Is that an informed medical opinion?
Because he seemed fine when he got up and played on.
Is Davidson not injured and maybe out the final?
I heard Davidson injury is different leg to the one Roofe got. No idea if correct though.
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 12 minutes ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in the game earlier in the season he did one just as bad if not worse to Roofe. Nowhere near the same outcry, cause he's not that type of player.
By that I think they mean white and Scottish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who exactly is it you are claiming is racist?
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 12 minutes ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in the game earlier in the season he did one just as bad if not worse to Roofe. Nowhere near the same outcry, cause he's not that type of player.
By that I think they mean white and Scottish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who exactly is it you are claiming is racist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when did i do that?
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 12 minutes ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in the game earlier in the season he did one just as bad if not worse to Roofe. Nowhere near the same outcry, cause he's not that type of player.
By that I think they mean white and Scottish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who exactly is it you are claiming is racist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when did i do that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that isn't your inference then you should explain.
comment by Miller (U9310)
posted 6 minutes ago
I heard Davidson injury is different leg to the one Roofe got. No idea if correct though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
correct, he played on for 10 mins or so then injured his other leg when he tackled kent.
I've no issue with the process but the SFA do not help themselves with communication and fan engagement. They never have. If they would do a bit more of that then we maybe wouldn't be having this debate on here.
WTF does Fleming and his bloated department do in this direction? Zero as far as I can see? Follow the rules, put out minimal information on the charges brought and zero explanation of how it was arrived at leaving the issues to be debated on moonhowler radio shows.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 12 minutes ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in the game earlier in the season he did one just as bad if not worse to Roofe. Nowhere near the same outcry, cause he's not that type of player.
By that I think they mean white and Scottish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who exactly is it you are claiming is racist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when did i do that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that isn't your inference then you should explain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
familiarity bias isnt quite the same as racism but i will acknowledge is part of it if that makes you feel better.
You look at someone like you and say well i wouldn't do that so neither would he (more positive judgment) even the most woke, fairest, right on dude does that.
Where as the other person at best is judged fairly rather than positively
Its not only colour, accent alone (west vs east) will likely cause me to empathise with someone.
Not unlike the foreign players dive more rhetoric
would also say colour of strip influences that too even with the least blinkered fans in a 50/50 you will go 51/49 to your guy
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment I don't even think we know who at the SFA is doing the process either
I dont know if its been covered already but i keep seeing people saying, "Hes gave a yellow so hes clearly seen it"
The referee gets asked after the game if he saw the 'whole incident'. If he admits he doesnt, and gave what the thought was right it goes to the panel to clear it up.
That is why
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment I don't even think we know who at the SFA is doing the process either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly 'the disciplinary team' at the SFA do it then pass to the CO who is now a floating member of an independent legal firm. As I understand!
However, if your defence is 'somebody else did it and never got cited' you're probably on a shaky peg from the start? But that's why the SFA ought to be doing a better PR effort in explaining why.
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 31 minutes ago
would also say colour of strip influences that too even with the least blinkered fans in a 50/50 you will go 51/49 to your guy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or 51/49 the other way if you're really determined to show that you're not biased.
That happens too.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
You may have said it before, yes
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
The use of the word "intent" is and can be misleading I believe.
How does one prove "intent"? Nobody but the player himself knows so it's by its nature purely subjective.
Did player A decide he wanted to break player's B leg? I would doubt it on every occasion where that was the outcome.
Did Player A want to hurt his opponent? Maybe, but to what degree? let him know he was there? A bit of a "take that" for an unfair challenge previously? Trying to stamp his authority in the game and get his team mates up for the fight? Could be any of those or none at all.
Player A puts Player B out of the game by a completely unintentional consequence of trying to get the ball? Who knows?
It's got to come down to whether the beaks believe it too forceful, dangerous to the extent it could cause severe injury, out of control or the like. fwiw I think Roofe's challenge is the second one there. He only intended to get the ball but his momentum and force could have easily resulted in a bad injury by endangerment.
