Comment on Fantastic Voyage .. by Allyjambo.

    limjim 14th September 2018 at 18:22  


    AJ 15.56

    Where did i say they seen nothing?. I asked how they could have reached this decision given the admitted lack of clarity regarding the "kick"  from Alfredo Morelos

    The referee acted upon the call from the assistant referee, who by his own admission had a "limited view" of the incident. Did, for instance this view allow him to witness the initial contact (foul)  by the Aberdeen defender.

    I said in the immediate aftermath of the incident that Morelos wasn't guilty of violent conduct as he neither used excessive force or brutality, you rubbished this without seemingly being aware of the rules

    .Not sure whether you have read the written reasons of the fast track Tribunal.or not but they include the following. 

    "The tribunal accepted the clubs submission that the video footage clearly showed that the force of the kick towards an opponent was not excessive and did not use brutality. Therefore, it could not constitute an sending off offence for violent conduct." . Seems pretty clear to me and thousands of other Rangers fans. that the match officials were incorrect in this case, given the rules as they stand at present. Your opinion i'm afraid is just that, your opinion.

    I would be more than happy to see more openness & transparency from the match officials.I may then get an answer into how Scott Brown has been allowed to use an elbow to the face of at least three Rangers players (Miller, Holt & Morelos) in recent games without receiving the appropriate punishment.



    If the Morelos kick was not a sending off affair, then, in my rather long experience of both playing and watching football, I've witnessed an untold number of players wrongly sent off for kicking an opponent.


    You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the hot topic at the moment is the lack of trust supporters, and perhaps some clubs, hold towards the SFA and their ability to reach unbiased decisions. Why should we trust the opinions some of unnamed referees to determine what is, or isn't, excessive force?


    To any sensible person, a deliberate kick at another person is, by it's nature, 'excessive force', for there is no other purpose than for it to cause, at the very least, uncalled for discomfort and, quite probably, injury. Do you know just how much force is required to break a leg, or damage ligaments? For if you don't, you are not in a position to determine what is, or isn't, excessive force. And neither is a referee reviewing an incident on a TV.


    I took a kick in a game to my knee with no more force than that that appears to be issued by Morelos, and it was a genuine tackle, for I had the ball – unlike McKenna. It was sore, but I played on. My knee was sore all week, but I was desperate to play on the Saturday and I went over on the same knee, with no one near me. I never played football again (other than the odd kick around).


    It is one thing receiving a kick in a genuine joust for the ball, it's a whole other thing when the ball is nowhere near, and so, unless one is trying to defend the indefensible, all kicks deliberately aimed at an opponent must be deemed to be using excessive force.


    Anyway, take a look at the pic EJ posted and tell me that you see a linesman with a blocked view, at the exact moment Morelos' foot is in the air – at knee height. If he didn't have a clear view of that, he must have had his eyes shut, or has suddenly got an enforced bout of temporary blindness when given the opportunity to change his mind.


    Strangely enough, if McKenna had had the ball, and what Morelos did was some kind of tackle, he could well have been sent off for a dangerous tackle. Players have been sent off for similar, or even less.


    At a time when we have had a number of dodgy reviews resulting in rather surprising decisions, only one has gone against the original decision made by the referee. What's more, of those incidents involving deliberate kicks, it's the one most likely to have caused serious injury if it's apparent target had been met.

    Allyjambo Also Commented

    Fantastic Voyage ..


    Tweet from the Offshore Game regarding the Aberdeen club statement. Looks like they are still paying attention to the corruption in Scottish football.

    Fantastic Voyage ..
    paddy malarkey 14th September 2018 at 16:30 Allyjambo 14th September 2018 at 15:56 What was missing a fourth official shouting"foul ,foul, foul !" or an ass. ref screaming "red card , red card ,red card !". When are these people going to grow up and start behaving like adults rather than pubescent supporters ?



    It does seem ludicrously impossible for 1, 2 or 3 match officials not to see something happen, but then to get their decision correct (or, as some would have us believe, very nearly get it correct).


    I am of the opinion that some referees have reacted, from time to time, when a player goes down dramatically and, not having witnessed the 'incident' give a red on the assumption that an offence has been committed – but from memory, in this case, McKenna didn't even stumble, so the decision could only have been given as a result of at least one official seeing Morelos kick out.


    Besides, as EJ's pic clearly shows, the linesman only had a bad view of the crowd behind him, and as perfect a view of Morelos kicking McKenna as any linesman could ever hope to have! Proof positive that anyone claiming the linesman had a poor view of the incident is very biased indeed.

    Fantastic Voyage ..
    slimjim 14th September 2018 at 15:12  


    Billydug & Ex Ludo


    So the referee is facing away from the incident and the Assistant referee had a "limited view".  

    How then could they reach the decision they did?, which of course was correctly overturned on appeal.

