dosser1886 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Andy Wanker, your a walker. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellBoy Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 "Should the Republic of Ireland international reject the fixed suspension on offer, the matter will be assessed at a fast track tribunal the following day" So either way he is out of the Aberdeen cup match. This could be a massive psychological boost for Aberdeen as in my mind Randolph is the best keeper in the league. Why is it always the fast track method? I remember a similar situation with Jennings and a fast track appeal. (Can't remember if it was last season or the season before). Although a week after that Lee McCulloch got a ban which was appealed by Rangers. This wasn't fast tracked and McCulloch played in an old firm match and ended Kayal's season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special aka Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Personally I have no problem with trial by TV, and I'm even fairly ambivalent as to whether Randolph is sanctioned or not on this occasion, just because it looked kinda deliberate to me. The only thing I have an issue with is how the incidents to be reviewed are being chosen. Agreed. What is this Loony's actual remit then ? I believed he was put in place to rightfully deter cheating; divers, those feigning injury and intentional foul-play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special aka Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Personally I have no problem with trial by TV, and I'm even fairly ambivalent as to whether Randolph is sanctioned or not on this occasion, just because it looked kinda deliberate to me. The only thing I have an issue with is how the incidents to be reviewed are being chosen. Agreed. What is this Loony's actual remit then ? I believed he was put in place to rightfully deter cheating; divers, those feigning injury and intentional foul-play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finlay Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 I'm reminded of the saying 'We are all equal but some are more equal than others'. No consistency in the slightest and it makes a mockery of our set up. Once again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzer Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 If, after Saturday's performance, you're complaining about Humphrey and not Hateley, then you sir, need spectacles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Personally I have no problem with trial by TV, and I'm even fairly ambivalent as to whether Randolph is sanctioned or not on this occasion, just because it looked kinda deliberate to me. The only thing I have an issue with is how the incidents to be reviewed are being chosen. Agreed. In terms of the actual incident itself, I have absolutely no complaints about a ban for Randolph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orinoco Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 was randolph stupid - yes was the referee incompetent - yes so why is it that only one is going to be suspended? is Bskyb running the game in Scotland? This compliance officer's integrity is severely questionable, and its time our club grew a set and kicked up a fuss about inconsistancies. You cant have a disciplinary system which appears to be a Bskyb play thing. There again this flawed system is just another example of how pathetic our game is run. Its upto the clubs to bin this nonsense, but i wont hold my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 I've never seen the McCulloch incident; I must have been hiding behind the couch at the time. Would he have been investigated by Lunny if we had lodged a complaint? With regards the ref v Hearts, I assume he'll not get an spl game next weekend as he clearly made the wrong decision despite having a clear view of the incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onthefringes Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 As I've had pointed out by more than one today... It was the signature move of Allan McGregor, doubt he'd be castigated in similar fashion. For the record, Vincent Lunny wanks alsatian dugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfan1984 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Wasn't a foul at the time. Isn't a foul now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosser1886 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Time for Motherwell to make a stand against this shite. If it's not on the telly you don't get done, if it is, you are. What a load of old shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texanwellfan Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 the ref clearly saw it and made the call. But now, apparently, that decision is being overturned. What about all the other incidents refereees see and make the call why are those decisions not being overturned? Because it would be ridiculous to do that just as it is ridiculous in this case. i thought the purpose of this looney guy to take care of things missed by the officials, not to overrule their decisions. The governing body needs to better define the role of this Looney guy as to his powers, and when and when not they should be applied. Right now it seems to be anybody's guess as to when, where and why they are being applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 This is a ridiculous decision and I sincerely hope the club contests it. It may have been a bad foul, it may have been an accident, or Darren Randolph may have been trying to avoid Paterson (unsuccessfully). We simply don't know and neither does the Compliance Officer. Only Darren Randolph knows the truth. As we now know the CO only accepts evidence from TV pundits not ordinary fans. TV pundits and commentators can now act as judge and jury. They choose what to edit out, highlight and make a fuss about. If we are going to rely on their evidence alone we have to be100% sure they are completely objective. Why are their opinions worth more than those of fans? The whole system is unfair, not transparent and open to abuse. The CO has made a decision on the a basis of his interpretation and an incomplete assessment. He has not interviewed the parties involved for example. What does his decision say about the referee who was on the spot and arrived at a different conclusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 randolph hits paterson who is running towards him while he is in the air with the ball and gets a two match ban despite paterson having no injury. a hearts player (stevenston?) jumps up and headbutts hammell well after the ball is gone causing hammell to get subbed off and miss the next game but no action is taken? load of pish. i'm guessing vincent lunny from motherwell isn't a motherwell fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 I said immediately after the match that I thought that Randolph had got away with a nasty one and the only thing that has changed is that it looks like he's not going to get away with it now. I don't really understand some peoples complaint about players only being punished if they are on television. It's a bit like saying that criminals that are caught on CCTV shouldn't be punished because other people commit crime and get away with it because there is no evidence. You can only prosecute people where you have sufficient evidence and obviously televised matches provide that evidence. Randolph did something that was unnecessary and potential dangerous and now he's going to miss crucial games in our season because of his own stupidity. People trying to make out that the authorities are at fault here and not the player are, I'm afraid, taking their partisan support for the club a bit too far. If it had happened at the other end of the field I'm sure the very people moaning about this would be welcoming the decision to take action against Craig Samson for nearly taking the head off Murphy or whoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texanwellfan Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 For me it's not so much that Randolph is getting punished