Yup, had to stick up for our laddie. Good for him to know that club have two eyes in their heads and know decision was garbage. 
No good for the laddie to fall foul of cynicism on the park but such cynicism to be upheld by the system - no good.
Morton guy should have been off, only decision should be how long for.

.... Just as an aside (and I don't mean to harp on about Watt) , can you imagine if Watt had been involved in that incident - would have been yet another oscar attempt, instead of which Cudjoe attempts to get up and sees red for honest attempt to play fitba.
 

Last edited by Shakey Isles Arab (20/9/2023 1:14 am)

Dismissed. Another £500 doon the cundie.

It's a learning process for the boy.  Club did the right thing but always going to fail.

He needs to play the game too - he needs to have made it clear to the ref (as should other players) that he was getting the treatment he was and when given the opportunity to ham it up to get their player in trouble he should.  If he'd cried out and stayed down in that tackle he wins the foul.  As it happens he makes a genuine effort to get up and makes contact with the Morton player who most definitely makes the most out of it.

Of course, if he did mean to elbow him (which I doubt) then he needs to get better at it.  Burnley boy sent off on Monday night for a real elbow that was missed by the officials but picked up by VAR.  We don't have VAR....

FWIW, the relevant part of Law 12 which covers fouls and sanctions says this, in reference to "violent conduct" (violent conduct is the offence Cudjoe is supposedly guilty of, and it's a red card offence):

"Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made. In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible."

So basically, in order to dismiss the appeal, the blazers have to believe that Cudjoe deliberately threw an arm into the guy's head/face and that he did so with significant force. The fact there was "contact" is (or should be) irrelevant.

IIRC correctly, Cudjoe was looking in the other direction as he was getting up, so he could not have known where the guy's head was. Therefore he could not have deliberately struck the opponent on the head or face because he would need to know where the guy's head or face was in order to do that. Secondly the video makes it very clear that any contact that did occur did not involve significant force. There is no rapid movement of Cudjoe's arm towards the guy and at no point do you see the guy's head jerk backwards, which it would if he was clobbered in the face by someone's arm.

So in upholding the decision, the SFA have also ignored the definition of violent conduct in the LoTG.

I'm like a dog with a bone with corrupt shite like this, and if it was up to me, I'd probably go over the SFA's heads and appeal this to a higher body. Not saying United should, but I would.
 

The SFA. The Set of F*ckin A**eholes.