But proving intent? Nah. Not for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK.
So proving intent is subjective - I completely agree.
I also dont really believe that players go out to intentionally injure other players too often. I think there are plenty who go out to deliberately 'leave a bit on' as you say. They go in with unnecessary force knowing they could leave a player with a bit of a dead leg maybe.
I think thats what someone like Porteous tries to do but I think he veers into the dangerous territory because he goes in with such unnecessary force so often that I personally think it is inevitable he will injure someone.
I think Morelos tries to 'leave a bit on' with his pathetic elbows and stamps,
Anyway the point that Roofes tackle 'could easily have resulted in a bad injury' is interesting. It is the type of thing we all say on here.
But if that is part of a criteria you are going to set that may result in someone being banned from his work for three weeks then you really need to get it right more often than not. And the best way to do that would be to take qualified medical advice ...and even then it would still be subjective.
That is getting into the realms of speculation and is as woolier as trying to prove intent for me.
The outcome of these charges are decided by three former referees. Are they really qualified to determine the extent of possible injury outcomes from a tackle?
As much as we like to talk about challenges that could do folk an injury I find it hard to see how that can be reliably set as part of the decision making criteria.
Just look at Murray Davidson - commentators and pundits going on about how Roofes challenge might rule him out a cup final. When it turns out his injury was the other leg and nothing to do with Roofe.
Speculating on potential injuries is about as useful as speculating on intent for me.
I also dont really believe that players go out to intentionally injure other players too often.
----------------
Keane
Suarez
McGregor
De Jong
Ramos
Pepe
Barton
Vinnie Jones
etc
etc
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment I don't even think we know who at the SFA is doing the process either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly 'the disciplinary team' at the SFA do it then pass to the CO who is now a floating member of an independent legal firm. As I understand!
However, if your defence is 'somebody else did it and never got cited' you're probably on a shaky peg from the start? But that's why the SFA ought to be doing a better PR effort in explaining why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there are multiple questions that have to be asked.
I am not sure Rangers will go to the SFA and say MacGregor unintentionally stamped on Kamara therefor Roofe should be allowed to unintentionally stamp on Davidson.
But in general terms it is a legitimate question to ask why the two are treated differently.
You talked about a 'process'.
I genuinely havent seen any evidence of a process which explains which games are analysed and which incidents - then the process for selecting the ones which result in charges.
I said it before - there seemed to be a pretty unanimous agreement that Devante Cole dodged a red card against celtic.
Which aspect of the 'process' resulted in no action being taken against him?
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment I don't even think we know who at the SFA is doing the process either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly 'the disciplinary team' at the SFA do it then pass to the CO who is now a floating member of an independent legal firm. As I understand!
However, if your defence is 'somebody else did it and never got cited' you're probably on a shaky peg from the start? But that's why the SFA ought to be doing a better PR effort in explaining why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there are multiple questions that have to be asked.
I am not sure Rangers will go to the SFA and say MacGregor unintentionally stamped on Kamara therefor Roofe should be allowed to unintentionally stamp on Davidson.
But in general terms it is a legitimate question to ask why the two are treated differently.
You talked about a 'process'.
I genuinely havent seen any evidence of a process which explains which games are analysed and which incidents - then the process for selecting the ones which result in charges.
I said it before - there seemed to be a pretty unanimous agreement that Devante Cole dodged a red card against celtic.
Which aspect of the 'process' resulted in no action being taken against him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the referee said he saw the whole incident..
As i said in my previous comment
Do they get to re-watch it to decide if they saw it all? If so it does get pretty close to re-refereeing games after the fact
comment by Joe-ny Stokes is my da (U15888)
posted 6 seconds ago
I also dont really believe that players go out to intentionally injure other players too often.
----------------
Keane
Suarez
McGregor
De Jong
Ramos
Pepe
Barton
Vinnie Jones
etc
etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight players spanning a 30+ year over multiple leagues in europe period is still not too many for me.