but rather that they are over ruling the referees decision. The referee had a clear view of the incident and saw nothing wrong. So effectively they are reversing his decision. Are they goign to do that with all refereeing decisions? of course not, so they need to define more clearly the role and powers of the compliance officer. A related question, if he was given a red card would it not be a 1 game ban? was he up there on points causing the punishment to be a 2 game ban? or is the 2 game ban because it is deemed as violent conduct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaag Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 I said immediately after the match that I thought that Randolph had got away with a nasty one and the only thing that has changed is that it looks like he's not going to get away with it now. I don't really understand some peoples complaint about players only being punished if they are on television. It's a bit like saying that criminals that are caught on CCTV shouldn't be punished because other people commit crime and get away with it because there is no evidence. You can only prosecute people where you have sufficient evidence and obviously televised matches provide that evidence. Randolph did something that was unnecessary and potential dangerous and now he's going to miss crucial games in our season because of his own stupidity. People trying to make out that the authorities are at fault here and not the player are, I'm afraid, taking their partisan support for the club a bit too far. If it had happened at the other end of the field I'm sure the very people moaning about this would be welcoming the decision to take action against Craig Samson for nearly taking the head off Murphy or whoever. Aye but all games are recorded are they not? Therefore there's evidence for every game - IF the compliance wank decides he wants to investigate it. I disagree with your statement - the majority of us agree that Randolph should've been punished for the daft moment... it's the consistency and lack of clarity that's the issue here, not that we think our goalie should get away scot free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfan1984 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 There was NO foul. FFS referee called it 100% spot on. Any keeper is told as long as you do not use your studs, when you're going for a ball in a 50/50 (and not so 50/50 (as Paterson had no chance getting that ball)) protect your body by any means necessary. Referee got it spot on - sad those in the stands and in the media do not even realise this 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Aye but all games are recorded are they not? Therefore there's evidence for every game - IF the compliance wank decides he wants to investigate it. I disagree with your statement - the majority of us agree that Randolph should've been punished for the daft moment... it's the consistency and lack of clarity that's the issue here, not that we think our goalie should get away scot free. There aren't multiple camera views at all games though. It's not as problematic to over rule a referees decision based on multiple camera views than a single camera view. In theory I'd be happy for tapes of all games to be gone through with players being retroactively punished for bad fouls (ie, reds that weren't awarded at the time) and especially diving and cheating but realistically it would cause more problems than it would solve. Fans already complain bitterly about referees, what happens when a compliance officer goes through a months worth tapes and awards suspensions and penalties to one club and none to another? Fans would simply bitch and moan and come up with lists of things the compliance officer didn't address. It would just open up a whole can of worms as this thread shows. This case was televised live across the country and was fairly clear cut. So they punish Randolph, fair enough, but generally speaking I don't think the authorities generally want to go down this route unless they feel they have no choice. And in this case they felt they couldn't really let Randolph off. Take it in the chin and move on I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplewell Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 There was NO foul. FFS referee called it 100% spot on. Any keeper is told as long as you do not use your studs, when you're going for a ball in a 50/50 (and not so 50/50 (as Paterson had no chance getting that ball)) protect your body by any means necessary. Referee got it spot on - sad those in the stands and in the media do not even realise this Your quite right. as I said In the shoutbox, why was Paterson even there, considering his head was at randolphs boot height he was never getting that ball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cambo97 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 There aren't multiple camera views at all games though. It's not as problematic to over rule a referees decision based on multiple camera views than a single camera view. In theory I'd be happy for tapes of all games to be gone through with players being retroactively punished for bad fouls (ie, reds that weren't awarded at the time) and especially diving and cheating but realistically it would cause more problems than it would solve. Fans already complain bitterly about referees, what happens when a compliance officer goes through a months worth tapes and awards suspensions and penalties to one club and none to another? Fans would simply bitch and moan and come up with lists of things the compliance officer didn't address. It would just open up a whole can of worms as this thread shows. This case was televised live across the country and was fairly clear cut. So they punish Randolph, fair enough, but generally speaking I don't think the authorities generally want to go down this route unless they feel they have no choice. And in this case they felt they couldn't really let Randolph off. Take it in the chin and move on I say. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just said - "The media should decide which cases should be reviewed" It wasn't clear cut at the first, second or third viewing but Andy Wanker made a big deal out of it and mentioned it every 5 minutes. A couple of Rangers fans the other day were trying to bait me by saying what a thug Randolph was and how there was no way he could be defended, I just said you're right but goalkeepers get away with far too much anyway; to which one of them said it was exactly the same as the challenges Alan McGregor made every game without any punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numpty Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Your quite right. as I said In the shoutbox, why was Paterson even there, considering his head was at randolphs boot height he was never getting that ball He had every right to go for it, and any half decent striker would have done, at least to try and put the keeper off. If he makes any kind of mistake and drops the ball, it's a tap in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weesacs Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 to which one of them said it was exactly the same as the challenges Alan McGregor made every game without any punishment. 100% correct - that was McGregors trademark, and he always got away with it im unsure what to do - it was mischievous, and i suppose the SFA/SPL need to show that they are trying to stamp things like this out however, whether we accept or appeal this.......without a shadow of doubt, its the chance to ask for clarity and consistency (and possibly provide several examples of where certain players/teams seem to get away with it) is it this thursday we need to let this SFA know how we are going to react to this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamH Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 I think the appeal has to be submitted by 3pm today and the fast track appeal hearing would be tomorrow. I'm not 100% certain but I'm sure I read that somewhere yesterday. Quote Link to comment 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.