dennyc

He was cited fairly quickly enough according to MFC. That it took so long for a panel to be convened to assess his guilt and punishment is a farce. He then got a suspension which the Club could have anticipated. Especially as they went public in condemning his behaviour, perhaps hoping to avoid what has now happened. Same ban as others who got cited for an act of cheating missed by the officials. I agree the suspended two games has come from nowhere. That part I think is nonsensical. But not the two match ban. Same as Cantwell and Brown should have received. Would we have complained had that pair been banned? Pretty sure if I could be bothered checking back, most on here (including me....and you?) were calling for them to be hammered. Scott Sinclair as another example I think? Amazing how Slattery has gone from cheat to victim though. I thought that approach was reserved for a certain other team. And if we want to be honest about it, Slattery has form. Went down clutching his face right in front of the POD not that long ago. Referee wasn't fooled that time although I admit I was until TV proved me wrong. This time his luck ran out. Hopefully he has learned his lesson as we need him on the pitch. Our referees, Var and authorities are far from competent and certainly seem exempt from accountability and demotion. That is the aspect that needs sorting. But this chain of events started because Slattery let himself, the fans and the Club down. Now we will all pay the penalty. By the way, I like Slattery and hope he signs on for next season.

Kemar Roofe banned retrospectively for violent conduct in 2021. Two games. Appeal failed. Originally given a yellow but cited and banned for two league games. Slattery did wrong and Motherwell's Statement is not accurate re precedent. Had Cantwell been cited and banned for feigning injury to get Slattery sent off we would all have been delighted. Same for Scott Brown and Kipre. The fact they were not cited highlights the inconsistency and the feeling that not all Clubs are treated equally. But that does not make the Slattery outcome wrong. Just want to see the same rule applied going forward as I detest cheating. I hope our Board will be all over any similar incident if treated differently.

It has not been made up on the hoof. Walker of Hearts and Shalke of Ross County both received two match bans for cheating. Ironically one of the games Shalke sat out was against us. No mention before of suspended bans though so that is new. For the conspiracy theorists, both those bans were after restospective charges were brought following games against Celtic. Meekins of Inverness did have such a ban overturned on appeal. He was also cited after a match v Celtic. He would have missed a Cup Final had the decision been upheld. After the Compliance Officer was accused of having links to Celtic such citations suddenly stopped. Until now it seems. Again. all before VAR was introduced to assist referees who got it wrong on first viewing.

Exactly this.

From an old press story. Don't know if England ever followed the Scottish example. As usual, the application of the rule is what causes the anger up here. I see England did have retrospective action in place for violent conduct at that time, but not for diving. Anyways, it's not a new thing. The Football Association has confirmed it is talking to the Scottish Football Association about the pros and cons of taking retrospective action against players who dive. Introduced in 2011, the SFA's rule 201 gives a disciplinary panel the power to impose two-game bans for acts of simulation missed by the match officials or rescind yellow cards for players who were incorrectly adjudged to have dived. Hearts winger Jamie Walker has experienced both verdicts this season, having served a two-game ban for a dive to gain a penalty against Celtic in August and then been retrospectively cleared of simulation during a game against Rangers in December. Speaking to Press Association Sport, an FA spokesman said: "The issue of simulation is under review and we have a continuing dialogue with other associations about rules and regulations. "We are interested in going to see the SFA to talk about how their rule is working but it is part of that wider conversation." The spokesman added that any change to the rules in England would need support from across the game -- managers, players, referees and so on - and would be done via the Football Regulatory Authority. The general view in Scotland is rule 201 has had a positive impact, although there has been some criticism of the apparent contradiction between a player getting a yellow card for an offence seen by a referee but a red card for the same offence if the referee missed it. In the past, world football's governing body FIFA has stuck to the principle that matches should be refereed on the pitch, in real time, with any mistakes made by the officials simply being part of the game. FIFA's stance, however, is starting to change as it has already approved goal-line technology, is trialling video assistant referees and has not complained about the SFA's simulation rules or the FA's own retrospective punishments for violent conduct. That last point is significant as the four British FAs have permanent seats on the International Football Association Board, the body that decides on fundamental changes to the game's laws, which suggests FIFA may view these local rules as pilots before wider implementation. Simulation, once one of the great taboos of British football, is back on the agenda after Robert Snodgrass dived to earn a penalty for Hull City against Crystal Palace last month. The Scot scored from the spot but later admitted he was not touched by Palace defender Scott Dann, saying he instinctively took evasive action because of his recent injury problems.

The referee made the decision after advice from his assistant. Therefore they were both conned...by Slattery.... into issuing a red card. VAR did not intervene. Wrongly, so I agree questions need to be asked on that score. Had Slattery been found out there and then a yellow would have been sufficient given the St Mirren player would not have been sent off. But because of the actual outcome on the night a red card for Slattery is correct and in line with previous examples......pre VAR mostly I think. Trial by Sportscene springs to mind. At the end of the day, no matter who we like to point fingers at, Slattery cheated. As for the time taken to issue his ban, MFC were told within days that Slattery had been cited and if found at fault would be punished. It's not true to say that only some four weeks later the Authorities decided to act. It should have been resolved much quicker though.

