Sone Aluko got banned for diving.
Garry O'Connor got away with diving.
Ergo the new disciplinary procedures in place at the SFA are ridiculous and hellbent on making a mockery of the Scottish game. At best.
At worst the new procedures have been all but designed to penalise one team above others.
The new compliance officer and fast track appeal system is inconsistent, wrongheaded and - this being Scottish football - its cack-handedness is but a handy cover for some form of discrimination or favouritism.
That would be the conclusion you would draw from some of the more hysterical outpourings that greeted the news that Aluko's two game ban had been upheld yesterday.
My opinion: O'Connor dived and got lucky in his dealings with the panel. Aluko dived and got treated the way he should have been treated.
That might be an unfortunate turn of events for everyone but Hibs - those that believe in karma might afford themselves a wry smile - but it doesn't give us evidence enough to judge what has been quite a revolutionary change from the SFA.
So far the compliance officer has been faced with two similar incidents. He's made exactly the same call.
The independent panel - different panels in both cases - disagreed in the first case and agreed in the second.
We need a far bigger sample before we can properly conclude if the new system is working.
The idea that Aluko should have been cleared because O'Connor was cleared is odd. Every case will have differences and two wrongs don't make a right.
If the person who is tried for shoplifting before me gets off because the jury make a bad call should I expect to get off? Any disciplinary system that is forced to duplicate its weakest decisions will be destined to fail.
Ally McCoist fumed that the SFA had labelled his player a "cheat."
Well, yes, they had. Because that's what diving is. Cheating. They thought he'd dived so they punished him. I trust McCoist will avoid making any judgements about bad decisions that go against his team this season if the opposing manager protests that the player in question isn't a cheat.
We rage against the SFA for being an organisation of dinosaurs. Then we rage against them when they try and modernise.
That will lead us to an ungovernable game.
Will the new system be perfect? Of course it won't. That such decisions still rely on people to interpret events will lead to some differences in opinion.
Football's imperfect like that. That used to be part of its charm.
> Why a two game ban when a dive penalised in a game merits only a yellow card?
A dive caught in a game doesn't affect the outcome of the match. By deceiving the referee, and it's my opinion that Aluko was guilty of that, he won Rangers a penalty that might - not definitely but perhaps - have denied Dunfermline the chance to get something from the game.
Seems fair enough - although it does Dunfermline bugger all good - that his retrospective punishment should reflect that.
> As ever the focus seems to be on the SFA and the referee.
I would ask why Steve Conroy - and I suspected from watching it that his clear view may have been obstructed by Martin Hardie - didn't take a bit more time, perhaps consult with his linesman, before making the call.
Often, one feels, it would do our referees no harm if they just calmed down a bit and bought themselves a few seconds of composure.
But it's the players that dive. The idea - put around by any number of pundits - that it's part of the game and happens everywhere is wearing thin.
It's cheating. If players don't like being called cheats they should stop cheating.
You can still donate to the Scottish Football Blog Blogathon, 19 November 2011