Darnell Johnson Ban

[MSG_07]

Ah the great debate amigo , red or yellow. Opinions eh. But I must respectfully stick with mine..

I'm not say you're not allowed one but you're about the only Hibs fan I've seen come out saying it was a red.

 

[1875]

I'm not say you're not allowed one but you're about the only Hibs fan I've seen come out saying it was a red.

From my seat at Celtc Park, Ithought it was a staight red and was surprised when it wasnt.

 

[Doc Shrink]

Thought it could have been either, but I’m not clear why it was singled out for a review.
I read something about the compliance officer reacts to ‘complaints’ from any source. So maybe we should all complain to her about Broon or Shinnie the next time they blooter a Hibs player without relevant punishment. It’s bound to happen,

 

[MSG_07]

From my seat at Celtc Park, Ithought it was a staight red and was surprised when it wasnt.

From your seat though yeah. I'm basing my opinion on seeing the video replay several times over. Obviously Hibs have done the same - I don't think we'd have bothered appealing otherwise.

 

[WJC1848]

I'm afraid I, too, thought it was a red when it happened. About one of the only challenges on the night that we saw clearly, with no infernal pillar in the way. When the yellow was shown, we three thought our new guy was very lucky. One of us did say, "Welcome to Scottish fitbaw". Awright, it wiz me, because it looked like the kind of challenge that the big guy is used to dealing with, when the ball ran away from him.

 

[SWH]

I'm not say you're not allowed one but you're about the only Hibs fan I've seen come out saying it was a red.

Simply because that is what I saw.. it was mistimed reckless and endangered the opponent. Hibs fan or naw that was my opinion.
The enquiry afterwards I don't agree with. But he was a lucky boy tae stay on.

 

[Greenmachine]

Whether people think the challenge deserved a red card or not the fact remains that the referee...the man in charge of the game...decided on the night that a yellow was sufficient. That should be the end of the matter.

 

[Zab]

I would only have it for goal line technology and offside - although your point about the time is a valid one - as for me everything else is still subjective. It’s someones opinion on their interpretation of the rules. You’ve only got to look at some of the post match decisions that have been made this season to see that having video evidence doesn’t always get you a decision that’s “right”.

I agree with that - goals and offside are not subjective, so could easily be dealt with by technology & VAR. I wouldn’t like to see it used for anything else.

I’m also not a fan of this compliance officer, games are now effectively being refereed again, which I think is making the officials even less accountable than they already are.

 

[Hammi]

It's a red from me too tbh.

Our appeal will have been on the grounds it was already dealt with and the fact that Celtic players weren't being called up for their own fouls.

 

[Hammi]

Whether people think the challenge deserved a red card or not the fact remains that the referee...the man in charge of the game...decided on the night that a yellow was sufficient. That should be the end of the matter.

Agree with this though.
Always thought that was how retrospect worked.

 

[WJC1848]

Another factor is that Craig Thomson was the referee that night, someone who does us no favours whatsoever. However, having not sent off Scott Brown for an earlier equally-robust challenge, I believe he took that into account in issuing Johnson's yellow. Leniency from Thomson? I thoroughly doubt it. Evening-up? More likely.

 

[Doc Shrink]

Another factor is that Craig Thomson was the referee that night, someone who does us no favours whatsoever. However, having not sent off Scott Brown for an earlier equally-robust challenge, I believe he took that into account in issuing Johnson's yellow. Leniency from Thomson? I thoroughly doubt it. Evening-up? More likely.

That's probably 100% correct.
The issue is exacerbated by the fact that the 'review' no doubt looks at the single incident, and does not take into account the context. Effectively the referee saw, and addressed the incident at the time. My recollection is that previously reasons were given NOT to re-referee the game when the ref saw and acted.
Much as it pains me to say it, the The Huns have a point about 'trial by Sportscene'.
It's a bit of a farce now.