistle vs Jambos SFA were lauding the fact they'd managed to get all four 1/4's on TV a few months back. Although, i'd hope we're playing killie rather than the huns... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jute Posted March 4, 2019 Author Share Posted March 4, 2019 Semi Final Draw ICT v Patrick or Hearts Celtic v Aberdeen or Tribute Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
️ Come on you Reds! ️
️ Come on you Reds! ️
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.