Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

Lennon only "accepted" his ban as it resulted in an additional ONE game ban. He DID NOT get a four game ban. Maybe he did in "theory", but his lawyer, who speaks for the public interest and not any of his clients, be it Celtic or Neil Lennon, obviously worked that one out. It's THAT story that should be getting all the media scrutiny. That would like be like Naismith getting a ban from this review, but because he is already missing the saints game, it effectively means he gets no punishment.

 

If you were a pro and were apparently given a red card AFTER full time, would you know that that means you have to leave the field of play immediately? even though there is no "play" on the field? the Diouf crime, although stupid and perhaps embarrassing given the result, was no worse than what Lennon himself did with his old mentor O' Neill the day the referee was TOO SCARED to show Lennon a second yellow and join Sutton and Thompson on red cards. There would have been a riot had that happened (not from us) and he could have easily had a couple of yellows at least from what I recall!

 

Argh! So easily wound up... (a bit like the trouble maker in all this!)

 

P.S. a player says something e.g. an Italian player, to get a rise out of you... is he red carded? banned? yellow carded? no. nothing. When the opposition responds with aggression, say a headbutt, what is his punishment? well in the famous example, if he had not been retiring, of course ZZ would have been banned on top of his straight red. Lennon is the one who reacted, no matter what McCoist said, it is Lennon and Lennon alone that is in the wrong and has to deal with the repercussions of his reaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Dutchy

It does not matter what McCoist said into lemons ear, there is no excuse for that type of reaction from a serial offender.

 

Simple as that, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is utterly stupid to assume guilt of someone by someone else's reaction - held back in school type of stupid.

 

McCoist probably just made a wee, sarcastic joke but Lennon has no sense of humour. But in the scheme of things, sometimes people just get the wrong end of the stick - that doesn't mean the comment maker has done anything wrong - there are plenty of other innocent explanations.

 

By using the same logic, Lennon should have received a further multiple bans for comments to Rangers players and staff - especially Diouf. The bigot says inflammatory comments all the time publicly - by extension he should be banned from the dugout sine die.

 

Having a wee dig at someone verbally is never a crime, reacting violently is. Or should we change the law that if you beat someone up, they get the same sentence as you if you can prove they said something annoying?

 

BTW I think the reason Lennon did not appeal may be that they had already worked out their little scheme to run the bans concurrently - if he appealed that would set back the second ban and so if they lost he would have had a real ban. With their machinations they had nothing to gain and something to lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to all be part of Celtic's strqtegy to undermine the SFA. By continually stoking the flames, either officially or otherwise, they are doing a good job of diverting their own fans attention from their failings. They haven't won the league for two seasons that have seen their rivals triumph despite continuing budget restrictions and so all we hear about are the song book of our fans and the incompetence of the SFA. Both are worthy of scrutiny but Celtic just blow all perspective out of the water; and their fans and favoured hacks just love stoking the flames.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Dutchy

If they had appealled the second 4 match ban, they ran the risk of it being 'put on hold' until the appeal was resolved and it would not have started at it's origianl concurrent date, thus, after losing the appeal, which they knew the would have, they depended on the mess that is the SFA rules, which worked better for them, in the long run.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

......................................

 

The players were behaving like THUGS in a Sunday League game.

 

The whole world was watching and they acted like thugs.

 

............................

 

Rangers have got off scot free. That's my opinion.

 

..............................

 

Why can't we simply have some consistency?

 

...................

Then there was the Duberry two-footed lunge that deserved a red card.

 

That was a potential leg-breaker, yet he escaped

 

Eh........Stokes "tackle" on Papac...............away and eat leeks ya biased fat tool

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.