Did they go out every game to deliberately injure players?
I get some of them have admitted in autobiographies etc they have at times deliberately had issues with one or two players that they went ott on the retribution with.
But these guys played thousands of games between them.
Are you seriously saying it was a regular occurrence that these guys tried to deliberately injure opponents?
so there have been hundreds of games over that period where players went out and deliberately tried to injure opponents?
Nah. You have been watching your Vinny Jones football Hardmen DVD too religiously for me.
Yeah the whole saw the whole incident thing feels murky too.
Is it did you see this contact yes or no
Or is it did you see any violent conduct yes or no.
There was one last season where the ref said he had seen the incident
So was then asked if he saw violent conduct and he said now because he didn't seem it violent conduct.
The compliance officer did though so ruled the ref hadn't seen it and referred it.
I wonder if such things are still going on, unfortunately due to the complete lack of transparency nobody knows
comment by Joe-ny Stokes is my da (U15888)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment I don't even think we know who at the SFA is doing the process either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly 'the disciplinary team' at the SFA do it then pass to the CO who is now a floating member of an independent legal firm. As I understand!
However, if your defence is 'somebody else did it and never got cited' you're probably on a shaky peg from the start? But that's why the SFA ought to be doing a better PR effort in explaining why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there are multiple questions that have to be asked.
I am not sure Rangers will go to the SFA and say MacGregor unintentionally stamped on Kamara therefor Roofe should be allowed to unintentionally stamp on Davidson.
But in general terms it is a legitimate question to ask why the two are treated differently.
You talked about a 'process'.
I genuinely havent seen any evidence of a process which explains which games are analysed and which incidents - then the process for selecting the ones which result in charges.
I said it before - there seemed to be a pretty unanimous agreement that Devante Cole dodged a red card against celtic.
Which aspect of the 'process' resulted in no action being taken against him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the referee said he saw the whole incident..
As i said in my previous comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what did the referee book Roofe for in the first place?
He had a great view of it.
There was only one single motion and one moment where he caught the boy.
What else was there for him to see?
Did he just guess when he booked him?
How do we even know that the Roofe citation is as a result of the ref deciding he never saw the whole incident?
It might just be that the compliance officer takes a different view of it and the ex refs that review it might agree.
In which case we are simply into having a second go at refereeing the game.
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Joe-ny Stokes is my da (U15888)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment I don't even think we know who at the SFA is doing the process either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly 'the disciplinary team' at the SFA do it then pass to the CO who is now a floating member of an independent legal firm. As I understand!
However, if your defence is 'somebody else did it and never got cited' you're probably on a shaky peg from the start? But that's why the SFA ought to be doing a better PR effort in explaining why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there are multiple questions that have to be asked.
I am not sure Rangers will go to the SFA and say MacGregor unintentionally stamped on Kamara therefor Roofe should be allowed to unintentionally stamp on Davidson.
But in general terms it is a legitimate question to ask why the two are treated differently.
You talked about a 'process'.
I genuinely havent seen any evidence of a process which explains which games are analysed and which incidents - then the process for selecting the ones which result in charges.
I said it before - there seemed to be a pretty unanimous agreement that Devante Cole dodged a red card against celtic.
Which aspect of the 'process' resulted in no action being taken against him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the referee said he saw the whole incident..
As i said in my previous comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what did the referee book Roofe for in the first place?
He had a great view of it.
There was only one single motion and one moment where he caught the boy.
What else was there for him to see?
Did he just guess when he booked him?
How do we even know that the Roofe citation is as a result of the ref deciding he never saw the whole incident?
It might just be that the compliance officer takes a different view of it and the ex refs that review it might agree.
In which case we are simply into having a second go at refereeing the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you never saw an incident that you were sure was a yellow then when you actually seen it you realised it was a red
Sign in if you want to comment
Compliance Officer/Rules
Page 2 of 5
posted on 10/2/21
Is that an informed medical opinion?
Because he seemed fine when he got up and played on.
