Mohsni - The SFA have made an example out of me

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Moshni did nothing wrong, Lee Erwin got exactly what he deserved.

[limeburner 0]

Moshni did nothing wrong, Lee Erwin got exactly what he deserved.

Lee Erwin never even got half what he deserved.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

McCall booted his arse out the door. the club quickly washed their hands with Moshni. The guy has been left totally alone to deal with the problem.

 

Not a great moment in the short tenure of King and CO, they need to do much better in the future in defending their players even if technically Moshni wasn't our player.

 

Why should they defend the indefensible actions of a person who has proven time and again that he can't control himself.

 

He was our player at the time of the incident and Rangers could and should have taken disciplinary action against him IMO.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I was never a big fan of Mohsni (although I was pleased when he performed well: like the times when he reads the forward pass a drives himself forward to intercept; Or the times he got his head on a cross easing the pressure. I took great pleasure in watching that -- we don't have many that can read a pass like that. It was all too few and far between alas!), but I feel sorry for him here. It was not an unprovoked attack, and while I'm not condoning what he did, I feel he's being made a scapegoat. He's not a nutcase, he just has a temper with a low tolerance threshold. I doubt anyone, when pushed hard, would simply walk away. I condemn the degree of the response, but I do not condemn that he responded at all.

 

It's not just one incident though, it's the fact that he did it time after time at Southend and with us, that does indeed mark him out as a nut case to use your expression, I would put it somewhat differently.

Edited June 19, 2015 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

If he had responded to the push with a similar push he would have received the same punishment as Erwin. The degree of his punishment was for the degree of the retaliation added to his previous record of indiscipline. There really is no just reason to defend him.

 

Absolutely correct.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Erwin's push was worthy of nothing more than the yellow card that he received. Handbags like that are routinely seen in matches.

 

Mohsni, Ainsworth, Moore and Kerr all received automatic two match bans for violent conduct.

 

Mohsni received a further automatic two matches for his previous exploits.

 

The extra three matches Mohsni received was for the excessive nature of the violence.

 

All absolutely correct.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

On the street I can't really seem much wrong with Mohsni's actions which, if they were on the street, pretty much seemed reasonably proportionate - especially in Glasgow where you could expect a lot worse, I really don't see the logic in the only acceptable response being exactly the same as the original attack. In fact it makes it sound pretty childish and resulting in a pushy, pushy contest. It doesn't seem a great deterrent to stop a bully. Punching them in the chops seems far more effective and shows others you're not to be messed with. If someone kicks you is the only appropriate response to kick them back? I really don' t get it. What if they hit you with something?

 

The only thing you can hold against him is that he's a professional footballer and so should be able to overcome the normal response while in his place of work. However, you should not be subjected to unprovoked violence in your place of work, and employers and professional bodies have a duty of care to their employees to protect them. This includes severe punishment for violently attacking someone.

 

Retaliating when you're attacked is perfectly normal and natural, attacking someone for little reason is not. It is therefore inappropriate to play down the attack because it was not the most likely to cause bodily harm. The point is that it is incredibly likely to cause a fight and escalation, and is therefore a pretty severe crime to do so. What the bully is playing on is that he can provoke something and then laugh his own offence off as "just a wee push".

 

It's a bit like the IRA creating a small explosion but luckily for us, not harming anyone, and then the authorities laugh it off and treat it like it was nothing and let them off with it. Or is the appropriate response to blow something up in Ireland to make it even?

 

Reading some of the opinion, I find it easy to understand why bullying is so difficult to eradicate - people pick on the victims instead.

 

Mohsni is the victim of bullying? Come in Calscot you can do better than that.

 

The only thing you can hold against him is that he's a professional footballer and so should be able to overcome the normal response while in his place of work.

 

And that's exactly the point. His place of work is a football pitch NOT the street; so he is subject to a different standard in terms of setting an example and the Laws of the Game; but he should be subject to the laws of the land as well and should have been charged with at least a breach of the peace.

Edited June 19, 2015 by BrahimHemdani

[craig 5,195]

Seems to me that this decision completely vindicates Mohsni's actions: When there is no justice by a higher power you have to dish out justice yourself. If people can attack others without punishment how do you deter them from doing it? The only reason you can give for walking away is that the authorities will give you justice.

 

It shows the complete thing is a stitch up by the SFA who have no sense of morality whatsoever. Put these actions in order of severity with severest first:

 

1. An unprovoked attack on another person from behind

2. Being the victim of an unprovoked attacked and hitting back at the attacker

3. An unprovoked attack simultaneously by 4 or 5 people on 1 person

 

For me it's obviously 3, 1, 2 with 3 being extremely heinous and 2 being almost acceptable, but the SFA think it is 2, 3, 1 with 2 being the worst by a long way and 1 being perfectly acceptable. They also let off a few guys that perpetrated number 3 with no punishment whatsoever.

 

Really weird shit from the country that brought the world the Enlightenment.

 

I agree with much of what you say above but there is no way you can say that #3 was unprovoked. Mohsni's retaliation WAS provocation to Erwin's colleagues, absolutely. I am sure you will argue that this should have been a 1-on-1 square go - but that is hardly ever the case.

 

If you had dropped the word "unprovoked" from #3 and just called it a gang attack then I would agree. Suggesting that it was unprovoked I just cant accept.

 

The rest of it, absolutely.

[craig 5,195]

If he had responded to the push with a similar push he would have received the same punishment as Erwin. The degree of his punishment was for the degree of the retaliation added to his previous record of indiscipline. There really is no just reason to defend him.

 

You wont convince me that both would have seen the same punishment had the crimes been similar. The SFA don't work that way when dealing with Rangers. We have seen it often enough with the Compliance Officer to see the inconsistencies of application.

[craig 5,195]

Erwin's push was worthy of nothing more than the yellow card that he received. Handbags like that are routinely seen in matches.

 

Mohsni, Ainsworth, Moore and Kerr all received automatic two match bans for violent conduct.

 

Mohsni received a further automatic two matches for his previous exploits.

 

The extra three matches Mohsni received was for the excessive nature of the violence.

 

Sorry but Erwin's initial push in the back was violent conduct, he lifted his hands to an opponent who not only wasn't defending himself but was blind-sided by the attack. That deserved a red, and I don't really care what BH says about that either as a former official as his dislike of Mohsni clouds his judgement.