Agreed on both, also "professional" (cynical) fouls go without punishment (and I include FC in that on occasion)

That JJB got a one match ban for his deliberate attack to the head which IMO was incorrectly cited just shows you what utter bollox the disciplinary is.
Maguire swearing at the ref the way he did and continued to be threatening is massively worse than contact with a referee which are by and large purely accidental yet get worse.
THIS is the problem with the game, the refs/officials make a rod for their own back by weak/poor officiating and not sticking to the laws of the game.
Making the players and coaches adjust their behaviour and not weakening your stance on the rules is the only way to tighten up the game and make it cleaner and a better spectacle.

Ablett should have been marched 10 in the game last night too after gobbing off. The refs should use the powers they have and it would cut out that sort of nonsense. Players of all clubs have got away with mouthing off for too long. It seems that it's only a problem if you swear.

So if "all the circumstances" as quoted above, are so significant that they effectively reduce the length of a ban, then surely, should the said evidence not be shared ?..... as it is clearly important and sets a legal precedent within the laws v punishments of the disciplinary findings.

Such test cases should definitely be documented for all Clubs to see (and perhaps they are ?) but it would be nice for us the fans to see the transcript and be as wise as the Disciplinary Committee as to what exact "surrounding circumstances" are those which can allow a downgrade in a punishment.

Nothing is ever transparent with this group of "fine upstanding persons".
Why can't they just be open and honest with ALL ??
Its always smoke and mirrors, rules torn up and changed to suit as required.
It is so disheartening to see that our game is run by people with such a low moral and ethical compass.

It is all well documented in this link, which has been referenced many times before.......


I think if you read the full submissions, you'll fail to understand why they reduced the penalties.

For example, in Percival's case, part of the "reasons for the decision" says

Quote: Uppo58 "The player did not immediately apologise to the Official and this is a concern.'"

and then follows it up by saying...

Quote: Uppo58 "In the players favour he has accepted his guilt, shown considerable remorse and apologised to the Official.'"