GreigB1989 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/7838605.stm Typical! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The xx Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 To be fair, it is probably the worst red card decision I have ever seen. It was never a clear goal scoring opportunity, there were no studs shown and it wasn't two-footed. The only injustice I can see is that Cregg's one was thrown out. Anyway, we want Rangers' strongest team out on Saturday to do the Dons over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy the Jambo Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 To be fair it was never a sending off a booking yes .Although that ref is an idiot at the best of times at least he has the balls to admit he got it wrong unlike that ****ing ***** Brines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambojambo Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 "The referee accepted that the player was not guilty of serious foul play" This is the SFA's statement that should have followed Hearts appeal against Zaliukas red card. Instead we got shafted by Brines and the SFA! Paranoid? Aye right!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The xx Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 "The referee accepted that the player was not guilty of serious foul play"This is the SFA's statement that should have followed Hearts appeal against Zaliukas red card. Instead we got shafted by Brines and the SFA! Paranoid? Aye right!!! You're right, but as was pointed out Brines obviously didn't want to admit he was wrong. This is why I am infavour of an impartial decision being made with regards to red card appeals, rather than the person who made the original decision reviewing it. As was pointed out on the thread related to Patrick Cergg's appeal, Collum obviously didn't want to look incompetent by admitting he got two red cards wrong. Likewise, Brines didn't want to look incompetent when it came to the Zaliukas incident. It has had the opposite effect however, as anyone who looks at the incident again can clearly see that Zaliukas done nothing other than square up to the Aberdeen player (I forget who it was). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali-1874 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The sending off was a joke and it was the right decision that Papac's red card was rescinded. It's a joke that Zaliukas' red never got rescinded as that was even more laughable. As for Cregg's sending off, it was a very harsh sending off but the appeal was never going to be succesfull because he did go in with two feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 It has had the opposite effect however, as anyone who looks at the incident again can clearly see that Zaliukas done nothing other than square up to the Aberdeen player (I forget who it was). It was Lee Miller. And you are right - IF there is any sort of objective system for assessing refereee's performances then Brines unwillingness to see that he was wrong with the benefit of any number of video replays should lead to some sort of demotion in the refereeing ranks. He clearly demonstrated his unfitness to referee at this level (maybe any level). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swanny17 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The Zal case was a joke, but two wrong's don't make a right, and this is the correct decision. Papac should never have been red carded in a million years. However, the Falkirk players one should also have been rescinded IMO, but the law states that a 2 footed tackle is a red card IIRC. Anyway......:108years::108years::108years: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Jambo 60 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 It was Lee Miller. And you are right - IF there is any sort of objective system for assessing refereee's performances then Brines unwillingness to see that he was wrong with the benefit of any number of video replays should lead to some sort of demotion in the refereeing ranks. He clearly demonstrated his unfitness to referee at this level (maybe any level). If Brines was chocolate he would eat himself. Like a lot of people in life,he thinks he is never wrong. A plank of the highest order. Should not be a ref with his attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 "The referee accepted that the player was not guilty of serious foul play"This is the SFA's statement that should have followed Hearts appeal against Zaliukas red card. Instead we got shafted by Brines and the SFA! Paranoid? Aye right!!! We got shafted by Brines not by the SFA. Correct decision to reverse Papac's red, shocking refereeing decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon 1874 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Just announced on Scotland Today that Papac (sp) has had his red card recinded - FTG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/7838605.stm Typical! WHat is more typical is Falkirk's Cregg lost his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Can a red be downgraded to yellow or does it have to be totally rescinded to nothing? A foul is a foul and it is the referee?s call as to whether it is red or yellow. Papac?s foul was very very cynical, rather than dangerous. I?d have given the fecher one yellow for the foul and another for unsporting behaviour! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Can a red be downgraded to yellow or does it have to be totally rescinded to nothing? A foul is a foul and it is the referee?s call as to whether it is red or yellow. Papac?s foul was very very cynical, rather than dangerous. I?d have given the fecher one yellow for the foul and another for unsporting behaviour! The SFA said the review panel has the power to reduce the offence to a caution "or completely expunge the offence from the player's record". It's certainly a caution surely ( professional foul in my view ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWL Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 The Zal case was a joke, but two wrong's don't make a right, and this is the correct decision. Papac should never have been red carded in a million years. However, the Falkirk players one should also have been rescinded IMO, but the law states that a 2 footed tackle is a red card IIRC. Anyway......:108years::108years::108years: It wasn't two footed, how the referee can rescind the Papac red card and not Creggs for me shows up how much of a corrupt regime is running or game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.