Is Davidson not injured and maybe out the final?
posted on 10/2/21
I heard Davidson injury is different leg to the one Roofe got. No idea if correct though.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 12 minutes ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in the game earlier in the season he did one just as bad if not worse to Roofe. Nowhere near the same outcry, cause he's not that type of player.
By that I think they mean white and Scottish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who exactly is it you are claiming is racist?
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 12 minutes ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in the game earlier in the season he did one just as bad if not worse to Roofe. Nowhere near the same outcry, cause he's not that type of player.
By that I think they mean white and Scottish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who exactly is it you are claiming is racist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when did i do that?
posted on 10/2/21
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 12 minutes ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in the game earlier in the season he did one just as bad if not worse to Roofe. Nowhere near the same outcry, cause he's not that type of player.
By that I think they mean white and Scottish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who exactly is it you are claiming is racist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when did i do that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that isn't your inference then you should explain.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Miller (U9310)
posted 6 minutes ago
I heard Davidson injury is different leg to the one Roofe got. No idea if correct though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
correct, he played on for 10 mins or so then injured his other leg when he tackled kent.
posted on 10/2/21
I've no issue with the process but the SFA do not help themselves with communication and fan engagement. They never have. If they would do a bit more of that then we maybe wouldn't be having this debate on here.
WTF does Fleming and his bloated department do in this direction? Zero as far as I can see? Follow the rules, put out minimal information on the charges brought and zero explanation of how it was arrived at leaving the issues to be debated on moonhowler radio shows.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 12 minutes ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in the game earlier in the season he did one just as bad if not worse to Roofe. Nowhere near the same outcry, cause he's not that type of player.
By that I think they mean white and Scottish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who exactly is it you are claiming is racist?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
when did i do that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that isn't your inference then you should explain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
familiarity bias isnt quite the same as racism but i will acknowledge is part of it if that makes you feel better.
You look at someone like you and say well i wouldn't do that so neither would he (more positive judgment) even the most woke, fairest, right on dude does that.
Where as the other person at best is judged fairly rather than positively
Its not only colour, accent alone (west vs east) will likely cause me to empathise with someone.
Not unlike the foreign players dive more rhetoric
posted on 10/2/21
would also say colour of strip influences that too even with the least blinkered fans in a 50/50 you will go 51/49 to your guy
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment I don't even think we know who at the SFA is doing the process either
posted on 10/2/21
I dont know if its been covered already but i keep seeing people saying, "Hes gave a yellow so hes clearly seen it"
The referee gets asked after the game if he saw the 'whole incident'. If he admits he doesnt, and gave what the thought was right it goes to the panel to clear it up.
That is why
posted on 10/2/21
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment I don't even think we know who at the SFA is doing the process either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly 'the disciplinary team' at the SFA do it then pass to the CO who is now a floating member of an independent legal firm. As I understand!
However, if your defence is 'somebody else did it and never got cited' you're probably on a shaky peg from the start? But that's why the SFA ought to be doing a better PR effort in explaining why.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 31 minutes ago
would also say colour of strip influences that too even with the least blinkered fans in a 50/50 you will go 51/49 to your guy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or 51/49 the other way if you're really determined to show that you're not biased.
That happens too.
posted on 10/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/21
You may have said it before, yes
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
The use of the word "intent" is and can be misleading I believe.
How does one prove "intent"? Nobody but the player himself knows so it's by its nature purely subjective.
Did player A decide he wanted to break player's B leg? I would doubt it on every occasion where that was the outcome.
Did Player A want to hurt his opponent? Maybe, but to what degree? let him know he was there? A bit of a "take that" for an unfair challenge previously? Trying to stamp his authority in the game and get his team mates up for the fight? Could be any of those or none at all.
Player A puts Player B out of the game by a completely unintentional consequence of trying to get the ball? Who knows?
It's got to come down to whether the beaks believe it too forceful, dangerous to the extent it could cause severe injury, out of control or the like. fwiw I think Roofe's challenge is the second one there. He only intended to get the ball but his momentum and force could have easily resulted in a bad injury by endangerment.
