Roofe banned for two games

[Blue Moon 1,113]

Kemar Roofe has been charged retrospectively for violent conduct.

[stewarty 1,876]

Same as the Alfredo incident - and as the Manager says, the referee was 5 yards away, sees the incident and gives a yellow card.   I agree it could have been a red and we would have had no real complaint, but that was the on field decision and we can't be re-reffing games all the time.  Its beyond a joke

 

 

[26th of foot 5,827]

9 minutes ago, stewarty said:

Same as the Alfredo incident - and as the Manager says, the referee was 5 yards away, sees the incident and gives a yellow card.   I agree it could have been a red and we would have had no real complaint, but that was the on field decision and we can't be re-reffing games all the time.  Its beyond a joke

 

 

I agree on both counts.

 

It could have been, should have been a red card.

 

Further, Rangers games are being re-Refereed.

[ian1964 10,409]

 

[Gonzo79 13,584]

I'm glad we're walking the league because this would be really annoying if we weren't.

[ian1964 10,409]

 

[stewarty 1,876]

25 minutes ago, 26th of foot said:

I agree on both counts.

 

It could have been, should have been a red card.

 

Further, Rangers games are being re-Refereed.

There seems to be a bigger vacuum within the corridors of Hampden now that Whyte is no longer in post.  If thats even possible?

 

If I'm reading correctly, they now have a panel of referees review incidents and cite players, rather than, as I understood it, the Compliance Officer contacting the referee to ask whether they saw the incident clearly and acting only when its clear there were elements of an incident that were missed.

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by stewarty

[ian1964 10,409]

 

[Uilleam 5,409]

We have to call this out for what it is: chicanery. A quasi-judicial system has been subverted by deceit, by subterfuge, to benefit the interests of one of the subscribers to that system, and to disbenefit the others,  in particular, one other. 

 

However, it  is not "consistency" we require: the referees, the other officials, and the disciplinary process in toto, have all been consistent: decisions have been consistently bad, consistently slanted, and consistently inexplicable to the rational man on the Cessnock Subway.
What we need are decisions which are fair, equitable, unbiased.

The Trials by Sportscene/Sportsound staff, or by certain SKY or BT employees, are a pernicious plague. Few of these characters are fair, equitable, or unbiased, yet they clearly have influence on the post match, quasi-judicial, disciplinary process: in prosecution, verdict, and sentencing. Throw in the written media and it seems that no player is likely to receive an objective assessment; often he is found either guilty, or innocent, beforehand; consequentially, and equally frequently, this judgement is rubber stamped by the mysterious panel. The whole, strange decision making process is far from fair, or equitable, or free of bias, and apparently depends more upon which team the accused represents than on any other criterion.

 

[RabiDuck 89]

I thought retrospective action could only be taken if the ref hadn't seen an incident.  If he's seen it (and acted on it) then it's out of scope.  Is this not why McGregor wasn't charged in the Hibs game?