BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Retaliation.. He was in a stadium, with 22 guys on the pitch, subs, physios, coaches, stewards, police press and fans. if he felt he had been assaulted then he should of made a complaint. If he's on the street and its just him and his mates, then he can go right ahead and defend himself or subdue his attacker or whatever! Instead he went mental. And lets be honest Moshni had a bit of form himself with the occasional headbutts and hissy fits. Perhaps someone should make a complaint of assault to the Police; but Rangers won't do it because it's a can of worms. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I really don't know what you're trying to say here. What relevance is there to being in a stadium with other people there? That sounds a bit weak. Maybe unlike some people, he's not a tattle-tale and actually stands up for himself... It's not the most inspired advice as what would complaining have done? It's all on camera and still the perpetrator wasn't punished, yet the victim was severely, so what would have been the point? This shows why incredibly poor moral thinking by referees and the sporting authorities encourages retaliation. If Mohsni's attackers had been more severely censured than he was, you might have a point. The weird thing is that you, the referee, the SFA and many others actually think it's ok to attack someone, not ok for the victim to hit back, but ok for a gang of the attacker's mates to simultaneously attack the lone victim again. I call that, "mental". What's the difference? Seems very vague. Mental? Shoving someone in the back for nothing sounds more mental to me. Gang attacking someone for retaliating against your violent mate is far more mental. A quick quick and punch to someone who has attacked you out of the blue from behind, seems like an angry but reasonable survival reaction. You're saying you would be very calm if someone shoved you hard in the back? I don't see the relevance, but using your logic, if the guy he headbutted had hit someone before then it seems like you're saying he deserved it for having previous. So according to you, Mohsni could be innocent there. I disagree. For me, headbutting someone without provocation is assault and he should be condemned for it, and not defended. That is an embarrassment. See my consistency? If he headbutted someone and the victim hit him back, I don't think I'd punish the victim and not the attacker. But funnily enough you're making my original point, Rangers fans don't always defend our players' misbehaviour. Calscot, you are an inteliigent chap and leaving the rights and wrongs of the Motherwell incident aside and his horrendous record at Southend (was his "tackle on the Northampton player not an assault?), you must accept that Mohsni was an embarrassment to our Club. Have you forgotten his after match red card v Airdrie in Jan 14, his flying head butt at Derby, his violent conduct v HIbs in September in Sep 14 and his gestures and comments and towards our own fans? http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9872013/a-look-at-the-rap-sheet-of-rangers-defender-bilel-moshni-after-motherwell-brawl 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 We share much the same views on the Moshni incident, and this is possibly the only time we have agreed on anything. I believe if you are assaulted you should be perfectly within your rights to hit someone back twice as hard. The blame should all lie with the transgressor. When someone does start a fight with you, particularly if your back is turned, it's very difficult to think rationally and you react instinctively to defend yourself. However, the incident had no bearing on the club's decision not to offer him a new contract. That's not what McCall said at the time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The SFA needs to make sure that it's officials protects footballers from the hammerthrowers and thereby encourages managers to use/develop footballers and not hammerthrowers. It will partly address a longterm and much debated problem (groundhog/annual discussion on what can we do with Scottish fitbaw) and it won't cost anything other than using the usual channels of communication and it entails nothing other than fully implementing the rules of the game within the full 90 minutes (first whistle until last). ps. and it needs the Compliance Officer to act on all issues that arise rather than pick and choose what he fancies, eg. Hugo Faria (Baldy of Livingston) should be offered a 6 match suspension for an offence that if caught doing on the street, he'd be up on a criminal charge. I'm about to post the SFA response about the powers of the CO on the match thread. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Always remember the old story from the 60s when Tommy gemmell was kicking lumps out wee Willie when gemmell bent over to Willie lying on the gound pointing his finger at him and the crowd were baying for gemmells blood what he was really saying was ' are you coming for a pint tonight lol the old firm players then drank together... I once refereed a reserve game at Ibrox when big Doug Rouvie took the ball of Tommy McLean from behind and ran on to score the third or fourth goal in 4-0 win for Aberdeen. At the KO, McLean said to Rougvie "I'm going to kill you big man". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 I think you are correct and I tried to answer this from the perspective of a former referee (me) at#120 in the match thread http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?73535-Petrofac-Cup-1-4-Final-Rangers-1-0-Livingston-%28Clark-75%29&p=591767#post591767 I have had a reply from the SFA and will post on the match thread as soon as I get through here. I actually think the later elbow to the throat was the more serious of the 2 incidents. The ref only felt it meritted a yellow imo it should have been a straight red. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,105 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 On a personal point of view I like it when the game is physical , but no over the ball stuff 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) I actually think the later elbow to the throat was the more serious of the 2 incidents. The ref only felt it meritted a yellow imo it should have been a straight red. I didn't see it but if there was a deliberate elbow in the throat there's no doubt it's an ordering of offence. Thhere seems to be a growing tendency to award a caution (yellow card) for a hand or elbow to the face or head. To me it's either accidental in which case no action or deliberate in which case it's violent conduct and hence a red card. Trying to establish degrees of violence in this connection is an impossible task. If you hit someone in the head, face or neck and in the referee's opinion it's delibarate, it is violent conduct, end off story. Edited October 23, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I didn't see it but if there was a deliberate elbow in the throat there's no doubtit's an ordering of offence. Thhere seems to be a growing tendency to award a caution (yellow card) for a hand or elbow to the face or head. To me it's either accidental in which case no action or deliberate in which case it's violent conduct and hence a red card. Trying to establish degrees of violence in this connection is an impossible task. If you hit someone in the head, face or neck and in the referee's opinion it's delibarate, it is violent conduct, end off story. Disagree it can be unintentional but dangerous and therefore yellow. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Disagree it can be unintentional but dangerous and therefore yellow. If it's unintentional then it's not an offence. 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.