Just watched the incident several times and listened to the views of Strachan and Hateley. It will stand as the referee undoubtedly made the decision at the time and watching it in full motion Tansey does raise his arms and does look at Samaras before the challenge. It appeared that he was trying to put Samaras off (which he didnt need to do) and he gave the ref a decision to make. It once again calls fer a look at or discussion with the fourth official instead of immediately flashinng the red card.

The law that governs the game of football . For the 2 that red dotted my post why not come out and say why you deemed it necessary instead of hiding behind the pathetic anonymous dot system ?

I didn't give you a red dot.

I'll ask again - what law of the game meant that it was a warranted red card for Tansey?

Violent conduct .

If that was seen as intentional violent conduct then, I'm afraid football as I learned it is finished as a contact sport. We might as well ban tackling and jumping to compete for high balls. Make every game a 'bounce' game, and then, if off side was scrapped as well, there would be no need for referees and linesmen at all. Then half the posters on here would have nothing to write about!

Violent conduct .

You need to learn the laws of the game I'm afraid. That challenge would not be construed as violent conduct according to FIFAs laws of the game.

Edited November 20, 201114 yr by RiG

A referee should never, ever reach for the red unless they are 100% sure. I noticed that the assistant running the line on the far side wasn't paying close attention to the play - highlighted by his lack of intervention in this incident. IMHO, Samaras should have picked up a yellow for his antics. And he should now do the decent thing - which would to pay for the appeal out of his own pocket. I'm sure he can afford it. No doubt 1K is peanuts to a guy on his wage.

Irrespective of whether this sending off contravened the rules of the game or not, the officials have to be 100% sure before making decisions like this. The referee appears to have made up his mind instantly when all he needed to do was pause a minute and assess the situation. While it may, and I stress may have looked like voilent conduct, to then see Samaras rolling around as if he had gone 15 rounds with Joe Frazier should have set alarm bells ringing in the refs mind but no, instant decision made and game ruined. Can the referees not see that, by making the instant decisons many do, they are only making a rod for their own back. I therefore have no sympathy for the abuse then directed at the referee.

Secondly, since the rules of the game are being debated, what should happen when players raise there hands to their opponents. both McCourt and Mastrovic did this but no action. We have also had players booked for kicking the ball away previously but both Layal and Stokes did this and nothing happened. Had Kayal been booked, he would have then been off for his tackle on Foran.

If the appeal is successful we get the ?1,000 back don't we?

That maybe why an appeal is worth a shot this time - Tansey was sent off fer violent conduct and the ref clearly simulated illegal and intentional use of the elbow.

In a court of law the referee could not prove there was use of an elbow

1 there is no photographic evidence

2 he was unsighted

with his only witness, Mr Samaras also from Glasgow, providing just circumstantial evidence with an elaborate piece of acting.

Yet as Rob Maclean observed, Mr O'Reilly could not get his card out fast enough.

Let us suppose the club appeal to the SFA. They uphold the decision so ICT appeal to the Court of Arbitration in Sport and that Mr O'Reilly produces no valid reason for the sending off. Could the SFA be liable for negligence and pay ICT damages?

In a court of law the referee could not prove there was use of an elbow

1 there is no photographic evidence

2 he was unsighted

with his only witness, Mr Samaras also from Glasgow, providing just circumstantial evidence with an elaborate piece of acting.

Yet as Rob Maclean observed, Mr O'Reilly could not get his card out fast enough.

Let us suppose the club appeal to the SFA. They uphold the decision so ICT appeal to the Court of Arbitration in Sport and that Mr O'Reilly produces no valid reason for the sending off. Could the SFA be liable for negligence and pay ICT damages?

There is photographic evidence. Not showing any elbow though, all it shows it Tansey stroking Samaras's hair!

I just don't get those folk who say we shouldn't appeal. Regardless of whether we think there is a not a cat in hell's chance of getting a fair hearing, you have to make the point. Not to do so means that by default you accept the current situation of poor refereeing, an inept (or worse) appeals panel and cheating by professional players. The more often injustices are made, the more important it is to draw attention to them. The club will look at the film very carefully, talk to Greg and if they conclude the decision was clearly wrong, then they simply have to appeal. TB's "assault by fingernail" comments after the match were spot on and it may be that he gets himself into trouble for daring to criticise the establishment in the way he did.

I have stuck up for referees before because it is an extremeny difficult job and decisions are made in a split second. In general, bad decisions even themselves up over the course of the season and if it was a case of it just being a day when the big decisions went against us then I would be with Dougal on this - but it isn't. Apart from the unjust sendings off, we've had penalties and offside goals awarded against us but we get nothing. These decisions change games and there can be little doubt that with a fair split of big decisions going our way we would be comfortably mid table by now.

No wonder fans stay away when matches are decided by players bending the rules of the game and referees letting them get away with it.

I just don't get those folk who say we shouldn't appeal. Regardless of whether we think there is a not a cat in hell's chance of getting a fair hearing, you have to make the point. Not to do so means that by default you accept the current situation of poor refereeing, an inept (or worse) appeals panel and cheating by professional players. The more often injustices are made, the more important it is to draw attention to them. The club will look at the film very carefully, talk to Greg and if they conclude the decision was clearly wrong, then they simply have to appeal. TB's "assault by fingernail" comments after the match were spot on and it may be that he gets himself into trouble for daring to criticise the establishment in the way he did.