But proving intent? Nah. Not for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK.
So proving intent is subjective - I completely agree.
I also dont really believe that players go out to intentionally injure other players too often. I think there are plenty who go out to deliberately 'leave a bit on' as you say. They go in with unnecessary force knowing they could leave a player with a bit of a dead leg maybe.
I think thats what someone like Porteous tries to do but I think he veers into the dangerous territory because he goes in with such unnecessary force so often that I personally think it is inevitable he will injure someone.
I think Morelos tries to 'leave a bit on' with his pathetic elbows and stamps,
Anyway the point that Roofes tackle 'could easily have resulted in a bad injury' is interesting. It is the type of thing we all say on here.
But if that is part of a criteria you are going to set that may result in someone being banned from his work for three weeks then you really need to get it right more often than not. And the best way to do that would be to take qualified medical advice ...and even then it would still be subjective.
That is getting into the realms of speculation and is as woolier as trying to prove intent for me.
The outcome of these charges are decided by three former referees. Are they really qualified to determine the extent of possible injury outcomes from a tackle?
As much as we like to talk about challenges that could do folk an injury I find it hard to see how that can be reliably set as part of the decision making criteria.
Just look at Murray Davidson - commentators and pundits going on about how Roofes challenge might rule him out a cup final. When it turns out his injury was the other leg and nothing to do with Roofe.
Speculating on potential injuries is about as useful as speculating on intent for me.
posted on 10/2/21
I also dont really believe that players go out to intentionally injure other players too often.
----------------
Keane
Suarez
McGregor
De Jong
Ramos
Pepe
Barton
Vinnie Jones
etc
etc
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment I don't even think we know who at the SFA is doing the process either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly 'the disciplinary team' at the SFA do it then pass to the CO who is now a floating member of an independent legal firm. As I understand!
However, if your defence is 'somebody else did it and never got cited' you're probably on a shaky peg from the start? But that's why the SFA ought to be doing a better PR effort in explaining why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there are multiple questions that have to be asked.
I am not sure Rangers will go to the SFA and say MacGregor unintentionally stamped on Kamara therefor Roofe should be allowed to unintentionally stamp on Davidson.
But in general terms it is a legitimate question to ask why the two are treated differently.
You talked about a 'process'.
I genuinely havent seen any evidence of a process which explains which games are analysed and which incidents - then the process for selecting the ones which result in charges.
I said it before - there seemed to be a pretty unanimous agreement that Devante Cole dodged a red card against celtic.
Which aspect of the 'process' resulted in no action being taken against him?
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment I don't even think we know who at the SFA is doing the process either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly 'the disciplinary team' at the SFA do it then pass to the CO who is now a floating member of an independent legal firm. As I understand!
However, if your defence is 'somebody else did it and never got cited' you're probably on a shaky peg from the start? But that's why the SFA ought to be doing a better PR effort in explaining why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there are multiple questions that have to be asked.
I am not sure Rangers will go to the SFA and say MacGregor unintentionally stamped on Kamara therefor Roofe should be allowed to unintentionally stamp on Davidson.
But in general terms it is a legitimate question to ask why the two are treated differently.
You talked about a 'process'.
I genuinely havent seen any evidence of a process which explains which games are analysed and which incidents - then the process for selecting the ones which result in charges.
I said it before - there seemed to be a pretty unanimous agreement that Devante Cole dodged a red card against celtic.
Which aspect of the 'process' resulted in no action being taken against him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the referee said he saw the whole incident..
As i said in my previous comment
posted on 10/2/21
Do they get to re-watch it to decide if they saw it all? If so it does get pretty close to re-refereeing games after the fact
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Joe-ny Stokes is my da (U15888)
posted 6 seconds ago
I also dont really believe that players go out to intentionally injure other players too often.
