Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
The hunt is On.
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008 Change Date

The Scotsman Digital Archive - Special Christmas Offer

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Hopes fade for Mulgrew



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 07 October 2008
THE Scottish Football Association has all but scuppered Aberdeen's hopes of successfully appealing Charlie Mulgrew's red card against Hibernian.
The defender was dismissed for handling on the line in Saturday's 2-1 Clydesdale Bank Premier League defeat at Pittodrie despite Hibs striker Steven Fletcher appearing to be in an offside position when he flicked the ball onto Mulgrew.

Dons manager Jimmy Calderwood had hoped arguing that point would help get Mulgrew's automatic one-match ban overturned.

But SFA spokesman Rob Shorthouse said yesterday: "The club can appeal against the handball decision if they want. But they would need to prove Mulgrew didn't deliberately handle the ball, which would clearly be very difficult.

"The circumstances which led up to the handball incident wouldn't be considered. The referee had made a decision and the ball was still in open play when it reached Mulgrew."

Aberdeen are still deliberating over whether to appeal.





The full article contains 154 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 06 October 2008 9:36 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Hibernian FC , Aberdeen FC
 
1

GW,

Peterhead 07/10/2008 00:57:08
This is a complete injustice.

We know referees and linesmen can make mistakes (and Saturday's was certainly a quite incredible howler) and we therefore accept that the penalty and resulting goal can not, and should not be altered. The match is finished and Hibs won. However, when video evidence can 100% prove that a mistake was made, how can it be fair that the automatic ban should have to stand?

Can Mike McCurry not do the decent thing and admit he got it horribly wrong? If he did, would that make any difference to the SFA?
2

Big Red,

Aberdeen 07/10/2008 07:07:59

GW...you're completely correct.

It's beyond ridiculous that Aberdeen should be punished twice because of the incompetence of the officials.

Nothing we can do about the score, but the tiniest amount of common sense would dictate that Mulgrew's red card was overturned.

3

Voice of the mysterons,

Mars 07/10/2008 08:54:05
Careful here - very large can of worms being opened if we are not careful. Mulgrew was not appealing for offside when he handled it - so the act was deliberate. To run the play back 1 minute and get a succesful appeal on the back of it opens everything up and the clubs will exploit it mercilessly - like the old appeals of red and yellow to get key players back in for vital games. E.G. Throw in wrongly given to team a. They take the throw in, Centre half team b puts in a two footed challenge studs up - ligaments damaged the lot. Rightly sent off. Manager B appeals on the video evidence that the throw in should clearly have gone the other way and cites the Aberdeen appeal (Sucessful) as grounds for doing so. Do you think Celtic, Rangers or any other club would bother about whtether the sending off was justified or not?
4

The Falcon,

Above and watching 07/10/2008 09:58:07
#1 & #2

Grow up,stop bitching & moaning, and accept that you're just sh1te and bottom of the league.

You got a penalty for nothing and even suggested afterwards that Bamba should have been sent off !!
As a matter of fact, Miller should have been booked for diving into Bamba.








5

Another Albert,

near the sheep 07/10/2008 10:07:34
#3 makes an excellent point.

Perhaps if Aberdeen hadn't appealed the ref would have spoken and the league would have rescinded the card without being asked. Or am I dreaming again?

Bamba appeared to be looking right while running across the box. Miller (?) was on his blind side so cannot see how this was a pen. Funny how things balance up though .....
6

Pazuzu,

07/10/2008 11:01:54
Handball is handball, until the whistle is blown that's it.

Miller played for the penalty, which he has done many times before.

GGTTH

7

Cabbage Heid,

07/10/2008 11:05:12
The SFA's position is clearly that Mulgrew knowingly cheated and thus will be punished as prescribed.

While they're at it they should also ban that cheating so and so Miller - replays clearly show that he deliberately barged into Bamba from behind to fool the ref into awarding Aberdeen's penalty. The guy is worse than Looneytunes of the Yams for his cheating and diving and should be punished accordingly. DISGRACE!!!!
8

Will1875,

07/10/2008 14:53:18
Can someone explain to me in simple terms how Fletcher was offside.

Mulgrew was on the goal line being last man, thus Fletcher was onside............

Or am I missing something basic.
9

Will1875,

07/10/2008 14:54:24
As for the Miller penalty, watched it last night and no way was it a penalty. I noticed Calderwood never mentioned the seriously soft penalty Aberdeen got.

What goes around............
10

Will1875,

07/10/2008 14:54:24
As for the Miller penalty, watched it last night and no way was it a penalty. I noticed Calderwood never mentioned the seriously soft penalty Aberdeen got.

What goes around............
11

Voice of the mysterons,

Mars 07/10/2008 17:54:45
#8 He was offside because there weren't two opposition players between him and the goal when the ball is played forward. Nicked this from wiki - close enough for jazz as they say.

In 2005 The International Football Association Board agreed a new Decision in Law 11 that being 'nearer to his opponent's goal line' meant that "any part of his head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition." [1] This is taken to mean that any part of the attacking player named in this Decision 2 has to be past the part of the second last defender closest to his goal line (excluding the arms) and past the part of the ball closest to the defenders' goal line.
In general, what this means is that either the attacking team should ensure the opposing team has at least two players (of which the opposition's goalkeeper is included) in front of the furthest forward player of the attacking team, or all players of the attacking team should be behind the ball such that it remains closer to the goal line than any of the player of the attacking team. If the goalkeeper is ahead of the play, then the forward will have to be in line with or behind two defenders (unless the forward is in his own half).
12

Will1875,

08/10/2008 10:33:17
In which case Fletcher must have been offisde.

It doesn't change the fact that the ref didn't blow his whistle and Mulgrew intentionally handled.

Still a straight red in my book.

13

SouthSideHibs,

09/10/2008 11:15:51
I've long argued that in this situation - handball in the penalty area the offending player should only be sent off IF the penalty is missed/saved. Otherwise it's double jeopardy.

You could extend this to fouls in the box, say by the keeper, provided they weren't for violent conduct.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Sport

More Sport >>

More Hibernian FC

More Hibernian FC >>

Features

Online Supplements
Scotsman Digital Archive

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.