Jump to content

Sevco Thread


Recommended Posts


The last penalty awarded against Sevco, Ferguson for us in Jan 2022, Kevin Clancy was the ref. Sevco wrote an 8 page diatribe to the SFA in the aftermath, regarding his performance and guess what, he never reffed a game at Ibrox for a year.  Same thing happened to Collum, 18 months he went before a return to Ibrox.

Before this 71 game run with no penalties awarded against them, they had a run of 3 of 4 games where pens were awarded v them, but before that, they went a run of 44 games, without a pen.

I don’t buy into the Sellic conspiracy theories that constantly fly around but something, clearly, is amiss.

 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, sooth_stander said:

The last penalty awarded against Sevco, Ferguson for us in Jan 2022, Kevin Clancy was the ref. Sevco wrote an 8 page diatribe to the SFA in the aftermath, regarding his performance and guess what, he never reffed a game at Ibrox for a year.  Same thing happened to Collum, 18 months he went before a return to Ibrox.

Before this 71 game run with no penalties awarded against them, they had a run of 3 of 4 games where pens were awarded v them, but before that, they went a run of 44 games, without a pen.

I don’t buy into the Sellic conspiracy theories that constantly fly around but something, clearly, is amiss.

 

I remember that. Rumours that the penalty rule was scrapped for a while before being reinstated.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, sooth_stander said:

The last penalty awarded against Sevco, Ferguson for us in Jan 2022, Kevin Clancy was the ref. Sevco wrote an 8 page diatribe to the SFA in the aftermath, regarding his performance and guess what, he never reffed a game at Ibrox for a year.  Same thing happened to Collum, 18 months he went before a return to Ibrox.

Before this 71 game run with no penalties awarded against them, they had a run of 3 of 4 games where pens were awarded v them, but before that, they went a run of 44 games, without a pen.

I don’t buy into the Sellic conspiracy theories that constantly fly around but something, clearly, is amiss.

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Arthur FN Shelby said:

Huns appealing Cifuentes red card. It will be rescinded and the ref will be suspended for a month for having the audacity of awarding it.

Nailed on. Were it being upheld the appeal hearing would be delayed until after the Final. Either way, he's available for selection.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Arthur FN Shelby said:

Huns appealing Cifuentes red card. It will be rescinded and the ref will be suspended for a month for having the audacity of awarding it.

It’s a red and was ruled by var and onfield ref as a red. I would like to see Cifuentes banned for this “frivolous” appeal but unfortunately we all know that only puny non weegie clubs make frivolous appeals.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Hoofball said:

Cicuentes appeal thrown out and he now misses the final and the two premier league games after.

Was it only a one match ban for the red and it’s been increased by two for the frivolous appeal or was it a three match ban due to being a straight red

Nope, not extended. 

Disgusting hun pigs are a blight on society.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Lowrie68 said:

The only difference between Shinnies appeal & the Rabid Huns appeal is he's a Rabid Hun so normal rules don't apply 🤬


And the SFA can’t be arsed paying the surcharge for the unstamped letter from the huns complaining that they shouldn’t be getting dealt with the same way as every other club outside of Glasgow gets dealt with

Link to comment

13.21.8.1 In the event of a Claim being dismissed the Tribunal must then Determine whether:
13.21.8.1.1 The Claim had no prospect of success;
13.21.8.1.2 The Claim was an abuse of process or a delaying tactic for the sanction originally imposed;
 34 /
THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION JUDICIAL PANEL PROTOCOL 2022/2023

13.21.8.1.3 The Claim was frivolous.
13.21.8.2 If a Claim that is dismissed is also Determined by the Tribunal to fall within any of Paragraphs 13.21.8.1.1, 13.21.8.1.2 or 13.21.8.1.3 above, an additional one match suspension shall be imposed.
 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ullevi said:

13.21.8.1 In the event of a Claim being dismissed the Tribunal must then Determine whether:
13.21.8.1.1 The Claim had no prospect of success;
13.21.8.1.2 The Claim was an abuse of process or a delaying tactic for the sanction originally imposed;
 34 /
THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION JUDICIAL PANEL PROTOCOL 2022/2023

13.21.8.1.3 The Claim was frivolous.
13.21.8.2 If a Claim that is dismissed is also Determined by the Tribunal to fall within any of Paragraphs 13.21.8.1.1, 13.21.8.1.2 or 13.21.8.1.3 above, an additional one match suspension shall be imposed.
 

You missed out 20.12 the Sevco exemption clause 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...