Gazza_8 233 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 The Clyde 1 guy at the game today was saying that Lafferty was rolling about the ground like he usually does. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Craig, from my point of view I didn't think the Naismith incident actually deserved a two match ban for violent conduct. To me, that type of incident really only deserves a one match ban at the most, so I'm looking at it pragmatically and saying that Naisy has served the (in my opinion unjust) ban and we've picked up our six points. Regarding your 'but what if' type Gary Pooper example; we shouldn't need that mob to lose their main striker to a ban in order for us to win the title. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 1, 2011 Author Share Posted October 1, 2011 The Clyde 1 guy at the game today was saying that Lafferty was rolling about the ground like he usually does. What does that have to do with getting punched ? He tried to con a penalty once from what I recall, but it was a congested area and he didnt really go looking for it. The Clyde 1 guy is talking pish IMO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 1, 2011 Author Share Posted October 1, 2011 Craig, from my point of view I didn't think the Naismith incident actually deserved a two match ban for violent conduct. To me, that type of incident really only deserves a one match ban at the most, so I'm looking at it pragmatically and saying that Naisy has served the (in my opinion unjust) ban and we've picked up our six points. Regarding your 'but what if' type Gary Pooper example; we shouldn't need that mob to lose their main striker to a ban in order for us to win the title. you are missing the point. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 you are missing the point. Only from your point of view. I regard the Naismith ban as a poor decision and just as with poor refereeing decisions that can seriously impact the title race, I don't have any desire for it to be repeated or used as a benchmark. For example, if we get a penalty wrongly awarded against us or a goal wrongly chopped off for offside (which has already happened), I don't expect other teams to get the same unfair treatment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 1, 2011 Author Share Posted October 1, 2011 You still miss the point. The decision in Naismith's case is irrelevant to today's. Whilst I mentioned the Naismith case today's was, IMO, far more blatant. Stack quite clearly turns around and punches Lafferty in the stomach. A case can be made for Naismith (and I was not, and am not, convinced he meant it). But there is absolutely no doubt that stack meant it - none whatsoever. So you can say that Naismith's ban was unfair, but I will re-iterate, that has absolutely no relevance to whether Stack's was. The rules should be applied evenly, justly and fairly. If Stack gets off with this (it doesnt benefit us either way, by the way) then it is inconsistent application and the new method of dealing with these matters will, IMO, lose credibility. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) So you can say that Naismith's ban was unfair, but I will re-iterate, that has absolutely no relevance to whether Stack's was. Mate, your original post was "So given Graham Stack just punched Lafferty in the stomach do we think we will see a 2 match ban for Stack for violent conduct as per thevprecedence set with Naismith last week ?". What I'm saying is that I don't think Naismith's ban should be used as a benchmark or precedent. I agree that the rules need to be applied fairly and evenly, but a poor decision shouldn't be used as a precedent. I do of course agree that Stack should be punished for punching Lafferty. Edited October 1, 2011 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Well, if you want the official channel, you write in to Radio Clyde. They vet the complaint, then send it on to BBC Scotland. They then vet the complaint, and, in conjunction with the rest of the media, send a complaint about gross sectarian behaviour on our part to every pussy-footed organisation that they can think of - or have dreamt up. Obviously including the SPL and the SFA. I'm sure Lafferty's heading for a 10 match ban for diving with sectarian intent and being punched with a religiously motivated intention of acceptance. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 For once am going to take the moral high ground here. No Naisy 6 points another failed plan from the mhanky mob WATP. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,448 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 If we had dropped points while Naisy was suspended I'd be intent on making an issue of the Stack incident and any others, but since we got our 6 points without Naisy I think I'm actually content to just say GIRUY to the bitter mope cheats who made a big deal of the Naisy incident and campaigned for his 2-match ban. We got our 6 points, so they can stick that in their pipe and smoke it. It's not often I disagree with you Zappa but I do this time. I haven't yet seen that incident but if he has done that then if he doesn't receive a two match ban then it is obvious that this banning by video,Naismith,is only for Rangers players which of course is totaly wrong and makes a farce out of the Naismith ban. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.