----------------
Keane
Suarez
McGregor
De Jong
Ramos
Pepe
Barton
Vinnie Jones
etc
etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight players spanning a 30+ year over multiple leagues in europe period is still not too many for me.
Did they go out every game to deliberately injure players?
I get some of them have admitted in autobiographies etc they have at times deliberately had issues with one or two players that they went ott on the retribution with.
But these guys played thousands of games between them.
Are you seriously saying it was a regular occurrence that these guys tried to deliberately injure opponents?
so there have been hundreds of games over that period where players went out and deliberately tried to injure opponents?
Nah. You have been watching your Vinny Jones football Hardmen DVD too religiously for me.
posted on 10/2/21
Yeah the whole saw the whole incident thing feels murky too.
Is it did you see this contact yes or no
Or is it did you see any violent conduct yes or no.
There was one last season where the ref said he had seen the incident
So was then asked if he saw violent conduct and he said now because he didn't seem it violent conduct.
The compliance officer did though so ruled the ref hadn't seen it and referred it.
I wonder if such things are still going on, unfortunately due to the complete lack of transparency nobody knows
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Joe-ny Stokes is my da (U15888)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment I don't even think we know who at the SFA is doing the process either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly 'the disciplinary team' at the SFA do it then pass to the CO who is now a floating member of an independent legal firm. As I understand!
However, if your defence is 'somebody else did it and never got cited' you're probably on a shaky peg from the start? But that's why the SFA ought to be doing a better PR effort in explaining why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there are multiple questions that have to be asked.
I am not sure Rangers will go to the SFA and say MacGregor unintentionally stamped on Kamara therefor Roofe should be allowed to unintentionally stamp on Davidson.
But in general terms it is a legitimate question to ask why the two are treated differently.
You talked about a 'process'.
I genuinely havent seen any evidence of a process which explains which games are analysed and which incidents - then the process for selecting the ones which result in charges.
I said it before - there seemed to be a pretty unanimous agreement that Devante Cole dodged a red card against celtic.
Which aspect of the 'process' resulted in no action being taken against him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the referee said he saw the whole incident..
As i said in my previous comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what did the referee book Roofe for in the first place?
He had a great view of it.
There was only one single motion and one moment where he caught the boy.
What else was there for him to see?
Did he just guess when he booked him?
How do we even know that the Roofe citation is as a result of the ref deciding he never saw the whole incident?
It might just be that the compliance officer takes a different view of it and the ex refs that review it might agree.
In which case we are simply into having a second go at refereeing the game.
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Joe-ny Stokes is my da (U15888)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the process?
How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.
So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?
I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment I don't even think we know who at the SFA is doing the process either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly 'the disciplinary team' at the SFA do it then pass to the CO who is now a floating member of an independent legal firm. As I understand!
However, if your defence is 'somebody else did it and never got cited' you're probably on a shaky peg from the start? But that's why the SFA ought to be doing a better PR effort in explaining why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there are multiple questions that have to be asked.
I am not sure Rangers will go to the SFA and say MacGregor unintentionally stamped on Kamara therefor Roofe should be allowed to unintentionally stamp on Davidson.
But in general terms it is a legitimate question to ask why the two are treated differently.
You talked about a 'process'.
I genuinely havent seen any evidence of a process which explains which games are analysed and which incidents - then the process for selecting the ones which result in charges.
I said it before - there seemed to be a pretty unanimous agreement that Devante Cole dodged a red card against celtic.
Which aspect of the 'process' resulted in no action being taken against him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the referee said he saw the whole incident..
As i said in my previous comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what did the referee book Roofe for in the first place?
He had a great view of it.
There was only one single motion and one moment where he caught the boy.
What else was there for him to see?
Did he just guess when he booked him?
How do we even know that the Roofe citation is as a result of the ref deciding he never saw the whole incident?
It might just be that the compliance officer takes a different view of it and the ex refs that review it might agree.
In which case we are simply into having a second go at refereeing the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you never saw an incident that you were sure was a yellow then when you actually seen it you realised it was a red
Page 2 of 5