TLB Served Notice Of Complaint

[BrahimHemdani 1]

If your first sentence is true (that he cant question the ref at HT) then your 2nd sentence becomes irrelevant (not having a go at you, just in terms of the tit-for-tat that Lennon is engaging in).

 

Lennon admitted he asked the ref some stuff at HT. So if Clark is right then the ref is right to send him to the stand.

 

Lennon WILL get his comeuppance and when it happens, it wont have happened to a better person.

 

Funny how he is back-tracking on his expose of what McCoist said to him in the shame game last year - now saying he wont be revealing anything, he said it tongue-in-cheek. Neil Lennon is, simply a

 

Unless the rules have been changed in recent years (and they may well have been) a manager is not entitled to ask the ref anything at any time. What he is entitled to do (and this may well be only at full time because at half time would be seen as trying to influence decisions in the second half) is to ask the ref if he can come into his room to ask him a question.

 

It is up to the ref if (a) he admits him and the question and (b) if he chooses to answer.

 

It happened to me many moons ago in a reserve game at Kirkaldy when then Hibs manager Pat Stanton wanted to know why I had sent off one of his players. He came in the refs room asked the question, got my answer and then wanted to persist so he was politely asked to leave. The procedure was that one of the linesman would take notes of exactly what was said and by whom. It wouldn't suprise me at all if today they might record what was said, I would if it was me, better still video it.

[Guest Dutchy]

He also claims the ref said he would speak to him about 20 minutes after the game, but then changed his mind. Ex-ref Clark says it's entirely at the refs discretion, thus I would imagine, not something you can demand.

 

It's obvious to me, and hopefully the fans of other clubs that if he keeps acting so child like, he will be treated like the naughty wee boy he is.

[Juancornetto 1]

According to Lennon Wanyama's sending off "was borderline", but also says "you can't tackle like that". Which one is it Neil?

[ian1964 10,486]

NEIL LENNON has been challenged by the SFA to prove he didn't deserve his Old Firm sending off.

comment on this story 8 comments

Related Stories

 

REF JUSTICE ... Lenny reacts furiously to decision by whistler Calum Murray during Old Firm encounter

 

The Celtic boss says he has witnesses to support his claim he didn't swear at ref Calum Murray before he was banished from the dug-out for the second half of Sunday's Ibrox loss.

 

But SunSport understands Rangers staff have backed up the whistler's allegations that Lennon DID use bad language in the tunnel.

 

Hampden chiefs have now asked Lennon to respond to a charge of continued misconduct.

 

Yesterday's latest charge relates to THREE separate incidents.

 

Lennon is accused of spending the first 45 minutes directing a torrent of abuse at the fourth official Iain Brines which prevented him from doing his job properly.

 

He is then said to have ranted at the officials as the teams went up the tunnel and is alleged to have swore.

 

His subsequent reaction at being told of his punishment was also taken into account.

 

It's thought Brines was a key voice in the decision after Lennon persistently questioned Murray's calls.

 

Fourth officials are now involved in the decision-making process during a game — but Brines was forced to take his eye off the game to deal with Lennon instead.

 

Lennon is also understood to have been made aware of the public order issue after reacting wildly to a first-half flashpoint.

 

His complaining at the break was the last straw for Brines, who advised Murray to send him packing.

 

The Celts boss had claimed he had witnesses — including coach Alan Thompson and PR man Iain Jamieson who would back up his story that he did not use bad language.

 

But the SFA are believed to know of other people present who insist that he did.

 

It's thought Murray didn't inform Lennon immediately as he didn't want to interrupt his team-talk. Lennon then reacted at being told of his punishment before the second half started.

 

Murray was under no obligation to talk to Lennon at full-time and rejected a request from him. It's thought that was done to PROTECT Lennon in case he talked himself into more hot water.

 

SFA Compliance Officer Vincent Lunny last night issued a notice of complaint after Murray's match report arrived at Hampden yesterday.

 

Lennon will be given until Tuesday April 3 to respond. It's then likely he will be summoned to a hearing.

 

Lennon has already been asked to explain his comments after the League Cup Final defeat to Kilmarnock in which he claimed ref Willie Collum cost the Hoops the Treble by not awarding a last-minute spot-kick.

 

It's the second time in just over a year Brines has been involved in a bust-up with Lennon while fourth official.

 

He was the man who pulled Lennon and then Gers No2 Ally McCoist apart at the end of the Old Firm shame game in March 2011.

 

Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4221251/Prove-you-said-SFA-then-Neil.html#ixzz1qIdhP1aa

[biggordy 0]

The man's a serial offender and it's always the same thing.

Ever since he came to Scottish football, he's been at the centre of controversy after controversy both as player and manager.

He's caused deep unrest EVERYWHERE he goes which often leads to crowd trouble.

He is a cancer in Scottish football where the actual game is secondary. Poor Killie; their first big win in many years was overshadowed by him AGAIN and his tiresome referee rants.

Everyone from every team must be sick of the site of him.......kick him out now, our game is suffering as no-one wants to go him or his clone followers.

[Guest Dutchy]

I suppose all this is taking the edge of any praise we may be get due to playing his team off the park on Sunday.

[ian1964 10,486]

Neil Lennon’s lack of self-control does Celtic no favours

 

By STUART BATHGATE

Published on Tuesday 27 March 2012 03:45

 

Just a week after losing his cool following the League Cup final defeat, Sunday’s Old Firm game brought out the worst in Neil Lennon once again

 

ONE day, Celtic will lose a big match and their manager will accept that the better team won fair and square. That the result was produced by the other side playing better football, not by criminality, incompetence or any kind of malice aforethought on the part of any match official.

