MJC Posted July 22 Report Share Posted July 22 19 minutes ago, Jonesy said: Rangers manager Derek McInnes gets a more lenient sentence than (ex) Motherwell's Elliot Watt - despite saying much worse. There's a shock. Well technically he got a four match ban with one suspended and I don’t think what he said was that much worse, he said it was “disgusting” which is more or less what every Motherwell fan was saying about the decision. However I would like to see us as a club asking why he was served a four with one suspended whilst our player was given a straight four game ban. The fact that Watt is no longer our player is irrelevant, it was handed down to him whilst he was and he was perfectly within his rights to question such a ridiculous decision. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted July 22 Report Share Posted July 22 16 minutes ago, MJC said: Well technically he got a four match ban with one suspended and I don’t think what he said was that much worse, he said it was “disgusting” which is more or less what every Motherwell fan was saying about the decision. However I would like to see us as a club asking why he was served a four with one suspended whilst our player was given a straight four game ban. The fact that Watt is no longer our player is irrelevant, it was handed down to him whilst he was and he was perfectly within his rights to question such a ridiculous decision. I have two questions - 1. Was the mitigation that McInnes was wearing his Rangers tie at the hearing? 2. Was Infantino included on the Panel? It's not the corruption that is the most infuriating. It's the fact they are so open about it and don't care who sees it. And if Motherwell make a noise about it then they will be cited again. I'm just waiting on Hearts getting a wee phone following the little sing song from their fans last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted July 22 Report Share Posted July 22 Having looked into it a bit more over the past few days, I don't actually think the issue is that the SFA took action. Rule 72 exists to stop people publicly accusing referees of bias or incompetence, and if Elliott Watt admitted his comments breached that rule, then some form of sanction was always likely to be on the cards. What I do struggle with is the lack of transparency and consistency. Watt received a four match ban with nothing suspended, while the club was fined over the social media video. Yet the SFA's public statement gives virtually no reasoning. It doesn't explain what specific words or parts of the video crossed the line, what aggravating factors were considered, or why those particular punishments were appropriate. That's hard to reconcile when you look at previous cases. Brendan Rodgers received a two-match ban after describing the officiating as "incompetence", but one of those matches was suspended from what I can tell? As someone already mentioned, Callum McGregor said after Trusty's red card: "We may as well all go up the road and stop playing football if that's going to be a red card every single week." No action appears to have been taken, I'm guessing because the SFA viewed that as criticism of the decision itself rather than an allegation of bias or incompetence by the officials? Honestly, it's hard to actually determine how they reach their decision half the time. I understand that different cases can absolutely justify different punishments, but the SFA doesn't publish anywhere near enough detail for anyone to understand why those differences exist. Why was McGregor's criticism acceptable, Rodgers received one immediate match and one suspended, while Watt received four immediate matches? There may well be legitimate reasons, but if there are, they're not being explained as far as I can tell. For me, that's the real issue. If you're going to dish out significant sanctions, particularly a four-match ban for a player, you should also publish clear reasons so clubs and supporters can see how the decision was reached and why it's consistent with previous cases. At the moment, that transparency just isn't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 22 Report Share Posted July 22 45 minutes ago, MJC said: Well technically he got a four match ban with one suspended and I don’t think what he said was that much worse, he said it was “disgusting” which is more or less what every Motherwell fan was saying about the decision. However I would like to see us as a club asking why he was served a four with one suspended whilst our player was given a straight four game ban. The fact that Watt is no longer our player is irrelevant, it was handed down to him whilst he was and he was perfectly within his rights to question such a ridiculous decision. I think you need to look more closely at McInnes' comments. Yes he said they were disgusting, but he also implied there was an agenda hence questioning the integrity of the officials. Watt didnt do that. He just said it was tge worst VAR decision ever. McInnes' comments were also in relation to a game he was not involved in. He was also the manager aka "leader" of his club at that time, therefore in a position of trust, if you will. The 2 cases are NOT comparable. The fact that the individual committing the lesser offence received the greater punishment, might be described as "disgusting". Just my opinion mind you..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
