will he be let off after scott brown deliberately put his face into the thugs boot ?

yes

Mr. Brown is no saint so, if he got a sore one, it's frae his brother, and once again we hear the refrain resounding round the park..."birds of a feather flock together."  or  "like to like".  

'

Mr. Brown is no saint so, if he got a sore one, it's frae his brother, and once again we hear the refrain resounding round the park..."birds of a feather flock together."  or  "like to like".  

'

 

Scott Brown not being a saint is neither here or there, the fact of the matter is Ciftci once again got off with thugish behaviour on the pitch, a disgusting player who's antics outshine his ability 

A lot of people seem to struggle with Ciftci's name. Allow me to help. You won't be too far wrong with "Chief cheat".

The referee did not have his best game ever yesterday but I think he can be excused for not spotting Ciftci's kick out at Brown.  But the SFA will have seen it on the replay and will need to decide whether or not they consider a boot in the face to be equally innocuous as an elbow in the neck.  Meanwhile Ciftci's team mate Dixon will no doubt face a ban having been red carded for the unforgivable crime of not having the fastest reflexes on the planet and therefore not being able to move his arm out of the way of a short hit at point blank range.  Dixon makes an instinctive lunge to block the shot and is turning away from the ball.  It hits his arm which arguably is in an "unnatural position" but which equally is arguably is not.  What it is not is deliberate handball.  Penalty? Probably yes.  Sending off?  definately not, but not the sort of decision which would be overturned on appeai?  A more serious offence than Ciftci kicking Brown in the head?  Hmm.  I'll have to think a bit more about that one.

If it is not deliberate handball then why is it 'probably' a penalty? There was no other foul committed so there is no reason to give a penalty unless the referee has deemed that Dixon deliberately handled the ball. As soon as he has done that he has decided that Dixon has also denied a clear goalscoring opportunity and therefore has to send him off.

No doubt someone will come up with what the rules say, but my understanding is that a penalty will be awarded for handball if the player deliberately handles the ball or if the ball hits the hand / arm when the arm is in an "unnatural position".  The argument being that whilst the player does not deliberately handle the ball, his arms are positioned so as to block the ball.  Dixon had his arm high and was leading with it.  That was probably more to protect his face than anything but I can see why the referee would think it was an unnatural position.

 

I'm not sure what the rules say about a red card in that situation but all I would say is that it is absurd to send someone off for such an offence.  The team is punished enough by virtue of the fact that a penalty is given.  Certainly the offence (if you can call it that) is much less serious than what Ciftci has been getting away with.  If a red card and subsequent ban is the punishment for a situation where a ball hits a defenders arm which is deemed to be in an "unnatural position", it just goes to illustrate the peculiar mindset of those who regulate the game.

There's no such thing as "unnatural position" anywhere in the rules. It's deliberate handball or no foul at all.

From FIFA "Laws of the Game" - Law 12 - http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--lawsofthegameweben_neutral.pdf

 

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration:

 

• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)

• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)

• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement

• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement

• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement

 

Disciplinary sanctions

 

There are circumstances when a caution for unsporting behaviour is required when a player deliberately handles the ball, e.g. when a player:

 

• deliberately handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession

• attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball

 

A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored.

 

Restart of play

 

• Direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick) or penalty kick

Just saw the highlights of that game tonight. Scott Brown's initial tackle was horrendous, and a potential leg breaker, RED CARD, Ciftci's reaction again a Straight RED. van Dyke was also a RED card, as he was kicking out with his feet whilst on the ground, attacking the United player who was also grounded, Butcher also reacted, but not as fiercely as van Dyke, but the thought and intention was there. Dixon couldnt do anything about his arm at such close range, is protecting your face unnatural? But it did prevent a goal, penalty and booking would suffice me thinks.

 

End to end game, and Celtic were the better team, but by god they can be dirty too. Regards the semi draw, must have been rigged, SFA will want a Celtic Hibs final to fill Hampden, love it if it ICT - Falkirk. 

I seem to recall seeing some sort of official guidance that refers to arms being in an unnatural position in relation to the Handball ruling but can't find it.  I'm sure we've discussed it on here before.  What CaleyD highlights above is the guidance Fifa gives to the law which blandly states that it is an offense to deliberately handle the ball.

