Strachsuit Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30498989 So the SFA compliance offers steams in to cite Paul Paton, just at the same time Hayes says he wasn't spat on. Only in Scotland could they make such a mess of things. Why wasn't Hayes/Aberdeen contacted prior to citing Paton? What should happen now is that the SFA release a statement saying "following discussions with the referee, Aberdeen FC and the players involved, we have decided that the suspension of Paul Paton is null and void". However, I'm damn sure they will continue to waste time and money by making Paton go through the appeals process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Great stuff. The SFA are funny as ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 Great stuff. The SFA are funny as ****. You couldn't make it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 You couldn't make it up! Yet they frequently do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son Of Anarchy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Great stuff. The SFA are funny as ****. In a seriously pathetic kinda way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locky Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 In all honesty, I'm sure it will be dealt with in the appeal. Such an accusation has come up meaning the compliance officer needs to deal with it which he has. It would be farcical for the SFA to brush this aside purely because of Hayes comments on social media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 In a seriously pathetic kinda way! Absolutely. Like watching a three legged squirrel attempting to escape a bathtub full of porridge. You know it's actually quite sad, and you realise there's a more responsible reaction, but all you can do is sit and stare while chuckling uncontrollably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 What was the initial evidence or where did the initial accusation come from for the CO to intervene? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 What was the initial evidence or where did the initial accusation come from for the CO to intervene? This is what I don't get. Surely there has to be a complaint made before the CO steps in? Or is it another case where he's watched Sportscene and then acted? Laughable stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son Of Anarchy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Absolutely. Like watching a three legged squirrel attempting to escape a bathtub full of porridge. You know it's actually quite sad, and you realise there's a more responsible reaction, but all you can do is sit and stare while chuckling uncontrollably. I both lol'd and shed a tear at that analogy charlie and now see all squirrels as gfa scum. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldcastlerock2012 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 What was the initial evidence or where did the initial accusation come from for the CO to intervene? Wee phone call from Peter Lawell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Hardcastle Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Blame it on the weather? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 This is what I don't get. Surely there has to be a complaint made before the CO steps in? Or is it another case where he's watched Sportscene and then acted? Laughable stuff. sees it for himself - doesn't need a complaint unless Hibs see something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot since 86 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 numpties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 What was the initial evidence or where did the initial accusation come from for the CO to intervene? Sergay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinger Bell Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I seen the alleged Incident on TV and It does look like Paton directed spittle In Hayes direction.As Hayes was lying on the ground,perhaps he didn't see It or feel It land on him.It's not as though Paton does not have previous for disgusting behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john brownlee Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Maybe they photoshopped it Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I seen the alleged Incident on TV and It does look like Paton directed spittle In Hayes direction.As Hayes was lying on the ground,perhaps he didn't see It or feel It land on him.It's not as though Paton does not have previous for disgusting behaviour. Other than allegedly assaulting someone in the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Watched a brief clip on the DR site. PP appears to motion a spitting type gesture towards Hayes. Hayes gets agitated and remonstrates for something Paton has done. And it's not the initial tackle. It is then Crawford Allan books Paton. Now was it for what he thought was a spit so why not a red card? And if the ref made a mistake with yellow instead of red, isn't it deemed dealt with? Does the CO see the refs report before issuing a notice of complaint? Maybe it er, says the booking was for the initial foul? And if the CO is convinced it was a spit and Hayes acted as if it was, could Hayes face a disrepute charge in a perverting the course of justice type of thing. None of it ties up with the initial video evidence view, that's for sure. (Bit like Collum, Adams, Hamill or Collum, Guidetti and whoever the assistant ref was) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo_Jarman Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Watched a brief clip on the DR site. PP appears to motion a spitting type gesture towards Hayes. Hayes gets agitated and remonstrates for something Paton has done. And it's not the initial tackle. It is then Crawford Allan books Paton. Now was it for what he thought was a spit so why not a red card? And if the ref made a mistake with yellow instead of red, isn't it deemed dealt with? Does the CO see the refs report before issuing a notice of complaint? Maybe it er, says the booking was for the initial foul? And if the CO is convinced it was a spit and Hayes acted as if it was, could Hayes face a disrepute charge in a perverting the course of justice type of thing. None of it ties up with the initial video evidence view, that's for sure. (Bit like Collum, Adams, Hamill or Collum, Guidetti and whoever the assistant ref was) I have to disagree on two fronts. I don't think it is a spitting gesture. I think it looks like he shouts something at him. Something short but a word nonetheless. And I also think the referee gets his card out too quickly for it to be for Paton's reaction. It's just a booking for the initial foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Treasurer Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 This is what I don't get. Surely there has to be a complaint made before the CO steps in? Or is it another case where he's watched Sportscene and then acted? Laughable stuff. Not seen this incident so I won't comment. But as you say, only in Scotland would the "Compliance Officer" (does any other league have one person in this role ?) base his evidence on a 2nd 10th rate highlights programme filmed on a cheap phone or a media interview by a greeting faced bitter hobo with a chip on his shoulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Not seen this incident so I won't comment. But as you say, only in Scotland would the "Compliance Officer" (does any other league have one person in this role ?) base his evidence on a 2nd 10th rate highlights programme filmed on a cheap phone or a media interview by a greeting faced bitter hobo with a chip on his shoulder I've got