No surprise. Slattery cheated and conned the referee into sending an opponent off. And if roles had been reversed we would having been screaming for justice. There are precedents of players being banned retrospectively for conning referees into issuing red cards or awarding penalties. One I can recall was at Tynecastle and another at Ross County. Of course that was before the introduction of VAR. As far as Slattery is concerned, the frustration is that if VAR had done its job he would have been booked there and then and nobody would have complained. As others have said though, let's see consistency going forward. Sadly we all know that the teams involved will be a deciding factor.

Tough for our full backs to be confident pushing forward when almost every time they ventured up the park Watt passed the ball straight to the opposition deep in our own half. Lost count of the number of times we could have been punished. Neither are automatic first choices all players being fit, but both Sparrow and SOD played their part defensively. Hibs most creative player (the other Cadden) never got a kick and, one shot aside, Boyle hardly featured. Sparrow stopped a certain goal early on as well. So not all bad. Maybe our wide players being more cautious was part of the game plan to counter Hibs only attacking threat. We had an off day but still kept a clean sheet and did not lose ground to any of our closest rivals. If that's as bad as it gets we will be fine. It's just a pity that off day came when we had probably our best home turnout of the season.

Runners up no longer qualify. Used to but not nowadays. So yes, only Celtic winning the cup help us re Europe.

I took a couple of Falkirk fans in before that game. No issues whatsoever. In fact there were a good few in there. Last few games the place has been packed, with queues waiting to get in as folk leave. Probably because the place across the road shut down. So if you go, get there early.

And our wee Club beating Sporting 2-0.

It's all about deflection. Stand by as official fan groups criticise the police but don't acknowledge the behaviour of those same fans inside and outside the ground. Although there is police strategy that needs looked at, their response to the fan statements is spot on regarding the silence from both Clubs. Hiding behind the fact there will be an investigation so not appropriate to comment. Really? No OF condemnation of anything the fans did. Let the spotlight focus elsewhere. Disgracefully the media mostly do their best to aid the deflection. Will we see the BBC doing a full report not only highlighting the on field carry-on but also the damage to the stadium, the storming of the turnstiles, the actions of players and officials as well as both sets of fans, the sale of tickets that ended up in the hands of fans banned from Celtic Park? The PR machine is currently in full mode so don't hold your breath. At the end of the day the Authorities will issue pointless fines and a few culprits will be charged. Away fans at OF games will be banned for a time, which will have no impact on either club financially. Why not play OF games behind closed doors until the end of next season as that would have greater impact? The excuse it was a Cup match will be used to justify no action League points wise. Threats of harsher sanctions for any repeat will be made, possibly even suspended penalties. Celtic will eventually pay for the repairs. But nothing will change.

Both Clubs should be punished for the on field stuff from their fans. Don't think any right thinking person is saying otherwise. There are also a few other on field behaviours by players that need looking at but likely won't be. And meaningless fines don't work. But how about the off field stuff we saw yesterday? By that I mean the sickening graffiti celebrating that fans died attending a match, the storming of turnstiles/exit doors to allow non ticket holders to enter and the destruction of seats. Plenty of evidence highlighting those things. All down to the same set of fans who we know acted in that exact same manner at Fir Park. Their behaviour should be addressed as a separate issue and severe action taken by the football authorities and police. But just as at Fir Park I suspect any action and condemnation will be minimal. Much easier to focus on the pitch invasions, as per the narrative from Club officials and most media outlets. Tom English comments on the BBC excepted. I thought he painted a true picture of what occurred. We may have our own issues from time to time. But thank god we are far removed from the toxic behaviour we see elsewhere.

For me it is about thinking long term. Had that been the criteria under previous Boards then I doubt we would be having this conversation. And although we would have incurred major expenditure at that time (although much more local and government support would likely have been available), we would not have subsequently wasted millions papering over the cracks. And to what effect? We are now structurally in a worse condition than we were way back then. So if we do stay where we are, what exactly can be done to provide that long term sustainability and negate the ongoing draining of funds maintaining a sub standard Fir Park? The restrictions of being in a residential area, limiting options, is something I don't see changing. Would reconstruction costs be less than actually relocating? Could reconstruction provide additional income streams? Someone highlighted that Falkirk lease their main stand from the Local Authority, whilst owning outright the other Stands. The Local Authority having use of parts of the main stand for their own use at times. That feels pretty innovative to me, and a way of reducing initial expenditure as I assume the LA bore the cost of the construction of that main stand? Could Lanarkshire provide similar support, perhaps with an option for the Club to buy further down the line? Could car park income fund help fund that outlay over time? At least we are now looking at how to move forward and no longer burying our heads in the sand. Well done to the Board for seeking solutions.

What I find hilarious is when Goodwin, O’Neill openly say their player was at fault for giving Officials decisions to make. Often acknowledging that there was foul play by their player, but minor. O’Neill seems upset that VAR had the cheek to point out the Trusty thing was more than the referee had seen on first viewing. Strange how the media did not ask a simple yes/no question of either. Was it a foul?