Ross County v Robson's Reds

[RicoS321]

8 hours ago, Panda said:

Will take the BBC criticism on board and raise it at the next department meeting.

Just so my notes are correct, you're saying you want more Foster on VARdict and more old firm content?

That's correct, thanks.

I actually don't mind foster as a pundit in fairness. His remit is to ask simple questions and not stray too far into a topic, which he does well.

[Jute]

Appeal rejected. 4 game ban.

 

[RicoS321]

23 hours ago, DantheDon said:

Honestly I think its one of these really borderline ones where you can make a case either way. I'm not sure that VAR should have got involved got as it definately is not a clear mistake. I think had shinnie had his other foot firmly on the ground there would be no question of it being a red. He's been dismissed as he's deemed not to be in control and in those circumstances it's the potential damage that could be done they take into account. It was a silly challenge in all honestly and I'm not sure we are being wise in challenging it. I think we risk that they throw the book at him and he gets a 3-4 match ban, and we really could be using him for the run in. 

My apologies.....

That's fucking unbelievable. Nothing remotely frivolous about the appeal. This borderline case is surely exactly what the appeals process is for?

[Jute]

3 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

My apologies.....

That's fucking unbelievable. Nothing remotely frivolous about the appeal. This borderline case is surely exactly what the appeals process is for?

Is it deemed frivolous as the red was was awarded by VAR so pointless to appeal as they will never admit VAR is wrong.

[RicoS321]

18 minutes ago, Jute said:

Is it deemed frivolous as the red was was awarded by VAR so pointless to appeal as they will never admit VAR is wrong.

13.21.8.1 In the event of a Claim being dismissed the Tribunal must then

Determine whether:

13.21.8.1.1 The Claim had no prospect of success;

13.21.8.1.2 The Claim was an abuse of process or a delaying tactic

for the sanction originally imposed;

13.21.8.1.3 The Claim was frivolous.

I don't think it can be frivolous (it could, but it's unlikely). It can't be because of a delaying tactic, because it was a fast track that would always be settled prior to the next match but I suspect it could be a technicality that means it had no prospect of success. Perhaps because it was "serious foul play", which can't be appealed?

Edit: or can only be appealed for mistaken identity type reasons. It's a fair trawl through the rules like.

Edited April 18, 2023 by RicoS321

[OrlandoDon]

Interesting statement from the club, publicly asking the SFA for a new review with a new panel. It’s corrupt and a farce though, why do we think we’ll get a different outcome. Have we ever seen, in regard to Aberdeen, common sense come through with appeals?

[RicoS321]

6 minutes ago, OrlandoDon said:

Interesting statement from the club, publicly asking the SFA for a new review with a new panel. It’s corrupt and a farce though, why do we think we’ll get a different outcome. Have we ever seen, in regard to Aberdeen, common sense come through with appeals?

If anything, asking for a review with a new panel is a little bit frivolous. Another three matches?

[Jute]

Club statement not pulling any punches.

 

[DantheDon]

You are right it's not frivolous, but I just couldn't see them letting us get away with questioning their authority. I think much like the Red itself the question of whether it is a frivolous appeal is subjective to whoever is making the decision. That's why I just couldn't see any outcome but what has happened. It also probably doesn't help that I don't think I've ever seen us successfully get a red card overturned. I'm always careful about calling out bias but I can't help but feel that the appeal process is so obviously biased its laughable. I just can't forget that Morelos red that got rescinded after booting Scott McKenna.

[Goldie03]

Fucking hell  

[manc_don]

So painfully predictable. They genuinely want to kill the game in Scotland.

[RicoS321]

8 hours ago, DantheDon said:

You are right it's not frivolous, but I just couldn't see them letting us get away with questioning their authority. I think much like the Red itself the question of whether it is a frivolous appeal is subjective to whoever is making the decision. That's why I just couldn't see any outcome but what has happened. It also probably doesn't help that I don't think I've ever seen us successfully get a red card overturned. I'm always careful about calling out bias but I can't help but feel that the appeal process is so obviously biased its laughable. I just can't forget that Morelos red that got rescinded after booting Scott McKenna.

I actually thought the Morelos one was the correct decision in the end. Nobody seemed to realise that the rules had been changed a while prior to that (including the ref), to allow for a little petulance. Regardless, you're right about subjectivity, but I didn't imagine at all that a subjective process could come to that conclusion. To the point that concluding that the appeal was frivolous has lost all subjectivity and is actually biased (not against the Dons, but against questioning authority as you say). I can't think of a better example of a borderline decision that the appeals process is designed for. I'd love to have seen the club publish it's defence in the statement. I do wonder about the rule that states: "The Claim had no prospect of success". I guess that is there to catch an invalid claim, like appealing violent conduct. At the very least, the SFA should be forced to tell us which rule they have applied in the additional punishment (13.21.8.1.3).

 

 

10 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

 

 

[DantheDon]

7 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

I actually thought the Morelos one was the correct decision in the end. Nobody seemed to realise that the rules had been changed a while prior to that (including the ref), to allow for a little petulance.

I have disagree, maybe the rules allow a little petulance but Morelos kicked Mckenna with no intent to play the ball. If the rules say that's OK it's no wonder the referees can't consistently make decisions. I that just overcomplicates things. But I think the main reason I object to it so much is that if it had been Mckenna booting Morelos there's no way it would have been rescinded. I distinctly remember there was a massive backlash in the west coast media and I really felt that swayed the outcome in that case. 

[RicoS321]

Good to see the PFA backing Shinnie. Hopefully something comes of that. It'd be nice to see other players, perhaps even clubs, back him publicly too. The extra game pish has to change. That's a guy potentially playing for his future (here or elsewhere) with only a handful of games left to play. It's outrageous that some bureaucratic, arrogant fucker can demean a player in such a fashion.

[manc_don]

Seems unusual for the PFA to back a clubs appeal? Or at least counter the SFA? And rightly so, the extra game is a nonsense.