Search the Community

Hampden regularly provides a health and safety risk for those passing as rule books are hurled out of the windows on a regular basis for the general convenience of those and such as those. Someone could, however, usefully address the potentially ludicrous situation which arose following DownDee United’s Murray’s dismissal in the first leg of the Play-Off Final. Taking away the immensely enjoyable injustice of the decision, let’s concentrate on this potential scenario. A player widely regarded as United’s main goal threat is dismissed in the first game. He appeals the second booking and is granted a stay of the suspension pending a hearing which is scheduled for four days after the second leg. In the second leg, he scores the goal that secures a win for his side and condemns Hamilton to the Championship. The following Thursday, the Disciplinary Appeal hearing dismisses his claim and upholds the suspension! The Play-Off has, therefore, been decided by a player who should not have been eligible to appear. A “see you in court" scenario??” The only parallel I can think of, and an infinitely more serious one, was the UK parliament’s decision in 1953 that it could not debate whether or not the imposition of the death sentence on Derek Bentley was correct until after it had been carried out! Blind Justice indeed!