PatReilly wrote:

Falkirk's young player has been banned by the SFA for 8 games for comments made to Dunfermline's Dean Shiels about his eye deficiency.

This is the same SFA which overturned warranted red cards for Celtic's Scott Brown and Rangers' Ryan Jack (twice).

a) Surely attempting to cause physical harm to a player on a football pitch is worse than attempting to abuse a player verbally?

b) If 'verbals' are deemed so offensive by the SFA, is it not a bit odd that the authorities cannot hear Celtic fans praising the IRA, or Rangers fans being up to their knees in fenian blood at grounds all over Scotland?

Correct. While agreeing the player should get a ban the length of it imo is completely excessive.
 

Whilst i take on board Pat's points i have to say i think the boy completely deserves the long ban.

An abhorrent bit of abuse and shameful.

I would have sacked him if he was my player.

Tek wrote:

Whilst i take on board Pat's points i have to say i think the boy completely deserves the long ban.

An abhorrent bit of abuse and shameful.

I would have sacked him if he was my player.

Sorry tek but disagree. Worlds too soft now. 8 game ban for thats ridiculous
 

I reckon most folk would think an eight game ban is excessive. Fwiw, Tek and b&t, you are broadly in agreement with each other anyway.

The case next week will be interesting: the Falkirk player (McKee) who is up on the same charge claims he is completely innocent. 

And to be honest, only the players involved directly know what was said. It's very similar to the Shay Logan/Aleksander Tonev case.

Tek wrote:

PatReilly wrote:

I reckon most folk would think an eight game ban is excessive. Fwiw, Tek and b&t, you are broadly in agreement with each other anyway.

The case next week will be interesting: the Falkirk player (McKee) who is up on the same charge claims he is completely innocent. 

And to be honest, only the players involved directly know what was said. It's very similar to the Shay Logan/Aleksander Tonev case.

Pat it is pretty damn obvious what the guy O'Hara is implying imo.Sometimes a picture speaks louder than words.

All is fair in love and War but there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed imo (family,health etc).

 

Hmmm: what's Shiels saying? You cannae make decisions based on assumptions.

You might be right, Tek: some Falkirk fans claiming to be itk are saying Shiels made reference to the lad's religion, which obviously doesn't give O'Hara the right to abuse Shiels, but offers context.

But even if the boy has mouthed off about Shiels' eye, an eight game ban is out of order, especially when we recall the compliance officer's leniency with physical incidents.

PatReilly wrote:

You might be right, Tek: some Falkirk fans claiming to be itk are saying Shiels made reference to the lad's religion, which obviously doesn't give O'Hara the right to abuse Shiels, but offers context.

But even if the boy has mouthed off about Shiels' eye, an eight game ban is out of order, especially when we recall the compliance officer's leniency with physical incidents.

If Shiels did then he too deserves some kind of punishment.


 

The snowflake generation have now officially taken over.

Arabnophobia wrote:

Tek wrote:

PatReilly wrote:

You might be right, Tek: some Falkirk fans claiming to be itk are saying Shiels made reference to the lad's religion, which obviously doesn't give O'Hara the right to abuse Shiels, but offers context.

But even if the boy has mouthed off about Shiels' eye, an eight game ban is out of order, especially when we recall the compliance officer's leniency with physical incidents.

If Shiels did then he too deserves some kind of punishment.


 

 
If someone gives you verbal shite the "workplace" laws should allow you the right of equal or worse reply without prosecution.

A bit like the rules for self defence in a physical assault.

A good verbal return is like a vocal martial art in many ways within our country and unique culture.

I agree.

But if Shiels has brought religion into it then the authorities can't be seen to condone that on the field.

And yes I get the irony in that statement.

​