https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51599241

I’ve just watched it and it’s never a dive!

Good point Silver. Would love to see those questions answered.

Along with the Morelos yellow card announced three weeks after the match, the whole thing needs ripped out and started again.

Embarrassing. It's clearly not a dive.

It was as never a dive

I’m sure it happens every week mind you

Rewatching and still concluding it was seems strange
I watched on a moving train and new it wasn’t

That said not sure it’s a big deal in the scheme of things
Except for the guy missing a final

It’s a long op for an ICT v a colts team incident

comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 6 seconds ago
It’s a long op for an ICT v a colts team incident
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not scarfy.

comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 6 seconds ago
It’s a long op for an ICT v a colts team incident
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not scarfy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Is their anyone more scariy on here ?

Silver makes ever you seem reasonable

a blind man riding by on horseback could see its never a dive....................hopeless bast@rds.

comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 6 seconds ago
It’s a long op for an ICT v a colts team incident
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not scarfy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Is their anyone more scariy on here ?

Silver makes ever you seem reasonable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably two of the least scarfy posters on the site.

comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 26 minutes ago
It’s a long op for an ICT v a colts team incident
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by New Magnum. The Mild Drover (U16400)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 6 seconds ago
It’s a long op for an ICT v a colts team incident
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not scarfy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Is their anyone more scariy on here ?

Silver makes ever you seem reasonable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably two of the least scarfy posters on the site.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most scarfy posters are so scarfy they are not even aware of their scarfyness

Maybe the colt in question could have come out and said there was contact and helped his fellow professional? Nothing lost for him as his team was beaten anyway.

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 27 seconds ago
Maybe the colt in question could have come out and said there was contact and helped his fellow professional? Nothing lost for him as his team was beaten anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah...good human character to help a fellow man with no reward for self... That's why they make books and movies about folk like that, cos it's so rare.

Ego usually snuffs out altruism

I wonder were this original decision not construed to be in favour of one particular colts team would it have generated such publicity and a dedicated op

The clear retort is it’s about the bigger picture
It it only seems to be about the bigger picture when the impact is the n favour or against a particular scarf colour

I spend more than 2500 quid a year watching senior football take in around 40 games
I’m fairly casual compared to others
I see first hand errors for and against all teams

I could better do this sitting in watching sky or bt

The admin of our game is amateur and they get it wrong at times ( just opinion mind I’m not a tv expert)

But such publicity for an ICT player being done for some simulation

Geeze a break we see worse every week
22 cheats are hard to spot all the time

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
Maybe the colt in question could have come out and said there was contact and helped his fellow professional? Nothing lost for him as his team was beaten anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He has like all players been trained to cheat

Boot t out of play get in the linensmans fsce clsiming you didn’t

Oh my days.

Only a bitter scarify would type such a long retort to an innocent OP seeing skullduggery where there is none.

Even your ‘decent chaps’ on FF are aligned with me.

Or maybe you’re on the sauce again?

Love island indeed.

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
Oh my days.

Only a bitter scarify would type such a long retort to an innocent OP seeing skullduggery where there is none.

Even your ‘decent chaps’ on FF are aligned with me.

Or maybe you’re on the sauce again?

Love island indeed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m clearly agreeing with you on the error and pointing out the actual motive of highlighting

We only care when appropriately scarfy

Doesn’t mean the decision and aftermath is less wrong

Pair eh scarfy bastirts

comment by Zico 😎 (U21900)
posted 13 seconds ago
Pair eh scarfy bastirts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed

I've watched the video and as you say it's never a dive in a million years

What was the tribunal decision
What was the overturn?

Someone's been thrown under the bus because it was so obviously not a dive.

comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 7 hours, 50 minutes ago
I've watched the video and as you say it's never a dive in a million years

What was the tribunal decision
What was the overturn?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s in the link. They supported the ref 2-1.

One of the 3 has now claimed they didn’t review all the evidence so they’ve been sacked and the decision deemed null and void with another tribunal to sit.

Stinks.

On the one hand a tiny bit of credit to someone at the SFA for realising it was wrong and finding what was probably the only way out of the mess. Does anyone believe it is the truth? Doubtful. Another Dougie, Dougie gate.

The whole appeal thing has always been shrouded in mystery with some of the most baffling decisions and contradictions we’ve seen in many years.

And why the need for all 3 to agree before a decision is made to overture something? Why not a simple majority?

Ridiculous. And this revelation only makes the whole set up appear to be completely unfit for purpose.

I'm not buying the 'didn't look at the evidence' angle for one minute.
I have no hesitation in saying that it's a lie...plain and simple.
The only evidence required is the video. Are we to believe that he/she qdidn't watch the video?
And what about the clown who did watch and and still thought it was a dive.