    Forced to play for over 80 minutes at the home of one of our closest rivals due to an error on the officials part.

    Got to love this bias toward us



    So, are you saying Morelos was in some way innocent of kicking/kicking out at an opposition player? Or are you saying that the officials had decided to send Morelos off and by some miracle he'd just kicked/attempted to kick the opposition player at the same time?


    In my opinion, and that of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of others, Morelos was deservedly sent off; you might not agree, but to suggest the officials saw nothing, but sent him off without seeing his actions in exactly the same way that I did, is quite ludicrous! Even if the review panel were correct (but god knows how), the officials must have seen him do something that convinced them that he'd kicked his opponent, an offence that only recently appears to have been reduced to the same level as kicking the ball away.

    Recent Comments by Allyjambo

    Dear Mr Bankier
    macfurgly 8th December 2018 at 18:41 15 0 Rate This easyJambo 8th December 2018 at 18:00 Allyjambo 8th December 2018 at 18:18 ————————- What strikes me about this is that it has taken so long for this apparent loophole in the Takeover Code to be exploited. We have been following the RIFC saga, but as far as I can make out, the Takeover Code has been regulating the whole of UK business since 1968 and with Statutory Powers since 2006. Has no-one tried this dodge before? King seems to have successfully undermined the fundamental principle of the Code, to protect the interests of small shareholders, simply by ignoring it completely until it suited him to comply. Every day is a school day right enough. I wonder how many other regulations governing the UK economy are being undermined as easily. I'm no lawyer, but if what King has done is OK by the TOP, then I can't see where the small shareholders could get a foothold in law to challenge it.



    Still no more than my opinion, and an uneducated one at that, but I believe the directors of all companies have a duty to preserve the rights of all shareholders and not to take actions that might, in any way, remove the rights, or diminish the share value, of all shareholders.


    The RIFC plc directors were all fully aware of King's protracted losing battle with the TOP and the law of the land, yet they proceeded with a policy that might well protect the company chairman from his duty under the law while knowingly taking action that would very likely end in them depriving shareholders of their rights under the law – rights that were currently being protected in the courts.


    I'd be very surprised if those small shareholders don't have some grounds to sue RIFC, or maybe the individual directors, but would imagine that that would depend on the outcome of the offer and whether or not there is a take-up that would have taken King over the 50% prior to the rights issue.


    Wouldn't it be so Kingesq if this did result in King passing the cost of his misdeed to the club or his fellow directors? And I wouldn't be surprised if he knew/thought it might be the case from the very beginning.



    Dear Mr Bankier
    macfurgly 8th December 2018 at 14:50


    I am of the opinion that the recent RIFC share issue shows exactly why the TOP was set up – to prevent the railroading of smaller shareholders by unscrupulous directors. We can see how King has initially taken control then used his influence over the less astute (and in this case, emotionally attached) shareholders to take control of the business and sideline shareholders who do not want the company to be run by King.


    Like most, I am baffled by the leniency being shown to King, for he has used his delaying tactics to secure a situation that might well enable him to achieve the end he has sought, at the expense of those who would have taken up the offer. These people will have lost out on (in some cases) a substantial amount of money while seeing their already diminished in value shareholdings become virtually worthless.  It seems incredible that the courts would allow someone to abuse the system in this way.


    I do, though, have a wee thought (hope, actually) that this might well backfire on RIFC/TRFC and that, having been denied what King was legally ordered to offer them, the shareholders sue the company (RIFC) for having acted in a way that denied them the opportunity to recoup part of their investment that is now diminished further. I suspect, though, that, should this be possible, they would have to be able to show (by way of the level of uptake of King's offer) that the share issue has directly prevented King reaching the required 50% before they can proceed.

    Dear Mr Bankier
    Ex Ludo 6th December 2018 at 17:35


    I wonder if the SFA suits are aware! This must have come as quite a shock for themdevil

    Dear Mr Bankier
    I remember from a good number of years ago that BBC Scotland sent a news team to Lithuania to investigate Romanov, on what was then no more than rumours/a hunch. They ended up showing a half-hour program of not very much. Now, on their very doorstep, with clear allegations (from a man in a position to know) in court that criminal money was used by one of our football clubs (regardless of it's age) not one member of our media is showing the least bit of interest.


    It's not even worth asking why that might be.



    Dear Mr Bankier
    HirsutePursuit 30th November 2018 at 01:30


    That's an interesting situation, HP, and one I'd like to see played out. I had wondered, though, if, in view of the success of King's delaying tactics, and should he be found in contempt, will the sentence handed down reflect this and be the severest penalty available as a result? (Rhetorical question 🙄)


    There is still, of course, the question of the 'cold shoulder' and how the financial world will view it in light of they way King has played fast and loose with the law. Will it result in a much wider effect than the mere 'cold shoulder', and could it have implications for the club and, for aiding and abetting King in his manoeuvres, the rest of the concert party.