Scott Mckenna Ban For Tackle On Edouard

[RAZOR]

As I said. Next televised TV match attend the game then stage a mass walk out at 80 mins

 

What would that achieve?

[1903Fitba]

What would that achieve?

Fuck all

 

Just look funny having an empty stadium for 10 minutes on TV.

[StandFree1982]

What would that achieve?

 

Beat the traffic for one thing! 

[StandFree1982]

Better off sticking a massive "SFA ARE A BUNCH OF CROOKED CUNTS" signs up. If at home, put one up on each section on each stand

[Donstar83]

Beat the traffic for one thing!

How will we beat traffic if we all leave at the same time?

[StandFree1982]

How will we beat traffic if we all leave at the same time?

 

Because it's like everything else, only a handful of people will actually go and do it. 

[Mouse]

I wish bad things on the people that make these decisions. Dictionary definition of corruption and incompetence

[eeps]

They'd just manipulate the notes.

 

They meetings should be videod and posted to YouTube.

Make them open to the public. Transparency of these procedures would infinitely improve matters.

[pocrawred]

When will they decide McKennas fate?

[King Street Loon]

If the appeal is rejected is there an avenue to reject their rejection?

Further contest it.

[strachanmcgheegoal]

Aye but I don't think that they can hand out a retrospective yellow card. They say it was a red that the ref saw and didn't give. I think that it's odds on that Mckenna is getting a long ban.

 

We are effectively appealing against a dodgy decision to the people who have originally given that dodgy decision, are we not? If this is the case, it's a very worrying situation.

Exactly. The default setting should have been “meh, could have been a booking ergo nothing to see here.” Not “meh could have been a booking but we can’t do that so let’s ban him to appease the Tims and strong arm them to accept or they lose him for the semi against the other cheek as well.”

[Tommy]

According to a paper, the new compliance officer is a Clare Whyte. Being nosey, I had a FB search and the first

name that appeared was a bird who is very much a hun so I guess if it’s her, we are fucked.

[perthshirered]

I suspect it might be a different lassie.

[Tommy]

I suspect it might be a different lassie.

I hope so.

[mcdougall(4)]

When will they decide McKennas fate?

 

Its already been decided 

[pocrawred]

Its already been decided

Confirmed then.

[mcdougall(4)]

Confirmed then.

 

The second they 'offered' the 2 matches it was confirmed.

 

Zero chance we win an appeal, did you see the evidence we provided for Devlin.

Knocked back.

 

What can we offer here that would change their mind...

[chief_wiggum]

According to a paper, the new compliance officer is a Clare Whyte. Being nosey, I had a FB search and the first

name that appeared was a bird who is very much a hun so I guess if it’s her, we are fucked.

 

Nah wont be her, think shes a bit young? While doing some research I ended up on a thread in FF 8 pages long and in the end I dont think they are any the wiser, apart from convincing themselves that she is a "Taig" and will be fucking them up for sure.

 

The paranoia of these hun Sherlock Holmes types trying to track her down is off the scale!

https://www.followfollow.com/forum/threads/new-compliance-officer.42355/

[TheRock]

I'm surprised there is even an appeals process. In fact, is there one? For a retrospective red?

 

This isn't like a referee making a split second decision watching an incident in real time as it happened and getting it wrong. Whoever has decided this merited a retrospective red will have had all the luxuries of multiple angles/slow motion etc as an appeal panel would. How can they look at it and give a retrospective red and then look at it again on appeal and decide actually no, you're right, it wasn't a red after all. I get that it's not the same panel (presumably) who give the retrospective red that would look at the appeal but still.

 

Whole thing is crazy. The decision framework as well as the actual decisions being made. Like is there any chance that they aren't going to stand by the decision to award a red card? What is even the point of 'offering' the two match ban? Is there any scenario where not accepting it is going to end up benefitting the team (other than on principle). It's like they are just saying 'would you prefer a two match ban or three match ban?'. Two match ban is obviously what you'd go for, except it is accompanied with the indignity of admitting the disciplinary panel was right.

[strachanmcgheegoal]

Just to be clear is that the guy who Mckenna ended his career that just scored in 90 seconds 5 days later?

[Geoff_Tipps]

Just as news breaks that our appeal has been rejected.

[fine-n-dandy]

I thought Edouard had to get one of his legs amputated. Appears he's fine after all

[Rostov-on-Don]

He's actually been banned, just now.

 

What the actual fuck

[Ernie McCracken]

Clearly this is payback for us speaking out against the Devlin decision.

 

Absolutely disgusting.

[TheRock]

Well, at least they didn't extend it to three. Two still seems about 2 too high though.

[Shinniesta]

No surprise. If the appeal for Devlin's red card wasn't successful then no chance this one was going to be either.

 

Missing the Hearts game at Tynecastle is a massive blow.

 

McKenna goes for and actually plays the ball and gets a two game ban. McGregor and Morelos deliberately kick opposition players off the ball and don't get banned. Yet the AFC player is deemed to be acting violently and the hun players are not? Scottish football is a complete joke.

[Mitch71175]

Should be able to appeal this utterly shite decision to UEFA. Problem is nae sure if they would get it right either.

[Big Hat Logan]

Corrupt as fuck, payback for daring to speak out about the Devlin incident.

 

This is going to see fans even further alienated from the game now and who can blame them.

[Tommy]

RIP Scottish Fitba.

[Sheepo]

Corrupt bastards, Fuck the SFA they are more corrupt than FIFA