sniffer Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Did anyone just hear Hugh Dallas on Sportsound attempt to explain why the 4th official intervened last season in the St Mirren match to get Michael Stewart red carded and why there was no similar intervention when Lafferty (Rangers) received a yellow card for a potential "leg breaker" at Ibrox, which the ref clearly missed? It was absolutely pathetic! Seemingly, the 4th official was correct to offer his advice to the ref in the Hearts match because Stewart was guilty of "violent conduct" and also correct not to intervene in the Lafferty incident - which the ref didn't see - because his offence only amounted to "serious foul play" I am not sticking up for Stewart but there is no doubt in my mind that BOTH players merited red cards and Dallas has once again reinforced what we all know that there is one rule for the Old Firm and another for the gruseome twosome. No wonder we are top of the discipline league every season! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N User Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 What they should maybe explain why the 4th official helping the ref is one of the new rules this year in the SPL, yet it would used against us last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Did anyone just hear Hugh Dallas on Sportsound attempt to explain why the 4th official intervened last season in the St Mirren match to get Michael Stewart red carded and why there was no similar intervention when Lafferty (Rangers) received a yellow card for a potential "leg breaker" at Ibrox, which the ref clearly missed? It was absolutely pathetic! Seemingly, the 4th official was correct to offer his advice to the ref in the Hearts match because Stewart was guilty of "violent conduct" and also correct not to intervene in the Lafferty incident - which the ref didn't see - because his offence only amounted to "serious foul play" I am not sticking up for Stewart but there is no doubt in my mind that BOTH players merited red cards and Dallas has once again reinforced what we all know that there is one rule for the Old Firm and another for the gruseome twosome. No wonder we are top of the discipline league every season! And this surprises you why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Hugh Dallas is a complete and utter Roger Ramjet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Did anyone just hear Hugh Dallas on Sportsound attempt to explain why the 4th official intervened last season in the St Mirren match to get Michael Stewart red carded and why there was no similar intervention when Lafferty (Rangers) received a yellow card for a potential "leg breaker" at Ibrox, which the ref clearly missed? It was absolutely pathetic! Seemingly, the 4th official was correct to offer his advice to the ref in the Hearts match because Stewart was guilty of "violent conduct" and also correct not to intervene in the Lafferty incident - which the ref didn't see - because his offence only amounted to "serious foul play" I am not sticking up for Stewart but there is no doubt in my mind that BOTH players merited red cards and Dallas has once again reinforced what we all know that there is one rule for the Old Firm and another for the gruseome twosome. No wonder we are top of the discipline league every season! Who decides what is violent conduct and what is serious foul play? In asking the question I realise that it doesn't really matter. What matters is who is seeing red and who is getting only yellow. $#itty league run by a third rate association at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radge21 Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Scottish referee's are corrupt in favour of the old firm. Pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One flew over Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Scottish referee's are corrupt in favour of the old firm. Pure and simple. This^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son Of Anarchy Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Scottish referee's are corrupt in favour of the old firm. Pure and simple. Sorry but your not allowed to say this.After all,we are seemingly just paranoid arent we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblair182 Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 As much as I would love to agree with the OP (I do love a good SFA conspiracy) I don't really think there is a case for that here. I thought Dallas talked very well in the interview and explained as clearly as he could FIFA's seemingly bizarre rules. What I took from it was that over recent seasons the 4th official has had his hands tied in that he could only intervene in certain situations i.e. Violent Conduct. Other incidents such as Serious Foul Play the 4th official could not intervene and it would be left to the referee and his assistants. I guess the thinking behind this would have been that serious foul play is part of the "game" in that it is usually on the ball incidents (e.g. late/dangerous tackles)and it happens in the action if you catch my drift. Violent Conduct is usually off the ball and is not part of the "game". For instance a player/assistant manager/masseur could be sent off for Violent Conduct but only the player for Serious Foul Play. Therefore the 4th official was within his rights to send off Stewart, but in Lafferty's case the 4th official couldn't intervene regardless of whether he wanted to or not. It is hard to take that we are, to my knowledge, the only SPL team to have been done by a 4th official in this way, but it's rules set out by FIFA not the SFA. "SEPP BLATTER W**K W**K W**K" This season the rules have been changed so the 4th official can intervene in any decision but they have been advised by refs to only do so on "major" decisions. As I say I thought Dallas came across well. Especially when he put moron Preston in place after he claimed Anderson's tackle last week was only a booking. Absolute Stroker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniffer Posted August 21, 2010 Author Share Posted August 21, 2010 As much as I would love to agree with the OP (I do love a good SFA conspiracy) I don't really think there is a case for that here. I thought Dallas talked very well in the interview and explained as clearly as he could FIFA's seemingly bizarre rules. What I took from it was that over recent seasons the 4th official has had his hands tied in that he could only intervene in certain situations i.e. Violent Conduct. Other incidents such as Serious Foul Play the 4th official could not intervene and it would be left to the referee and his assistants. I guess the thinking behind this would have been that serious foul play is part of the "game" in that it is usually on the ball incidents (e.g. late/dangerous tackles)and it happens in the action if you catch my drift. Violent Conduct is usually off the ball and is not part of the "game". For instance a player/assistant manager/masseur could be sent off for Violent Conduct but only the player for Serious Foul Play. Therefore the 4th official was within his rights to send off Stewart, but in Lafferty's case the 4th official couldn't intervene regardless of whether he wanted to or not. It is hard to take that we are, to my knowledge, the only SPL team to have been done by a 4th official in this way, but it's rules set out by FIFA not the SFA. "SEPP BLATTER W**K W**K W**K" This season the rules have been changed so the 4th official can intervene in any decision but they have been advised by refs to only do so on "major" decisions. As I say I thought Dallas came across well. Especially when he put moron Preston in place after he claimed Anderson's tackle last week was only a booking. Absolute Stroker. Thanks, but I know the difference between violent conduct and serious foul play. What I said was that both incidents merited red cards and if the ref didn't see the Lafferty incident, as was stated on the radio, how did he know that he was guilty only of serious foul play? One can only conclude that he made a stab in the dark and decided to flash a yellow or that the 4th official told him what had happened (although he shouldn't have done, according to the rules in place at that time) and the outcome was the same, a yellow card. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been the same had Lafferty (god forbid) been wearing maroon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblair182 Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Thanks, but I know the difference between violent conduct and serious foul play. What I said was that both incidents merited red cards and if the ref didn't see the Lafferty incident, as was stated on the radio, how did he know that he was guilty only of serious foul play? One can only conclude that he made a stab in the dark and decided to flash a yellow or that the 4th official told him what had happened (although he shouldn't have done, according to the rules in place at that time) and the outcome was the same, a yellow card. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been the same had Lafferty (god forbid) been wearing maroon? Apologies I didn't realise the ref missed the Lafferty incident, My Bad! Bottom line, in general do I believe the SFA refs favour the Old Firm over other teams including Hearts? Yes. I don't have time to worry about the SFA right now, I'm seconds away from winning my coupon for today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.