Jump to content

Jack Ross...Notice of Compliance


Recommended Posts

News

Notice of Complaint | Jack Ross, Manager, St. Mirren FC

Thursday, 24 August 2017

Alleged Party in Breach: Jack Ross (Manager, St. Mirren FC)


Match: Livingston FC v St Mirren FC on 19th August 2017


Competition: SPFL: Championship


Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 203 - No member of Team Staff shall commit Misconduct at a match.


Principal hearing date: Thursday 14th September 2017

The Compliance Officer offers a Fixed Suspension of a 1 (one) match suspension.


Response date: Monday 28th August 2017

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Utter nonsense , however we are the SFA as such we make up our own rules as we go along.

Remember seeing a player score a goal the player left the field to high five his fans - booked / TV Game at night ICT v Rangers Barry Ferguson scores left the field to celabrate with his fans - no booking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ged62 said:

Will Thompson be brought up for his incompetence? I bet not.

It is our manager's responsibility to keep up tp date with and understand the rules of the game and not simply wait to be told.

He is paid to do that.

Jack made a mistake, he was sent off, he should and hopefully will accept his punishment.

None of this has anything to do with Thompson's incompetence.

You are indulging in whataboutery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

It is our manager's responsibility to keep up tp date with and understand the rules of the game and not simply wait to be told.

He is paid to do that.

Jack made a mistake, he was sent off, he should and hopefully will accept his punishment.

None of this has anything to do with Thompson's incompetence.

You are indulging in whataboutery.

Wrong . If a player is fouled and the guilty player is booked then injured player does not need to leave the field of play if he is fit to play on. This is what this case is about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the change for this season is that if a card is given "the injured player is allowed to remain on the field of play for treatment and not go off after. Providing, the Law says, the assessment and treatment is completed quickly". Refs have been given an emhasis from fifa on the completed quickly part. This means it is now at the referees discretion particularly where they consider time wasting my be involved. So Thompson was within his rights and Jack seems to have accepted this. Better for the club if we all move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is our manager's responsibility to keep up tp date with and understand the rules of the game and not simply wait to be told.
He is paid to do that.
Jack made a mistake, he was sent off, he should and hopefully will accept his punishment.
None of this has anything to do with Thompson's incompetence.
You are indulging in whataboutery.

Aye ok mr know all
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't at the game last week so didn't see what happened, only going by what Jack said.

Seemed that the ref was in the wrong, but the SFA is always going to back up their man.

In this case by my reckoning the game he would sit in the stands would be the fizzy pop game against the Hearts kids

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Wrong . If a player is fouled and the guilty player is booked then injured player does not need to leave the field of play if he is fit to play on. This is what this case is about. 

The bit around the change of rules seems to indicate that a player may be quickly treated on the pitch instead of leaving the field when an opponent is booked, however I think the grey area is around quick treatment, if ref thinks treatment is going to be lengthy he would still be within rules to ask player to leave field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, div said:

Wasn't at the game last week so didn't see what happened, only going by what Jack said.

Seemed that the ref was in the wrong, but the SFA is always going to back up their man.

In this case by my reckoning the game he would sit in the stands would be the fizzy pop game against the Hearts kids

If Jack has to take in the Diddy Cup game from the main stand, that could double the match attendance. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the change for this season is that if a card is given "the injured player is allowed to remain on the field of play for treatment and not go off after. Providing, the Law says, the assessment and treatment is completed quickly". Refs have been given an emhasis from fifa on the completed quickly part. This means it is now at the referees discretion particularly where they consider time wasting my be involved. So Thompson was within his rights and Jack seems to have accepted this. Better for the club if we all move on.


Yes, but how can it be time wasting if the opponent was booked. It was relatively quick, very few booking related injuries would be quick.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TsuMirren said:

 


Yes, but how can it be time wasting if the opponent was booked. It was relatively quick, very few booking related injuries would be quick.

 

Surely it could be time wasting simply if the referee reckons the trainer is deliberately taking his time treating the player in order to run time off the clock? Booking the opposition player has nothing to do with anything surely? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely it could be time wasting simply if the referee reckons the trainer is deliberately taking his time treating the player in order to run time off the clock? Booking the opposition player has nothing to do with anything surely? 


Of course it does, the booking comes because the opponent has connected in more cases than not after a tackle. So, what, is the physio to ignore duty of care ahead of not appearing to deliberately take his time. "Shit Stel, that could have been nasty he's obviously caught you. But, f**k sake get up."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TsuMirren said:

 


Of course it does, the booking comes because the opponent has connected in more cases than not after a tackle. So, what, is the physio to ignore duty of care ahead of not appearing to deliberately take his time. "Shit Stel, that could have been nasty he's obviously caught you. But, f**k sake get up."

 

I'm not following you here. Say a team are winning 1-0, five mins to go, and there's a challenge where the referee shows a yellow card to a player from the team a goal down. The other player requires treatment and the trainer comes on. The referee, using his judgement, reckons the trainer is fannying around somewhat, so, rather than allowing the treated player to remain on the field - tells him to leave the field to be waved back on. Am I missing something here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following you here. Say a team are winning 1-0, five mins to go, and there's a challenge where the referee shows a yellow card to a player from the team a goal down. The other player requires treatment and the trainer comes on. The referee, using his judgement, reckons the trainer is fannying around somewhat, so, rather than allowing the treated player to remain on the field - tells him to leave the field to be waved back on. Am I missing something here?


Yes, there was no time wasting. Stelios must have been treated for about 30 seconds to a minute after a challenge that was very obviously late/dirty. He had a wee verbal pop at the Ref and the management team got involved due to being asked to go off. At no point were 6 players round drinking from a bottle, the physio trying to get the bottles back or even a stretcher called. Are we now saying a minute is too long to properly check an injury?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 


Yes, there was no time wasting. Stelios must have been treated for about 30 seconds to a minute after a challenge that was very obviously late/dirty. He had a wee verbal pop at the Ref and the management team got involved due to being asked to go off. At no point were 6 players round drinking from a bottle, the physio trying to get the bottles back or even a stretcher called. Are we now saying a minute is too long to properly check an injury?

 

You say there was no time wasting, yet the referee told the injured player to depart the field. The referee must have thought there was time wasting - or, being a daft useless cnut, didn't know the rules.

All I'm saying is that there could well be instances where a yellow card is shown, and the referee deems the time taken to treat the 'victim' in the yellow card incident IS timewasting.  As I said, am I getting this wrong somehow? This situation could easily happen.

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say there was no time wasting, yet the referee told the injured player to depart the field. The referee must have thought there was time wasting - or, being a daft useless cnut, didn't know the rules.
All I'm saying that there could well be instances where a yellow card is shown, and the referee deems the time taken to treat the 'victim' in the yellow card incident IS timewasting! As I said, am I getting this wrong somehow?


We're not discussing random potential instances, we're discussing a specific instance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...