SFA Suspend Lithgow

Confused by this;

However, the case was referred to a Judicial Panel hearing at Hampden yesterday and the SFA “reapplied” the ban, meaning he will finally serve the second match of his original suspension tomorrow when Livi face East Fife.

He's already served the 2 suspended matches, he didn't play against Albion Rovers in the league match that followed the Crusaders game and he had already served a suspension against Peterhead in the league before Crusaders, that's 2 matches. So this will be a 3 match suspension not 2, and they seem to think he's only served 1???

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2016/11/03/livingston-defender-alan-lithgow-hit-one-match-ban-following-sfa-hearing/

I think Livi need to get this clarified before Saturday.

Can't see anything about it on the SFA website but they may not have had time to update it yet, their last hearing was a week ago, last Thurs. Will check again later today and see if they have anything about suspended players for Sat. Nevertheless Livi will need to get in touch with the SFA before the match on Sat and get this cleared up, the last thing we need is a points deduction over this, and it doesn't seem right if they have suspended him if they think it is to serve the 2nd match of the original suspension, that he's already served against Albion Rovers.

Seems quite clear. He's banned for the East Fife game. It never surprises me the variety of ways the SFA can find to hammer Livi.

Lithgow's job is to play when the management pick him for the team. It's not his role to interpret the disciplinary rules. Someone at the club should have that role. The person responsible failed to get clarification so the club was fined and ordered to replay the Crusaders game. What would have happened if Lithgow refused to play when he was picked? It could have put him in an awkward position. He missed the Albion Rovers game though fit to play. The SFA know this but have decided to play silly buggers just because they can, more or less saying we'll decide when you can play or not. And why has it taken till now for this decision?

I was at the East Fife game and saw the offence. It was interpreted by the inept ref on the day as violent conduct or serious foul play. It was neither. I remember folk around me saying 'What did he do?' The effects of what happened on that day are way out of proportion to the offence committed.

Seems the club are just accepting this nonsense and drawing a line under it. Would like to have seen what would've happened if Lithgow played against Rovers, no doubt the SFA would've used that to hit us with a points deduction saying he shouldn't have played.

So Lithgow has now served a 3 match suspension but the SFA hasn't recognised his Albion Rovers exclusion as being suspended, and people say you're being paranoid thinking the SFA have it in for us.

Well you know what they say "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me" And by God they are out to get us at every opportunity.

orco wrote:
I was at the East Fife game and saw the offence. It was interpreted by the inept ref on the day as violent conduct or serious foul play. It was neither. I remember folk around me saying 'What did he do?' The effects of what happened on that day are way out of proportion to the offence committed.

He threw his arm into the guy's face, seems like violent conduct to me...

Aye and it was so violently done that the player dropped like a stone then jumped up and stood and grinned as Lithgow went off. Job done. Ref conned.

It wasn't any more violent than Insall jumping into Kelly to knock him out of the way to score their 2nd goal. Think Lithgow was just frustrated by Insall putting himself about all game and banging into Lithgow, half heartedly threw his arm back towards Insall though and even though he didn't make much, if any contact, it gave the ref all the excuse he needed to send him off.

We couldn't appeal it because it was obv from the video footage that he did it, Miller's red card though, ooft, ref got that completely wrong and it was overturned on appeal. Ref had a mare that game, gave a foul for their keeper dropping the ball yet allowed Insall's goal after jumping into Kelly, gave throw ins the wrong way for both teams, prob the worst ref we've had this season and we've had a few bad ones.

Actually I can see how they got to this decision:

1 He was banned for two matches
2 The second match of the ban should have been against Crusaders
3 The club made a mistake and played him in that match
4 The ban was over but the club had contravened the rules and punishment would follow
5 He was therefore eligible to play against Albion Rovers
6 The club failed to recognise this and didn't pick him. So not only did the play him in error against Crusaders, they compounded that by failing to recognise his availability against Albion Rovers
7 As far as the SFA/SPFL was concerned he was dropped for this game or not fit to play.
8 Punishment of fine & replay
9 He was eligible and played against Alloa, Brechin and Crusaders replay
10 As far as they were concerned he still had another game to miss

The only thing we can really hold against the Blazers is the length of time it has taken for this to be established and how late in day before the East Fife game they have made this known. What they should have done was state from the announcement of the replay that he would be ineligible for that tie as per the original ban, explaining that the club had got his eligibility wrong twice.