well_said Posted July 22 Report Share Posted July 22 1 minute ago, joewarkfanclub said: I think you need to look more closely at McInnes' comments. Yes he said they were disgusting, but he also implied there was an agenda hence questioning the integrity of the officials. Watt didnt do that. He just said it was tge worst VAR decision ever. McInnes' comments were also in relation to a game he was not involved in. He was also the manager aka "leader" of his club at that time, therefore in a position of trust, if you will. The 2 cases are NOT comparable. The fact that the individual committing the lesser offence received the greater punishment, might be described as "disgusting". Just my opinion mind you..... The SFA are a disgusting organisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesy Posted July 22 Report Share Posted July 22 51 minutes ago, MJC said: Well technically he got a four match ban with one suspended and I don’t think what he said was that much worse, he said it was “disgusting” which is more or less what every Motherwell fan was saying about the decision. However I would like to see us as a club asking why he was served a four with one suspended whilst our player was given a straight four game ban. The fact that Watt is no longer our player is irrelevant, it was handed down to him whilst he was and he was perfectly within his rights to question such a ridiculous decision. Part of what McInnes said was also along the lines of "I didn't need to ask who the penalty was for when I was told". What he said was definitely worse than anything Watt came out with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star sail Posted July 22 Report Share Posted July 22 The independent report into the OF pitch invasion is pretty damning for the SFA. It basically says that they are not using their powers consistently and I think there is an implication that they are far too lenient on the Old Firm in particular. In this particular situation, the two tier policing of Motherwell and Derek McIness could not be more blatant. McInnes comments were said in anger on live television in the immediate aftermath of a highly volatile ending to the match at FP. His comments were heard by millions. They were inflammatory and clearly called into question the integrity of the officials. Watt posts on social media to a considerably smaller audience, a comment that may question the competence of the decision but not the integrity of it and his punishment is worse. You cannot get a more direct and obvious comparison. The SFA have had time to consider this response and will know themselves the discrepancies in this decision making so you have to come to the conclusion that they simply don't care. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 22 Report Share Posted July 22 4 minutes ago, star sail said: The independent report into the OF pitch invasion is pretty damning for the SFA. It basically says that they are not using their powers consistently and I think there is an implication that they ar far too lenient on the Old Firm in particular. In this particular situation, the two tier policing of Motherwell and Derek McIness could not be more blatant. McInnes comments were said in anger on live television in the immediate aftermath of a highly volatile ending to the match at FP. His comments were heard by millions. They were inflammatory and clearly called into question the integrity of the officials. Watt posts on social media to a considerably smaller audience, a comment that may question the competence of the decision but not the integrity of it and his punishment is worse. You cannot get a more direct and obvious comparison. The SFA have had time to consider this response and will know themselves the discrepancies in this decision making so you have to come to the conclusion that they simply don't care. Exactly this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted July 22 Report Share Posted July 22 So if the SFA felt that the VAR decision at Fir Park wasn't the worst ever, which one do they think is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motherwell Daft Posted July 22 Report Share Posted July 22 We are all forgetting something really important that has emerged on the other side of the pond over the last few weeks, we all know refereeing is corrupt to the bigger ugly teams with the budgets and influence but what they are not telling us about todays hearing was that McInnes used the big red phone n called Donald….hence why his game was suspended….we are so silly arent we! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJC Posted July 23 Report Share Posted July 23 Again, I don’t see anything in Del’s comments that were anything different to what any of our fans or indeed anyone outwith Celtic were saying at the time. It was disgusting and there is not a snowballs chance in hell VAR and Beaton give that decision to us up the other end in the final seconds of injury time. That award took away a massive advantage that Hearts would have had going into the final game of the season and handed it directly to Celtic who ended up profiting from it when they won the league. As Hearts boss at the time and hearing of that incident and in the heat of the moment it was perfectly understandable that McInnes was angry, indeed he had every right to be. And that’s before you take into account O’Neill’s wee phone chat with Collum about refereeing at the start of May. Had it been us in Hearts position on the penultimate game of the season and Jens had said exactly what McInnes said then would anyone on here or in our support have a problem with it? Would they hell as like! I get people don’t want to be seen siding with the now Rangers manager, but it’s important not to lose sight of the real issue here. That Celtic were handed the league by a disgraceful decision given against us by an incompetent VAR and a referee who is too scared to give anything against Celtic due to previous grief he’s had from them and their supporters. And yet despite that and the fact that their supporters invaded our park in their hundreds and the game ended with them all on the park on the Wednesday night and they then did the same in their thousands on the Saturday they completely escape punishment for it? Indeed the only ones punished were the ones who called it out including one of our players. