Consistency.....

[Zappa 0]

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.

 

Aye, it would definitely make a farce of the Naismith ban mate, but I thought that was a farce anyway and two wrongs don't make a right. As I said to Craig, I agree that Stack should be punished and yes, it should probably be a two match ban, but it shouldn't be based on the poor decision to ban Naismith for two matches for something that happens in the penalty box on a very regular basis (players swinging an arm when they get held from behind etc). I know the Naismith incident wasn't in the penalty box, but that makes it even more farcical.

[ian1964 10,448]

Aye, it would definitely make a farce of the Naismith ban mate, but I thought that was a farce anyway and two wrongs don't make a right. As I said to Craig, I agree that Stack should be punished and yes, it should probably be a two match ban, but it shouldn't be based on the poor decision to ban Naismith for two matches for something that happens in the penalty box on a very regular basis (players swinging an arm when they get held from behind etc). I know the Naismith incident wasn't in the penalty box, but that makes it even more farcical.

 

I knew I wouldn't disagree with you too much:).

 

I agree Naismith should not have been given a two match ban,but he was,therefore I would expect every similar incident to be at least the same.

[metlika 0]

Will it be highlighted though? I doubt there would be many camera's round the stadium, not much mention of the incident apart from here. It would be brushed over but if I do get to see the incident in highlights, which I doubt then it will be brushed over and then there won't be any consistency, which Ally has called for.

[Zappa 0]

I knew I wouldn't disagree with you too much:).

 

I agree Naismith should not have been given a two match ban,but he was,therefore I would expect every similar incident to be at least the same.

 

It's all going to come down to varying definitions of 'similar incident' mate because players get smacked in the face on a regular basis, whether deliberate or not.

 

To me, the Naismith incident was blown WAY out of proportion and like I said initially, I think it's a great GIRUY that we've secured the six points without Naisy. He's arguably been our most influential player so far this season along with Davis and that lot will have been banking on us slipping up. We haven't though....

[metlika 0]

He also has previous, but punching fans

[craig 5,199]

Aye, it would definitely make a farce of the Naismith ban mate, but I thought that was a farce anyway and two wrongs don't make a right. As I said to Craig, I agree that Stack should be punished and yes, it should probably be a two match ban, but it shouldn't be based on the poor decision to ban Naismith for two matches for something that happens in the penalty box on a very regular basis (players swinging an arm when they get held from behind etc). I know the Naismith incident wasn't in the penalty box, but that makes it even more farcical.

 

Not deliberately having a go at you Zappa, but I just cant agree on some of this.

 

Try to ignore the Naismith incident. They did what they did, and he did swing an arm.

 

It most certainly isnt a case of two wrongs making a right. This new method of punishment was brought in and video evidence is to be used. That much we can agree on I assume. So, even if you completely ignore the Naismith incident (whether you believe the ban was warranted or not), the Stack incident is worthy of a ban. There is no other way of describing it, under the laws of the game, as violent conduct. He went to get up, looked around and punched Lafferty in the stomach. That is violent conduct under the laws of the game.

 

Ignoring the Naismith incident Stack still deserves a ban. Including the Naismith incident only makes it worse.... IF the Stack incident is ignored.

 

I am just disappointed that this wasnt a televised match because I would have been VERY interested to see the reaction of folks like Walker. The commentators when I was watching it (on rangers TV, so Lindsay Herron) played it down - but there is absolutely no way it was anything other than a deliberate punch.

 

One thing I also disagree with is the notion that because an incident happens outside the box makes it less of an issue. Sorry, but violent conduct is not something confined to the penalty box. Your last sentence suggests that because Naismith's incident was outside the box (I actually think it was inside... if memory serves me) then it is more of a farce. Sorry, but an elbow in the face is the same whether in the box or in the centre circle. Apologies if that isnt what you mean but it sure reads that way !

[craig 5,199]

I knew I wouldn't disagree with you too much:).

 

I agree Naismith should not have been given a two match ban,but he was,therefore I would expect every similar incident to be at least the same.

 

This is the crux of it Ian. Matters not whether you think Naismith should or shouldnt have been banned, the fact that it happened should mean allinstances caught on video should be dealt with in the same manner.

 

If Stack isnt brought before this new Officer then it is fairly clear that the rules arent being applied consistently. Stack's was more blatant than Naismith's IMO, and therefore should have a ban.

[craig 5,199]

Will it be highlighted though? I doubt there would be many camera's round the stadium, not much mention of the incident apart from here. It would be brushed over but if I do get to see the incident in highlights, which I doubt then it will be brushed over and then there won't be any consistency, which Ally has called for.

 

I watched the game onRangers TV so there is no doubt the club have the footage.

 

If I knew how to copy video I would do so and upload it for you all to see !

[Zappa 0]

Not deliberately having a go at you Zappa, but I just cant agree on some of this.

 

Try to ignore the Naismith incident. They did what they did, and he did swing an arm.

 

It most certainly isnt a case of two wrongs making a right. This new method of punishment was brought in and video evidence is to be used. That much we can agree on I assume. So, even if you completely ignore the Naismith incident (whether you believe the ban was warranted or not), the Stack incident is worthy of a ban. There is no other way of describing it, under the laws of the game, as violent conduct. He went to get up, looked around and punched Lafferty in the stomach. That is violent conduct under the laws of the game.

 

Ignoring the Naismith incident Stack still deserves a ban. Including the Naismith incident only makes it worse.... IF the Stack incident is ignored.

 

I am just disappointed that this wasnt a televised match because I would have been VERY interested to see the reaction of folks like Walker. The commentators when I was watching it (on rangers TV, so Lindsay Herron) played it down - but there is absolutely no way it was anything other than a deliberate punch.

 

One thing I also disagree with is the notion that because an incident happens outside the box makes it less of an issue. Sorry, but violent conduct is not something confined to the penalty box. Your last sentence suggests that because Naismith's incident was outside the box (I actually think it was inside... if memory serves me) then it is more of a farce. Sorry, but an elbow in the face is the same whether in the box or in the centre circle. Apologies if that isnt what you mean but it sure reads that way !

 

I've said more than once that the Stack incident is worthy of a ban, so there's actually no differnce in opinion between us on that other than me saying that I don't think the Naismith incident should be used as a precedent because it was a bad decision to give him a two game ban.

 

Regarding the penalty box, well, fouls are always scrutinised more if they are in the box. I'm not stating anything new or some kind of revelation.

[craig 5,199]

I've said more than once that the Stack incident is worthy of a ban, so there's actually no differnce in opinion between us on that other than me saying that I don't think the Naismith incident should be used as a precedent because it was a bad decision to give him a two game ban.

 

Regarding the penalty box, well, fouls are always scrutinised more if they are in the box. I'm not stating anything new or some kind of revelation.

 

Re 1st sentence. OK, lets see past the semantics (both of us). They set precedence in the Naismith incident - whether the ban was right OR wrong. As soon as they sdo that they have an obligation to act in all instances with video evidence. You may disagree, and that is fine, so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

With your 2nd sentence. There is, IMO, most definitely a difference between a foul being committed in the box and out the box vs a vilent conduct (punch or elbow) being committed in or out of the box. We all know that similar fouls will be treated differently whether committed in or out of the box - but violent conduct is, IMO, different to committing a foul.

 

Anyway, the whole point of my OP was that we now, just one week later, have another violent conduct incident... and it will be interesting to see if it is dealt with. It will also be interesting to see if RFC highlight this incident given that last week McCoist requested parity in dealing with these incidents.