 

One day. But will that day come while Neil Lennon is still the man in charge, or will we have to wait for a new appointee before we see that kind of equanimity?

 

Right now, it is hard to see Lennon developing that ability. And unless he does, it is hard to see him making a long-term success of football management.

 

That is, or should be, the bottom line for the Celtic manager as he contemplates another disciplinary charge after another confrontation with a referee during a match which his team went on to lose. It’s not primarily for the sake of greater sportsmanship that he should learn to curb his wrath, even if that is what many of his critics rightly want him to display. It is for the sake of his club, for his performance in the job and for his longevity as a manager. Professional players quickly learn that they need to channel some emotions and suppress others if they are to make the most of their ability. It is even more incumbent on managers to do so, for without self-control they cannot hope to extract an optimal performance from their team. But, at present, self-indulgence, not self-control, appears uppermost in Lennon’s make-up.

 

His alleged misconduct in Sunday’s Old Firm game came just a week after he declared a decision of referee Willie Collum’s in the League Cup final was “criminal”. He faces an SFA hearing into both matters, and if either charge is upheld part of the penalty could be the activation of a £5,000 fine.

 

That fine was imposed just over a year ago, but suspended until the end of this season, for remarks made at the end of his team’s match at Tynecastle the previous November. At the time he was serving a four-match ban for his “excessive misconduct” during that match, which saw him sent to the stands. That same month, March 2011, he was given another four-match ban for his behaviour during that month’s Scottish Cup tie against Rangers.

 

A fine of such a size will be of little consequence to Lennon, and a touchline ban need not be a major inconvenience, especially if served during what remains of the league programme. But he should take note of the lengthening charge sheet and ask himself how he might reduce the likelihood of further rows with the authorities.

 

After last year’s Scottish Cup final, at the end of a far more toxic season than this one has been, Lennon was able to reflect calmly on his own performance as Celtic manager. Despite the unacceptable pressure on him – he had been attacked during one game, and been subjected to various other threats to his safety – he subjected his own actions to scrutiny, and said he would have to look at changing aspects of his own persona.

 

It was an insightful remark. Because, while some of the bile directed towards Lennon was clearly sectarian, many people with no such axe to grind had formed a deeply negative impression of him.

 

He is an intelligent man, and a decent man, yet a wide cross-section of the public saw him as ignorant and thuggish. He knew he should do something to try and change that misconception, not so much for his own sake, as for that of the club. For a time it worked. The most visible outward sign of the new Lennon was a slightly longer hairstyle, but for months he seemed calmer too. There was pressure of a different sort back then, as Celtic went through a shaky spell which saw speculation grow about his job. But he had the resilience and determination to withstand it then, and it is only more recently, at the business end of the season, that the strain has begun to show.

 

His criticism of Collum came as Celtic lost their first domestic match since the start of October. Kilmarnock won 1-0, their goalkeeper Cameron Bell was man of the match, but Lennon could only dwell on a late penalty claim by Anthony Stokes.

 

“For me it is a criminal decision and it has cost us the treble,” Lennon said of Collum’s refusal of that claim. The word “criminal” was particularly ill advised, but the whole statement was out of order.

 

Would Celtic really have won the treble had Collum pointed to the spot? Would the equaliser have been scored? Would Celtic have gone on to win the game? Lennon was right to regard the league as in the bag, but why was he presuming his team would win the Scottish Cup too?

 

His complaints about Sunday’s referee Calum Murray were similarly over the top. Leaving aside the debate about what he said at half-time and how politely or otherwise he said it, his depiction of a manager’s right to question a match official was a curious one.

 

“I am entitled, as a manager, to speak to a referee,” he said. “Who are they accountable to? Are they just allowed to waltz through games criticism-free?”

 

He knows full well that they are accountable to the SFA, and that they do not waltz through games criticism-free. There is a debate to be had about how much criticism of match officials should be allowed, but Lennon’s hyperbolic assessment is not a helpful contribution to it.

 

Cha Du-Ri’s sending-off “changed the game”, he claimed. The contact between Cha and Lee Wallace “absolutely minimal, and he [Murray] couldn’t wait to get the red card out.”

 

Rangers’ “second goal was offside,” he added. “Again the linesman was not doing his job. At their third goal, we’ve got caught chasing the game, then we’ve rallied brilliantly with nine men.” Others might think that Rangers were far the better side and were strolling to victory before two last-gasp goals from Celtic produced a 3-2 result. And maybe if Lennon watches the game again in a couple of weeks he will spot the shortcomings in his own team which were not immediately obvious to him.

 

Or maybe he will need a while longer to acquire the detachment he needs to come up with an accurate assessment of how good this current Celtic squad are, and what he must do to make them better still.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/neil-lennon-s-lack-of-self-control-does-celtic-no-favours-1-2197900

[Guest Dutchy]

It's an unfortunate thing to point out, but by his own admission, lemon is a sufferer of deep depression. Depression is sometimes a precursor to the more serious illness, shizophrenia.

 

Surely it's immediate help lemon needs, rather than the front man position of septic manager, and all the pressure that carries and the people at septic seem happy to let him carry on with.

 

To coin a phrase, it's criminal!

[calscot 0]

It's an interesting rule, which seems to suggest that "use of offensive, abusing and insulting language." is OK provided that it isn't repeated?

 

I think possibly the point is that in the heat of the moment you might put a swear word in without thinking. However, if you're repeatedly doing it, you should be able to notice this and modify your behaviour. As an incredibly highly paid professional it shouldn't be too difficult to zip it.

[calscot 0]

According to Lennon Wanyama's sending off "was borderline", but also says "you can't tackle like that". Which one is it Neil?

 

I think he saying it should have been a booking.