SONE ALUKO will find out by 3pm today if he is to be charged by the Scottish Football Association for alleged simulation.
The Rangers winger won a penalty in Saturday's 2-1 victory over Dunfermline Athletic at Ibrox, an award that enraged Jim McIntyre, the Dunfermline manager, who felt Aluko had dived following a collision with Martin Hardie and branded the decision "a disgrace".
Vincent Lunny, the SFA's compliance officer, is expected to review television footage of the incident and, if he believes there is a case to answer, Aluko could be offered a two-match suspension. If Rangers decline that punishment, the case would be heard later this week by a fast-track tribunal.
Aluko, though, has an unlikely ally in John Yorkston. The Dunfermline chairman agreed with his manager that a penalty was the wrong award, but felt the imposition of a two-game ban would be unfair on the Rangers player, given he would have only earned a yellow card if referee Steve Conroy had spotted the alleged dive at the time.
"I think anyone that watched the incident on television is of the same opinion as the manager," said Yorkston. "We are obviously aggrieved just now but the bottom line is that the referee made the call.
"I do not see what this SFA panel thing is going to do – give the boy two games? If the referee had got it right all he would have got was a yellow card. If the boy is found guilty, all he should be given is a yellow card and not a two-game ban.
"If the player has committed an offence, he should not get a heavier penalty because the referee missed it. I just think the punishment procedure is incorrect. Nobody should get done more because of a referee's mistake. The bottom line is that if the referee had seen it as a dive, the player would have been booked so how could you change it to a two-game ban because the referee missed it?"
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article