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted July 23 Report Share Posted July 23 Interestingly, Rangers are appealing McInnes' ban. I'd be interested to see how that goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 23 Report Share Posted July 23 45 minutes ago, MJC said: Again, I don’t see anything in Del’s comments that were anything different to what any of our fans or indeed anyone outwith Celtic were saying at the time. It was disgusting and there is not a snowballs chance in hell VAR and Beaton give that decision to us up the other end in the final seconds of injury time. That award took away a massive advantage that Hearts would have had going into the final game of the season and handed it directly to Celtic who ended up profiting from it when they won the league. As Hearts boss at the time and hearing of that incident and in the heat of the moment it was perfectly understandable that McInnes was angry, indeed he had every right to be. And that’s before you take into account O’Neill’s wee phone chat with Collum about refereeing at the start of May. Had it been us in Hearts position on the penultimate game of the season and Jens had said exactly what McInnes said then would anyone on here or in our support have a problem with it? Would they hell as like! I get people don’t want to be seen siding with the now Rangers manager, but it’s important not to lose sight of the real issue here. That Celtic were handed the league by a disgraceful decision given against us by an incompetent VAR and a referee who is too scared to give anything against Celtic due to previous grief he’s had from them and their supporters. And yet despite that and the fact that their supporters invaded our park in their hundreds and the game ended with them all on the park on the Wednesday night and they then did the same in their thousands on the Saturday they completely escape punishment for it? Indeed the only ones punished were the ones who called it out including one of our players. No one is not siding with McInnes because he is now Rangers manager. Well, Im certainly not. I think players and managers should be able to give their opinion on decisions after the game. In fact most are contractually obliged to. The issue here, for me anyway, is punishment. McInnes has got a more lenient punishment despite going in stronger on the decision than Watt did. I think both punishments are ridiculous. But they should at least reflect the alleged offence committed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJC Posted July 23 Report Share Posted July 23 2 hours ago, Mad Dog said: Interestingly, Rangers are appealing McInnes' ban. I'd be interested to see how that goes. And so they should. 2 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said: I think both punishments are ridiculous. But they should at least reflect the alleged offence committed. That is exactly the issue here, that both were punished for telling it like it was was utterly ridiculous. And as I’ve already said I want us to question why our player was given a straight 4 game ban while McInnes got 3 with one suspended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Dosser Posted July 23 Report Share Posted July 23 1 hour ago, MJC said: And so they should. That is exactly the issue here, that both were punished for telling it like it was was utterly ridiculous. And as I’ve already said I want us to question why our player was given a straight 4 game ban while McInnes got 3 with one suspended. There's really no reason for the authorities' vindictive behaviour towards Watt (and by extension, our club) but it would be good to hear their feeble justifications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJC Posted July 23 Report Share Posted July 23 3 minutes ago, Happy Dosser said: There's really no reason for the authorities' vindictive behaviour towards Watt (and by extension, our club) but it would be good to hear their feeble justifications. There’s no reasonable justification for why they came down on Watt for basically saying what everyone else could see. The SFA and SPFL are incompetent and more or less at the behest of one particular club so any dissenting voices need to be silenced. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan Posted Thursday at 05:10 PM Report Share Posted Thursday at 05:10 PM 1 hour ago, Happy Dosser said: There's really no reason for the authorities' vindictive behaviour towards Watt (and by extension, our club) but it would be good to hear their feeble justifications. You’ve already got it. They’re being vindictive because we had the sense to call a spade a spade and point out their incompetence and apparent corruption. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grizzlyg Posted 3 hours ago Report Share Posted 3 hours ago https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly5gd9y0djo Slight tangent but saw this report yesterday and with all of those mugshots its like the worst game of Guess Who ever!! 1. "Do they have more than 5 teeth?'.........No 😁😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted 2 hours ago Report Share Posted 2 hours ago 1 hour ago, grizzlyg said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly5gd9y0djo Slight tangent but saw this report yesterday and with all of those mugshots its like the worst game of Guess Who ever!! 1. "Do they have more than 5 teeth?'.........No 😁😁 No chance of getting a "good guy" when assessing that line up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted 1 hour ago Report Share Posted 1 hour ago Is number 40 David Turnbull's half brother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grizzlyg Posted 45 minutes ago Report Share Posted 45 minutes ago 22 minutes ago, weeyin said: Is number 40 David Turnbull's half brother? Uncanny 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.