 

This BBC artcle sheds a bit of light on the subject http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4524354.stm

 

The concept of the "unnatural position" would seem to relate to situations where the arms are deliberately placed away from the body so as to increase the area in which the ball can be blocked.  For instance if a defender is facing an attacker with arms held out to the sides such that any attempt to kick the ball past the defender would likely hit the arms then that would be seen as handball.  Whilst it may well be ball hitting hand rather than hand hitting ball, if the hand / arm is deliberately placed to block the path of the ball it is still considered as deliberate handball.

 

That being the case, I still feel it was reasonable for the referee to take the view that had Dixon not raised his arms as he did, a goal might have resulted and he was therefore correct to sent him off.  However, I don't think Dixon raised his arm for any reason other than to protect his face and he was therefore very unlucky.  He was certainly less culpable then Ciftci, Brown and Butcher, none of whom even got a yellow card for their earlier indescretions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31803183

Yogi Hughes not the only one calling out United for their cheating.

 

 have ya heard

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31934088

Best player in Scotland according to McNamara. Doesn't reflect well on him or his club that he appears to condone the disgraceful conduct of this thuggish cheat.

Just read that, not good from a young manager!

Seems it's the default stance of managers to defend their players at all costs.

 

Here's a cracking clip from a Stockport County game last month - a blatant 'assault', yet the manager still took his side, citing 'provocation'!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njQCuomonig

Having a difficult year - now accused of biting a Dundee player!!!

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dundee-united-striker-nadir-ciftci-5757725

I believe McAlister was taken to hospital after the game.  Not sure whether it was just for an assessment of the alleged wound or whether he had a rabies jab.  But even if there is a medical report which states that McAlister has a bite mark on his leg the SFA will presumably find no evidence to prove it was Ciftci.  It will be interesting to see what action (if any) the compliance officer takes this week

But even if there is a medical report which states that McAlister has a bite mark on his leg the SFA will presumably find no evidence to prove it was Ciftci.  It will be interesting to see what action (if any) the compliance officer takes this week

I certainly saw compellingly persuasive photos in one of the tabloids. What we seem to have is a mark on one photo which looks like a bite on McAlister's leg at exactly the point corresponding to the position of Ciftci's mouth on another photo of his face apparently in contact with the said leg.

On the other hand, as the wee boy who shinned down the school drain pipe right in front of the headmaster said: "It wisnae me sir!"

It was a lunchtime kick off!  That will be his excuse

This should lead to a lengthy ban. Suarez got 4 months. A Dagenham and Redbridge player recently received a 6 month ban from the FA for the same offence.

It's a health and safety matter as much as anything else. The authorities have a duty to protect players from this kind of thing.


 

 

But even if there is a medical report which states that McAlister has a bite mark on his leg the SFA will presumably find no evidence to prove it was Ciftci.  It will be interesting to see what action (if any) the compliance officer takes this week

I certainly saw compellingly persuasive photos in one of the tabloids. What we seem to have is a mark on one photo which looks like a bite on McAlister's leg at exactly the point corresponding to the position of Ciftci's mouth on another photo of his face apparently in contact with the said leg.

 

 

 

He obviously saw the mark and selflessly kissed it better

I believe McAlister was taken to hospital after the game. Not sure whether it was just for an assessment of the alleged wound or whether he had a rabies jab. But even if there is a medical report which states that McAlister has a bite mark on his leg the SFA will presumably find no evidence to prove it was Ciftci. It will be interesting to see what action (if any) the compliance officer takes this week

We don't give rabies jabs for bites in the UK.....lol

As I've said before...if the SFA don't get a grip on incidents which would automatically be deemed assault if they happened anywhere else, then that's exactly what's going to start happening with players/clubs looking to the police to sort these things out instead of the CO.

There is still no word on this on the SFA site.  It was suggested in the BBC report over a week ago that it might take some time for any notice of complaint to be issued, but I am not sure whether the delay is because of the seriousness of the issue or because the compliance officer is on an all expenses paid holiday in Turkey.    I trust the SFA will not allow the shameful scenes at Motherwell to allow the Ciftci incident to slip off their agenda.