Is A Six Game Touchline Ban For Celtic’s Lennon Excessive?
Feb 20th, 2012 Posted in News For Football Clubs | no comment »These days finally saw the disciplinary hearing of Neil Lennon take place at the SFA head office in Hampden, a hearing which has been put on hold for over a month due to adverse weather. While Lennon made his way to Hampden today to face the powers in which be, he could never have imagined the punishment they was about to be met with.
The Celtic boss has received any six match touchline ban for an offence which has been described as “excessive misconduct”. The demand itself, was initially an automatic Two game touchline ban for being provided for the stand during the sport with Hearts, however a further 4 game touchline ban had been added to this for Lennon being found guilty of demonstrating “excessive misconduct”. The ban has been met with what could be described as shock by Celtic.
Having reviewed the playback quality footage of the incidents, it’s clear that Lennon was visibly annoyed at two key choices. One being the Dude Ledley sending off for tackle on Hearts player Ian Dark-colored, and the second being your penalty his side ended up denied after an evident handball by Hearts midfielder, Ryan Stevenson. The actual Ledley tackle is still open to argument about what other action the particular ref could have taken, and the handball episode pretty much explains itself on first viewing. With thoughts running high during just about any game of football, should the Celtic manager be punished in this manner, for what could be described as venting his opinion? Yes he was upset, yes he was mental, but show me a genuine football man that doesn’t display these very aspects of his or her character when their group are facing defeat.
Can we now live in a basketball world where managers aren’t allowed to voice there viewpoint on decisions made by referees, whether may be right or wrong? Would this scenario be different if Lennon had come out after the game stating how a referee had had a great game and spoke of the correct decisions he made, with your approval? The idea that if a boss may disagree with a choice made by the referee, he’s not allowed to share his opinion around the matter in fear of becoming handed a touchline ban or a fine, is ludicrous. Definitely this practice is essentially wrong and not allowing supervisors the right to exercise freedom involving speech?
At this time I can also view the need to maintain respect with regard to referees; we want young refs coming from the system to have the desire to control the game and make the key judgements week in and 7 days out. So where do you find the balance that allows managers to tone of voice their opinions, and enables the referees to maintain their self-esteem and command respect?
There is also an underlying issue with regard for the punishment handed out to Lennon. Had been this actually punishment for any bigger issue, when Celtic questioned the SFA and refereeing standards within Scotland, in an issue dating back to final November? This is only a principle, and maybe one for the conspiracy theorists, but when the issue with the refereeing standards in Scotland first seemed, it was an issue that only Celtic got any place with. The team were unhappy at particular decisions that had gone against them in games and had written to the SFA on a pair of occasions seeking what they known as “clarification”, on the decisions. Would the SFA really hammer Lennon with a bar of this magnitude if the refereeing situation had never reared its ugly head?
The Celtic boss presently has seven days to appeal from the decision made by the SFA, an action Celtic Football Club have stated today they will support Lennon throughout doing so.
The Celtic boss has received any six match touchline ban for an offence which has been described as “excessive misconduct”. The demand itself, was initially an automatic Two game touchline ban for being provided for the stand during the sport with Hearts, however a further 4 game touchline ban had been added to this for Lennon being found guilty of demonstrating “excessive misconduct”. The ban has been met with what could be described as shock by Celtic.
Having reviewed the playback quality footage of the incidents, it’s clear that Lennon was visibly annoyed at two key choices. One being the Dude Ledley sending off for tackle on Hearts player Ian Dark-colored, and the second being your penalty his side ended up denied after an evident handball by Hearts midfielder, Ryan Stevenson. The actual Ledley tackle is still open to argument about what other action the particular ref could have taken, and the handball episode pretty much explains itself on first viewing. With thoughts running high during just about any game of football, should the Celtic manager be punished in this manner, for what could be described as venting his opinion? Yes he was upset, yes he was mental, but show me a genuine football man that doesn’t display these very aspects of his or her character when their group are facing defeat.
Can we now live in a basketball world where managers aren’t allowed to voice there viewpoint on decisions made by referees, whether may be right or wrong? Would this scenario be different if Lennon had come out after the game stating how a referee had had a great game and spoke of the correct decisions he made, with your approval? The idea that if a boss may disagree with a choice made by the referee, he’s not allowed to share his opinion around the matter in fear of becoming handed a touchline ban or a fine, is ludicrous. Definitely this practice is essentially wrong and not allowing supervisors the right to exercise freedom involving speech?
At this time I can also view the need to maintain respect with regard to referees; we want young refs coming from the system to have the desire to control the game and make the key judgements week in and 7 days out. So where do you find the balance that allows managers to tone of voice their opinions, and enables the referees to maintain their self-esteem and command respect?
There is also an underlying issue with regard for the punishment handed out to Lennon. Had been this actually punishment for any bigger issue, when Celtic questioned the SFA and refereeing standards within Scotland, in an issue dating back to final November? This is only a principle, and maybe one for the conspiracy theorists, but when the issue with the refereeing standards in Scotland first seemed, it was an issue that only Celtic got any place with. The team were unhappy at particular decisions that had gone against them in games and had written to the SFA on a pair of occasions seeking what they known as “clarification”, on the decisions. Would the SFA really hammer Lennon with a bar of this magnitude if the refereeing situation had never reared its ugly head?
The Celtic boss presently has seven days to appeal from the decision made by the SFA, an action Celtic Football Club have stated today they will support Lennon throughout doing so.










