slashishere Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 I dont Belieeevee it!! Wow..........I am somewhat shocked!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 And I wonder if all those on here who claimed Csaba being called up was due to SFA bias, that Csaba would definately get a lengthy ban no matter what etc etc, will come on and apologise for being wrong. I won't hold my breath! Personally I've always had some sympathy for that view on things - any disciplinary hearing involving Hearts since the Levein fiasco following Dougie McDonald's display at Kilmarnock have always tended to be marked by an undue heavy handedness by them. Perhaps if there had been some signs of fairness and even handedness during that period maybe those who have the jaundiced view of the SFA might just have been less paranoid about their motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davjambo Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Well slap my face and call me susan, S.F.A. do the right thing.:eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surrey Jambo Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 The only reason it has been overturned, is ......... Walter Smith is the next one up, he'll get off with his rants & this is only part of their plan to stop the "'One Rule' for the 'Old Firm'" brigade from complaining. From the footnotes of the BBC atricle about Csaba's appeal: "Meanwhile, the SFA says it will no longer make disciplinary matters public until after the body responsible for punishing rule breaches meet. Its general purposes committee wants to avoid the type of situation that arose last week, when it was revealed that Rangers manager Walter Smith had been asked to explain his comments about assistant referee Tom Murphy following the game at Motherwell on 12 November. So, while clubs will be informed, the SFA will no longer comment on these matters to the media before hearings are held." Note they didn't want to avoid the type of situation against any other SPL manager in the past! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 All this luck can't be a good thing... But well done SFA. You're not complete winkers then.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambojambo Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 The only reason it has been overturned, is ......... Walter Smith is the next one up, he'll get off with his rants & this is only part of their plan to stop the "'One Rule' for the 'Old Firm'" brigade from complaining. My feeling entirely!! The SFA would have loved to have hit Laslo with a ban however, Wattie's public accusation of a linesman that he was biased in favour of Celtic would have to have led to at least a 3 match ban. And THAT was never going to happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_Mywords Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Is it just me that's thinking that Hearts may have had some evidence that conflicted with the officials version of events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Didn't see anyone say he was called up due to bias. Fair enough mate. I can see people suggesting bias, even on this thread, on the day he got off scot free! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Csaba's argument last night was unless the 4th official is a mind reader how could he establish what csaba's thoughts & intent was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Csaba's argument last night was unless the 4th official is a mind reader how could he establish what csaba's thoughts & intent was? I would have thought that the precautionary principle should apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Do precautions include grappling from behind with the substitutions board? The 4th official acted with undue haste & was over zealous based on his own assumptions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N User Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Walter Smith is getting a bit of a bashing in this thread. I don't remember what he said, but I do remember linesman Tom Murphy giving a few dodgy decisions against us when playing Celtic.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr X Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Do precautions include grappling from behind with the substitutions board? The 4th official acted with undue haste & was over zealous based on his own assumptions Exactly. Any action against the 4th official for what was basically an assault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Do precautions include grappling from behind with the substitutions board? The 4th official acted with undue haste & was over zealous based on his own assumptions I have not seen footage, and I had turned away briefly before turning back when Laszlo started to argue with Clark, so I did not see the incident clearly. I would suggest that it is possible that a 4th official would regularly keep hold of the board to prevent it being broken when the teams troop back into the dressing rooms. So it would be in his hand. And if the 4th official used the precautionary principle to prevent a seemingly enraged manager from getting at the other officials after an incident which had enraged the fans and Hearts management then that is fair enough. Clearly the beaks have accepted Laszlo's explanation though and that is that. The precautionary principle worked though - no harm was allowed to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRL1969 Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Common sense prevails for once! Dont you believe it. That lot are up to something. In the last few days they have, Let us away with pumpin der hun. Given us a by in the Scottish. Now they let Csaba off. Somethings up. watch your backs folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Kurtz Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Walter Smith is getting a bit of a bashing in this thread. I don't remember what he said, but I do remember linesman Tom Murphy giving a few dodgy decisions against us when playing Celtic.. exactly ,but its ok against us. Smith implied the linesman was biased in favour of one club,just what romanov got hammered for. Linesman called Tim Murphy,hmm I wonder which one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Good stuff. Bet he gets sent to the stand next time he whacks the dugout though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The xx Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Great news!! Thought he was going to get banned for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 This will be interestingWalter Smith recently slagged a linesman apparantly based on the fact his name was Murphy,and suggested that he was biased towards Celtic. Hearts were fined for suggesing the Hun supporting linesman could have been biased....lets see the outcome Dont do it again Wattie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 So the SFA are NOT out to get Hearts then after all? Hmmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.