BAN MCGEEDY The DIVER

[Super_Ally 0]

Well done. I'd suggest that you go back to him, and say

 

"thank you for that. So just to clarify, you will comment on an act of simulation whereby the referee does not pick it up, and hence there is an advantage to that team, but you will not comment on act where the referee does not act?

 

So therefore your comments are actually in regards to the referee's failues, rather than the act itself?

 

Is it also correct in saying that therefore the player's punishment also depends on the adequecy of the referee? It appears that an action caught by a referee will result in a yellow card, whereas one that isn't results in a 2 game ban.

 

I'm also surprised at you comment that you "will not therefore be commenting on any incidents occurring in the Scottish league" given that you saw fit to comment on the Kyle Lafferty incident. There appears to be an inconsistency here."

 

I had thought about the first point you made but could not quite think how best to word it so thanks for that.

 

Dunno how I didn't pick up on the Lafferty point! Double standards surely. We'd be incredibly paranoid if a former Celtic player made these same comments in Smith's position.

 

Seems to me, as Frankie, said he's hiding behind the "laws". Though that does not seem to get in th way at other times?

[craig 5,199]

McGeady misses one game, as he should. What happens to Eduardo is not something the SFA can determine but they CAN follow the example set by UEFA.

 

I picked up on the Lafferty point too - he spoke out against Lafferty BEFORE the case was heard which, according to Smith himself, would prejudice the case (not that it made a difference as Lafferty was clearly cheating) but they have to act consistently. Seems to me that although Smith is a bright guy he is going to make himself look rather foolish, and all to simply appease the Tims.

 

And by the way, I dont mind him hiding behind the laws so long as he does so consistently. But the Lafferty incident vs this incident suggests he is not being consistent at all.

[Super_Ally 0]

Dear Mr Smith,

 

Thanks again for a prompt response. You no doubt have more important issues to attend to in your position so I appreciate the time taken to reply.

 

I am little confused that you were able to comment on Lafferty and not the Celtic dives this weekend. With the Eduardo situation I understand you were sticking up for a member club in a competition where disciplinary matters are not decided by the SFA and hence you were not restricted by issues of prejudicing a case.

 

However, in the present issue, as it has been dealt with and their is no specific disciplianry issue to deal wth you could not accused of prejudicing said case. Therefore your own admirable campaign to stamp out cheating would be strengthened if you were to speak out against the cheating Celtic players this weeked. Otherwise you may find your and the SFA's credibility called into question in the English media. I hope you realise in that last sentence I am merely trying to outline how the current situation would look to neutral and impartial spectators and that failure to condemn diving from Celtic players in their very next game after they complained about Eduardo would look extremely bizarre.

 

I also find it strange that when a player is found to be trying to deceive the referee and the referee spots this, the player is booked. However, if the referee misses the incident or is deceived the player is retrospectively punished with a two game ban. Why is the competency of the referee the deciding factor in the level of punishment given to a player? Is this something you will be looking to address?

 

Regards

 

Super_Ally

 

Edit: Noticed another error I made in editing my email. I really should proof-read these shouldn't I?

Edited August 31, 2009 by Super_Ally

[craig 5,199]

Dunno why I posted this here. Should I move these posts to the other thread so the rest of the board can see where Smith stands on this?

 

Edit: Noticed another error I made in editing my email. I really should proof-read these shouldn't I?

 

1. you should proof read. Plenty of typos there - been drinking ? :fish:

2. I would just post it to the general board - nothing to hide !

[Super_Ally 0]

1. Yes. Last night though. Suffering today.

[Super_Ally 0]

Dear Super_Ally

 

I was at a game on Saturday and saw some cheating but I haven't talked about it.Should I go on every week talking about incidents I witness. Is it only if it's Celtic I should say something. Then next week I need to balance it up by talking about Rangers players. Then I need to speak about other teams. Where would it stop?

 

I don't care what the English media make of my stance on this. I am complying with legislative procedures.

 

The punishment for simulation (all over the world) is a yellow card. It's been unsuccessful. Where the referee has been deceived (clear cut deception) and the action has gained his team an advantage then the matter will be reviewed and a possible sanction administered. Can I be any clearer on this process?

 

Gordon Smith

 

Dear Mr Smith,

 

Thanks for trying to help me understand your views and the stances taken on issues within our game.

 

You could perhaps be a little clearer about something though. You state you cannot speak out about situations yet my recollection was that you did speak out about Lafferty and that this was prior to his case being reviewed. There appears to be some discrepancy between that and what you have told me in these emails.

 

Obviously it is not possible, realistic or perhaps even helpful to speak out on every issue occuring in our game. However, you have seen fit to speak out about issues before and with the fact that these dives have occured a mere number of days after Celtic and the Scottish media initiating a concerted effort to get Eduardo charged it would suggest a level of hypocrisy and no real campaign to have cheating removed from our game.

 

Regards

 

Super_Ally

 

Why was his last response reminiscent of a biased journo? "We'll discuss issues at length unless it's Celtic who are in the wrong". Decided to try and avoid the bait of getting into an Old Firm tit for tat argument, at least I tried.

[Gazza_8 233]

I was at a game on Saturday and saw some cheating but I haven't talked about it.Should I go on every week talking about incidents I witness. Is it only if it's Celtic I should say something. Then next week I need to balance it up by talking about Rangers players. Then I need to speak about other teams. Where would it stop?

 

Gordo should go on a basic English puntuation course. Since when do you finish a question off with a full stop? Also, leave a space between a punctuation mark and the start of a new sentence. It makes it easier to read.

 

SA, you should leave that as a C&P in your next email to big Gordon.

[Jon 0]

Good stuff on taking the time and effort with the e-mails. Shame it's still a cop out and he is hiding behind the 'law'

[craig 5,199]

Where he asks "is it only Celtic I should comment on" you should say :

 

"No, it isnt only Celtic you should comment about. As a Rangers fan I WELCOMED your comments about Kyle Lafferty's blatant cheating. However, those comments being prior to that case being heard by the disciplinary committee meant that, in accordance with one of your prior emails to me, meant that you prejudiced that case. Was that erroneous on your part ? At the end of the day all I expect is impartialism and consistency and it would appear that you are lacking both in the two instances provided. As you know only too well yourself, the Old Firm are constantly being looked at in conjunction with each other and, as such, comparisons are inevitable which is why the recent events at Easter Road and Lafferty have been highlighted for comparative action.

 

So the question remains ? Why was it acceptable that you prejudiced Lafferty's case but are unwilling to do so in McGeady's ? I understand two wrongs dont make a right so if you are refusing to chastise Mcgeady for his blatant diving should you not therefore issue an apology to Kyle Lafferty for prejudicing his case ?"

 

I doubt you will get many more responses from Smith on this S_A as he seems to be getting a bit more frustrated with you - so make your next response a barnstormer !

[Super_Ally 0]

Aye, his frustration and annoyance at me was very evident in the last one.

 

I had been trying not to be too offensive as well to ensure a response. Think he's had enough though. No response as of yet. That might be it.