der Berliner 3,290 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) ... is IMHO another penalty decision and this has not come under scrutiny. The keeper jumps unto the striker with the ball there to be won. It is a clear foul in everyone's book and in the area with the ball close by, it's a penalty. Simples. The CO makes an utter fool of himself if he charges Meekings here, but lets e.g Guidetti go for a blatant dive that essentially lead Hearts being reduced by a man, conceeding a penalty and thus went out of the cup. Likewise, he did not act when the Dumbarton player jumped into McCulloch (for a change) at the weekend, Thompson completely ignoring it standing a few yards away ... when McCulloch was sent off for similar stuff 10 days earlier. IMHO, ICT should fight this all the way. The good thing remains, no matter what: the Scum's out! Edited April 21, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I agree it's argumentative but if Zaluska is not charged that doesn't mean Meekings is wrongly charged; I'm sure that deep down you would agree with that. Got a look at that incident on youtube. I'm not convinced that the keeper deliberately punches the Inverness player on the back of the head, what would be the point in that anyway. There's another big difference in the two incidents, which is of more relevance, however. The ref appears to have a clear view of the Zaluska incident and obviously decides the clash is accidental, so the Compliance Officer can't act in that case. I disagree here. My argument is about the inconsistency of the compliance officer, not the relative merits of each incident. I think that the compliance officer should issue a notice of complaint to each of the players or none at all. If one is actionable then so is the other. If one is a penalty then so is the other ( not to even things out, but it is so ). That is what I think ICT as a club should complain about. I would argue that the referee and his backline assistant had a clear view of each incident, which would mean from the point of relevancy there is no difference. In the Meekin's incident the referee has obviously thought that it was ball to hand, and in the Zaluska incident he must have thought it was accidental. When I played football, I was a goalkeeper. One way to establish your authority in the 18 yard box was to let your opponents know that there will be a price to be paid for challenging you in your own 18 yard box. You may decide that there was no case to answer but I do not. Maybe these subtle differences don't exist in today's game ( aye right). In the Meekin's incident, if you look closely you will see that Meekin's knees are bent as he tries to head the ball. I would ask you if you could attempt to header the ball in such a position as you turn your body, without throwing your arms out to the side to balance yourself from going down. I thought that was what was happening in the very short time it took for the ball to get from Griffith's head to Meekin's arm. I could of course be mistaken, maybe Meekin's thought processes - which you maintain are a deliberate attempt to stop the ball from getting by him and in to the net - are quicker than his instincts to retain his balance. I guess the compliance officer is endowed with the powers to decide these things, eh? Incidentally, having watched the whole game twice now, I have noted at least six incidences that the compliance officer could issue a notice of complaint on. Not the least of which is a tackle by Brown which I woud have sent him off for. However, these incidences are what keep football fans chirping about the game all day long. There is no doubt in my mind that CFC should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. Why have referees and a controlling body for the game if you are not willing to live with their decisions. CFC, gi'e's peace and get on with it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,457 Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 This is the first time a hand ball has been punished after the game! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) I disagree here. My argument is about the inconsistency of the compliance officer, not the relative merits of each incident. I think that the compliance officer should issue a notice of complaint to each of the players or none at all. If one is actionable then so is the other. If one is a penalty then so is the other ( not to even things out, but it is so ). That is what I think ICT as a club should complain about.I would argue that the referee and his backline assistant had a clear view of each incident, which would mean from the point of relevancy there is no difference. In the Meekin's incident the referee has obviously thought that it was ball to hand, and in the Zaluska incident he must have thought it was accidental. When I played football, I was a goalkeeper. One way to establish your authority in the 18 yard box was to let your opponents know that there will be a price to be paid for challenging you in your own 18 yard box. You may decide that there was no case to answer but I do not. Maybe these subtle differences don't exist in today's game ( aye right). In the Meekin's incident, if you look closely you will see that Meekin's knees are bent as he tries to head the ball. I would ask you if you could attempt to header the ball in such a position as you turn your body, without throwing your arms out to the side to balance yourself from going down. I thought that was what was happening in the very short time it took for the ball to get from Griffith's head to Meekin's arm. I could of course be mistaken, maybe Meekin's thought processes - which you maintain are a deliberate attempt to stop the ball from getting by him and in to the net - are quicker than his instincts to retain his balance. I guess the compliance officer is endowed with the powers to decide these things, eh? Incidentally, having watched the whole game twice now, I have noted at least six incidences that the compliance officer could issue a notice of complaint on. Not the least of which is a tackle by Brown which I woud have sent him off for. However, these incidences are what keep football fans chirping about the game all day long. There is no doubt in my mind that CFC should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. Why have referees and a controlling body for the game if you are not willing to live with their decisions. CFC, gi'e's peace and get on with it. I always felt that not having been a player hampered me as a referee, so I take all you say onboard. I would contend however that the REASON why Meekin put his arms up is irrelevant, so long as the action was deliberate; it is deliberate handball and hence a penalty. Goalkeepers tend to get a lot of leeway, perhaps too much. Aside from that I won't rehearse the arguments again. I do think that you make a very telling point at the end. If you appeal a verdict in law or in football you leave yourself open to the sentence being increased. Likewise if you ask for an explanation where none is possible, or at least none that you do not know already; then you should be sanctioned for bringing the game into disrepute. But we both know that there is absolutely know way that that will happen. I would argue that Celtic's letter is much more disrespctful than the player caught shagging in the dugout. Edited April 21, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) This is the first time a hand ball has been punished after the game! Not quite, Ian. The referee's decision is final as to the facts on the day. So I would argue that the handball was not punished after the game but the player's action will be. Semantics, perhaps. Edited April 21, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,457 Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 Not quite, Ian. The referee's decision is final as to the facts on the day. So I would argue that the handball was not punished after the game but the player's action will be. Semantics, perhaps. Well Lunny was on the radio earlier tonight saying that it was? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Well Lunny was on the radio earlier tonight saying that it was? And who am I to argue with him 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I would argue that Celtic's letter is much more disrespctful than the player caught shagging in the dugout. Well, at least we can empathise with the guy in the dugout. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 if your hand is in a not natural position then it is classed as deliberate. What a natural position is is another argument. I won't be held accountable for the sfa butchering the English language. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I won't be held accountable for the sfa butchering the English language. You can't lay that one at the feet of the SFA, GS, they don't write the Laws of the Game! No pun or even irony intended on your part, of course. 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.