Guest Dutchy Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 It's no coincidence to me that Rangers FC are the first victims of this rule/law being contested. Put simply, the SFA are now a corrupt, pussy footing around poor wee septic oragnization. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,466 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 John Sutton diving ?. Highlights - Hearts 1-2 St Johnstone http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/16025156.stm 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I'll say it again, a player puts his hand on an opposition players arm doesn't merit that player to go down. He just places it on, doesn't grab it or drag it back. An adult should NOT go down when that's the contact made regardless if he's running with the ball or not. I don't fall over when that happens to me playing 5s or 7s. Aluko dived. I just wish the SFA would crack down on it all, every week. They won't though! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 He might be in trouble for that comment? Almost certainly and Ally too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 (edited) I'll say it again, a player puts his hand on an opposition players arm doesn't merit that player to go down. He just places it on, doesn't grab it or drag it back. An adult should NOT go down when that's the contact made regardless if he's running with the ball or not. I don't fall over when that happens to me playing 5s or 7s. Aluko dived. I just wish the SFA would crack down on it all, every week. They won't though! I agree with this comment 100%. The referee made a mistake. Aluko took off when Hardie was at least a step away from him. He (Aluko) made contact with Hardie's foot and not the other way around. As I saw it Hardie tried to stop himself and I think that's when his hand made contact with Aluko's arm. But as I have said before the mere fact of the hand to arm contact does not make it a foul, it is only a foul if Hardie pushes or holds Aluko. Obviously most people on here think that Aluko was pushed or held and that caused him to go down. I disagree, he was already on the way down at that point. IMHO it was a dive and the real argument is whether it was worth the equivalent of a yellow card or a 2 match ban. Perhaps the reason that it is the latter is that he successfully conned the ref, if he hadn't the yellow card suffices. Edited December 8, 2011 by BrahimHemdani typo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gers4Life 0 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Really disappointed with the decision but tbh not surprised that we (Rangers FC ) are being used as the scape goat yet again! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Almost certainly and Ally too. He cant possibly be in trouble for his comment (assuming that you are talking about Bocanegra) because his statement is vague enough that the SFA would have to ASSUME it was about their decisions. And assumption they simply cannot legislate against. If they do then the corruption and anti-Rangers bias would be complete for me. McCoist they probably will haul over the coals and it just shows what a shambles our football legislature is when the manager of a club points out legitimate inconsistencies and he will be cautioned and/or fined over it. Regardless of whether anyone thinks Aluko dived or not, it is the inconsistency which is key here. There have been NUMEROUS incidents this year and only 3 have been dealt with by the panel (AFAIK). Two of those were for EXACTLY the same offence, being simulation. Only one had the ban upheld and that was against a Rangers player. Of the numerous others not brought to the panel we had one very, very clear instance whereby a Rangers player was PUNCHED in the stomach which made THAT incident very similar to the Naismith one, it was violent conduct. Yet the panel didnt feel it necessary for Graham Stack to have to go before the panel. If there are any Rangers fans in doubt as to the integrity of this panel then all of the instances that HAVE been brought to their attention as well as the ones that havent should be proof positive that the SFA is nothing more than a shambolic organisation that continues to make a mockery of the game in our country. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I agree with this comment 100%. The referee made a mistake. Aluko took off when Hardie was at least a step away from him. He (Aluko) made contact with Hardie's foot and not the other way around. As I saw it Hardie tried to stop himself and I think that's when his hand made contact with Aluko's arm. But as I have said before the mere fact of the hand to arm contact does not make it a foul, it is only a foul if Hardie pushes or holds Aluko. Obviously most people on here think that Aluko was pushed or held and that caused him to go down. I disagree, he was already on the way down at that point. IMHO it was a dive and the real argument is whether it was worth the equivalent of a yellow card or a 2 match ban. Perhaps the reason that it is the latter is that he successfully conned the ref, if he hadn't the yellow card suffices. Whether it was a foul or not is almost irrelevant in terms of this panel's decision. This was about a charge of simulation. That is nothing to do with a foul being committed. I cant remember to be honest but did Aluko CLAIM for the penalty ? He probably did, but if he didnt then it isnt simulation as he isnt trying to con the ref. I personally dont have an issue with him being found guilty of simulation (looked very soft to me when I saw it live) but I most definitely DO have an issue with a) the fact that a 2 match ban can be the ultimate result of what is a yellow card offence (stupidity of the highest order) and b) the fact that this legislation is being so very inconsistently applied. The ineptitude of the SFA is confound and complete. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Whether it was a foul or not is almost irrelevant in terms of this panel's decision. This was about a charge of simulation. That is nothing to do with a foul being committed. I cant remember to be honest but did Aluko CLAIM for the penalty ? He probably did, but if he didnt then it isnt simulation as he isnt trying to con the ref. I can't agree with that. If it was not a foul, then why did Aluko fall to the ground? The only reason that springs to mind is to try to win a penalty kick. "The particular offence, SFA rule 202 , is deceiving the referee into making a mistake which leads to a penalty or a goal." (Daily Record) So if you concede that no foul was committed and yet Aluko fell to the ground, he has attempted to deceive the referee into awarding a penalty kick. The fact that he did not, so far as I saw, appeal, makes no difference; the dive itself was an attempt to deceive the referee. Apparently, the reason why a 2 match ban is considered appropriate is exactly because he DID deceive the referee and Dunfermline (in this instance) suffered as a result. That reasoning is obviously arguable but I respectfully submit that the guilty verdict is not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I can't agree with that. If it was not a foul, then why did Aluko fall to the ground? The only reason that springs to mind is to try to win a penalty kick. "The particular offence, SFA rule 202 , is deceiving the referee into making a mistake which leads to a penalty or a goal." (Daily Record) So if you concede that no foul was committed and yet Aluko fell to the ground, he has attempted to deceive the referee into awarding a penalty kick. The fact that he did not, so far as I saw, appeal, makes no difference; the dive itself was an attempt to deceive the referee. Apparently, the reason why a 2 match ban is considered appropriate is exactly because he DID deceive the referee and Dunfermline (in this instance) suffered as a result. That reasoning is obviously arguable but I respectfully submit that the guilty verdict is not. You don't need a motive to fall, gravity is a law of physics. With the way he was moving, even a slight touch could cause him to lose balance, or cause him to adjust to try to counteract falling, which in turn may cause him to fall. Momentum can be a bitch. When Aluko went to ground he didn't appeal for a penalty & the Dunfermline player didn't react to the referee's decision. The former suggests to me that there was not enough contact to merit feigning a foul, the latter suggests to me that there was contact, even if minimal. I agree with Craig, I see no reason why Aluko should be punished for simulation. It may not have been a penalty, but I do not think he tried to dupe the ref at all. 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.