I have stuck up for referees before because it is an extremeny difficult job and decisions are made in a split second. In general, bad decisions even themselves up over the course of the season and if it was a case of it just being a day when the big decisions went against us then I would be with Dougal on this - but it isn't. Apart from the unjust sendings off, we've had penalties and offside goals awarded against us but we get nothing. These decisions change games and there can be little doubt that with a fair split of big decisions going our way we would be comfortably mid table by now.

No wonder fans stay away when matches are decided by players bending the rules of the game and referees letting them get away with it.

If Terry was to get into bother for his comments, then the pundits on BBC2 tonight said far worse about the referee. They were pretty damning about Steven O'Reilly - I just hope he and those faceless wonders on the Appeals Panel watched BBC2 tonight at 10pm and are embarrassed - the pundits thought all ICTs red cards this season were a nonsense - but then again nothing can be done to the pundits, just to our TB, and our team's the loser, again. Overpaid Incompetent referees - please go on strike again - the foreign ref we had then was first class.

Why does Greg Tansey "looking for" Samaras indicate that there was intent? Tansey was merely orienting himself before going into the challenge, and therefore has to spot who that challenger would be. He doesn't "lead with his arm" If anything, he tries to leverage off a taller player to get something on the header. Some commentators refer to it as "using your body" There is nothing in the laws of the game to preclude that. If others on this forum want to interpret it as violent conduct, that's their business but they are wrong. Categorically. The card should therefore be appealed.

Changed my mind. Definately worth the money for appeal. If it doesn't succeed this time I give up.

Why does Greg Tansey "looking for" Samaras indicate that there was intent? Tansey was merely orienting himself before going into the challenge, and therefore has to spot who that challenger would be. He doesn't "lead with his arm" If anything, he tries to leverage off a taller player to get something on the header. Some commentators refer to it as "using your body" There is nothing in the laws of the game to preclude that. If others on this forum want to interpret it as violent conduct, that's their business but they are wrong. Categorically. The card should therefore be appealed.

The bottom line is that he was eyeing up Samaras and not the ball - there was no need for the challenge as he was never going to win it - it was a yellow.

Why does Greg Tansey "looking for" Samaras indicate that there was intent? Tansey was merely orienting himself before going into the challenge, and therefore has to spot who that challenger would be. He doesn't "lead with his arm" If anything, he tries to leverage off a taller player to get something on the header. Some commentators refer to it as "using your body" There is nothing in the laws of the game to preclude that. If others on this forum want to interpret it as violent conduct, that's their business but they are wrong. Categorically. The card should therefore be appealed.

The bottom line is that he was eyeing up Samaras and not the ball - there was no need for the challenge as he was never going to win it - it was a yellow.

But he did win it, didn't he?

I'm really getting bored of this and its spoiling the game now. The non-stop cheating,diving and constant feigning of injury is just pathetic now. It seems players go out now with the intention of getting players booked and red carded. To me thats not what football should be about, its about scoring goals and entertainment, not grown men (some millionaires) throwing themselves to the ground with the meerest of touches. If Fifa/Uefa want to improve the game sort this out now.

Its not even just Samaras, Celtic were at it all over the place on Saturday, Kayal, Stokes and Majstorovic just to name a few. Plus Murphy at Motherwell, McGowan at St Mirren, Cardle for Dunfermline and who could forget the disgraceful way Chris Maguire went down last season after getting a little push from Grant Munro. The last one technically a red card, but wouldn't even have been a booking without Maguire going down.

Its worldwide now and the governing bodies seem to be encouraging it rather than stamping it out.

Violent conduct .

You need to learn the laws of the game I'm afraid. That challenge would not be construed as violent conduct according to FIFAs laws of the game.

It would and does .

When will we hear if Butcher is to be hauled up for failing to praise the officials in his post-match comments?

Papers are also suggesting that Johnny Hayes could be in trouble with the SFA for tweeting "It's always hard playing Celtic and their 14 men".

I'm sure he was referring to the starting 11, plus 3 subs.

It would and does .

I'd be interested to hear your thinking as to why it does constitute 'violent conduct'.

Wow, just noticed this.

5 of Celtic's last 6 opponents have had a player sent off!

Celtic won those 5 games.......and didn't win the only one that was 11 a side, a home game v Hibs.

And it won't surprise you that throughout that time, Celtic didn't get any red cards themselves.

Funny how their criticism of refs has gone a bit quiet recently. The campaign seems to have worked.

I'm amazed to see anyone agree with the sending off.

We not only have 99.9% of ICT fans criticising the decision but also we have players going on twitter and risking fines criticising the decision, our manager going on record criticising the decision, pundits and journalists criticising the decision, and even celtic fans who ive spoken to say the decision was wrong.

This is clearly a case where the referee has made an incorrect decision and he must be aware of that viewing the incident again

To say that lifting your arms when jumping for a header is violent conduct is absolutely ludicrous

My initial reaction was that it was a needless rash attempt at a challenge for a pointless midfield ball out of harms way. Possibly a foul, but no more apart from the reaction of Samaras which has convinced the ref something violent went on.

Sending off is just a joke, but I'm no laughing.

The link to the picture in Tansey's Twitter posting doesnt seem to be working any more ... so here it is

Red Card ? Really ? or should that be O'Reilly ?

Butcher will get in bother for criticising refs. Hayes probably will as well. Kenny Shiels will get in bother for criticising refs. When will the SFA officials get their fekkin heads out of the sand and realise that all the criticism is justified. The standard and consistency of refereeing in Scotland is abyssmal and needs to be dealt with now.