It's convoluted and typically "Scottish Football" but I think that is how they have come to this decision.

They kent fine he was not played at the Albion Rovers game because of the second game of the ban. Naebody will convince me otherwise. Bunch of jumped up besuited know all's dipping in and out of a rule book when it suits their agenda.

There has still never been a clarification of what would happen if the teams out with Scotland had a player who was given a domestic ban that co-incided with this competition.

No 7, you don't really believe that do you Bertie?

They know we dropped him to make that game his 2nd suspension but they don't give a feck, they're only doing this to put the boot in. If we'd played him against Rovers I have no doubt they'd have used that to hit us with an even severer punishment than the SPFL, or the SPFL would've hit us with a severer punishment too. It prob cost us 3 points dropping him for the Rovers game because our defence was all over the place, we mucked about with a back 3 and having Miller in as RB, neither worked very well.

The Challenge cup comes under the SPFL and I bet the SFA are a bit peeved about that as they'd have chucked us out the cup if it had been their Scottish cup comp, this is all that's left to them, so rather than let it go they gave Lithgow another suspension just to inconvenience us the best they can. If I was Hopkin i'd use this to fire up the players even more so they win the game tomorrow and get it right up the SFA.

I'd love to know who was on that judicial hearing board, not for an Ally McCoist sinister reason of intimidation and threatening their well being way, just out of curiosity to see if they have any ties to a team in our league.

I'm surprised it took you until 7 to ask that question, 7 is a logical conclusion to 4,5 & 6 and is the only way they can justify this ban as being the second game of the original ban.

I was basing the whole thing on this being described as Lithgow finally serving the second game of his ban. Which is how the report on the link you posted ends.... Which is different from how it begins as the opening sentence suggests it is an additional 1 game ban. Both can't be true, it can't be a new 1 game ban for playing against Crusaders AND a completion of the original ban for bring sent off at East Fife. So assuming it is to complete the original ban then my list is the only way I can see how they could get to that conclusion. No.7 is the fudge I think they came up with to justify their conclusion that this completes the original ban... I'm not saying I agree with it but I can't see any other thought process to bring about the conclusion that this completes the ban.

Of course if it is the opening statement that is true, that this is a new 1 game ban, then they don't need all the mental gymnastics it takes to justify it completing the original ban, it's a new ban over and above the punishment of a fine and a replay and is the SFA flexing its corporate muscle as the games governing body over two competitions that they don't actually control.

Whichever way round it is, I agree with the rest of you, it's another opportunity to hit Livi just for the sake of it.

In my opinion the laws of the game ought to be changed so that you only serve a ban in the competition in which you committed the offence. The argument against that is if you leave the club you were playing for before their next game in that competition then the original club escapes punishment and the new club suffers. Or if the player retires then he and the club escape punishment.

So...do away with match bans and fine the player instead...but then it would hurt the poorer paid players and hardly affect the guys on ridiculous salaries.

So there is no easy solution but I still prefer bans applying to the competition in which the offence occurred. Any such outstanding bans would have to be disclosed if the player moves club so that they know what they are getting and everyone is in the same boat. If he retires, well he's not going to play again anyway is he?

Make it the referee's responsibility to get a list of any players banned in the game they are about to referee. After all it was one of their colleagues who issued the the cards leading to any bans in force. They then inspect the team sheet prior to the game to check if any name is there that shouldn't be. Maybe that would cut out the farcical replaying of games and fines due to simple administrative errors by clubs. Further it should be the responsibility of the body responsible for issuing the ban to provide said lists to referees in advance of games.

Time the fekkers worked for a living instead of sitting behind their fancy Hampden desks or visiting various Board rooms on match days eating and drinking and sitting in the best seats without ever paying a penny.

Both of you are being a bit too sensible, the SFA are full of blazers on freebies that are only out for the big corporate events such as cup finals at Hampden, or going on jollies to Europe.

Yeah I had a feeling you were playing devil's advocate there Bertie, just thought i'd ask though, in case you actually believed that post you wrote.

Liviforever wrote:Both of you are being a bit too sensible, the SFA are full of blazers on freebies that are only out for the big corporate events such as cup finals at Hampden, or going on jollies to Europe.

Yeah I had a feeling you were playing devil's advocate there Bertie, just thought i'd ask though, in case you actually believed that post you wrote.

The thing is I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that was their thinking. But it will be once in a blue moon that I agree with them and it's not a blue moon just now.