admit the more often I watch it (8 second clip in DR from Alba) it isn't as clear cut. But let say Paton speaks rather than spits, its a word of barely one syllable. And even if he had done a Tonev less the colour, Hayes has gone from holding his ankle on the ground to jumping up and losing it. Just for being called a ???? That said, for the CO to issue a notice of complaint he must have reviewed the coverage over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wavydavy Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30498989 So the SFA compliance offers steams in to cite Paul Paton, just at the same time Hayes says he wasn't spat on. Only in Scotland could they make such a mess of things. Why wasn't Hayes/Aberdeen contacted prior to citing Paton? What should happen now is that the SFA release a statement saying "following discussions with the referee, Aberdeen FC and the players involved, we have decided that the suspension of Paul Paton is null and void". However, I'm damn sure they will continue to waste time and money by making Paton go through the appeals process. It's a pity they were'nt so quick at sorting out Sevco/Ashley and Celtic/Leigh Griffiths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmiyaHearts Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Paton has been handed a two match ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 United's statement PATON SANCTION TO BE APPEALEDDecember 18, 2014 Dundee United tonight confirmed that Paul Paton will be appealing the immediate two match ban handed to him by the Disciplinary Tribunal as a result of the outcome of a complaint of an alleged breach of disciplinary rule 200. A Club spokesperson said, ?The player will certainly be appealing this decision and will be given our full backing in this matter. The decision today relating to Paul Paton is incredulous. We are stunned firstly that it was brought in front of the Judicial Panel by the new Compliance Officer and secondly that the Judicial Panel have found the player guilty of something that we do not believe to have taken place. It is truly mystifying that three people in a room at Hampden Park in Glasgow on a Thursday afternoon can see something that was not seen by the referee, 1st assistant, 2nd assistant, fourth official, SPFL delegate, the managers of either team, the players of either team including the alleged villain and victim not to mention the 11,168 supporters in the stadium. As part of our original defence submission we studied enlarged video footage to ensure our player was not guilty of such an offence. We were sound in our belief that no such action had taken place and we will continue to support the player in this matter through the Appeal process.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Looks like the new compliance officer thinks he's Elliot Ness. I can see how you might think he had spat with the movement of his head but, he could simply be calling the wee man a diving so 'n' so, or something similar with suitable invective, hence Hayes response. However, when both players say it never happened and this enhanced video shows nothing and the Sun haven't been given the licence to photoshop some phlegm - conclusion - Mr Compliance Offficer and Panel, you are a bunch of wallopers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i wish jj was my dad Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Another layer of credibility unpeeled from the GFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Glad to see Dundee United no longer putting up with the SFA's pish. Hopefully a few other teams will grow a pair... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Something happened between Paton and Hayes and it wasn't the tackle. This doesn't make Paton guilty of spitting and the CO\SFA should only find guilt if they are sure it was a spit. But at this moment in time I strongly believe neither Paton or Hayes would be willingly to publicly come out and tell the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Treasurer Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Glad to see Dundee United no longer putting up with the SFA's pish. Hopefully a few other teams will grow a pair... Nah. They've only "grown a pair" as it directly affects them. If it was anything for the good of football in general Thomson and his club would slither back under the rock they came from. Self interest is the only thing that matters in most board rooms in this country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FWJ Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 "The decision ..... is incredulous". I'm no expert but is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted December 19, 2014 Author Share Posted December 19, 2014 "The decision ..... is incredulous". I'm no expert but is that right? No, it's not. A person or people can be found to be in an incredulous state - to be in a state of disbelief if you will. However a 'decision' cannot be incredulous. Anyway, I really do find the decision incredulous!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 so SFA saying "no right of appeal" so will serve 2 match ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 so SFA saying "no right of appeal" so will serve 2 match banWell thats just, well, Scottish football. Id be interested in Patons defence. Also the CO either hasn't allowed Hayes comments to be taken into account or believes them to be discredited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaii Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Only in Scotland can Kris Boyd stick the napper on a player and be found "not proven" when you have TV evidence "proving" the offence, then prove a player guilty of gobbing on another professional who says it never happened. If the club's want change they can have it, the SFA are after all supposed to run the game for the benefit of everyone. So Dundee Ute, let's see if you have the stomach for change or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 The conclusion which can be reached as a result of this nonsense is not an unfamiliar one...... its one we come to on an almost weekly basis, or any time the Compliance Officer is involved. Basically - when it comes to disciplinary stuff, its very much a case of 'make it up as you go along'. Its downright embarrassing. On a side note - I think its also worth noting that that statement from Utd is exactly the kinda thing which our own club would not get away with making without expecting some sort of backlash. When you hear the things which other clubs can say without fear, and the comments other managers can make about referees without fear....... the relative censorship of our club or the manner in which we have to deal with these things is laughable. When addressing inconsistencies / wrong doings - we need to walk on eggshells for fear of punishment, or, as has been the case this season - just avoid commenting at all. I sat listening to Steve Bruce talking about the ref in their match against Chelsea last weekend.......... do we think Robbie would get away with that level of criticism of Collum?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Treasurer Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 I'm struggling to see how, in the interest of fairness, a Compliance Officer for the whole of Scottish football, can only pass judgement on games that have TV cameras in attendance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 From the video it kind of looked like the utd player did spit at or at least in the general direction of the aberdeen player. Can see why he's been done tbh. Possibly harsh but looks guilty. However I'm still at a loss to explain Boyd's "not proven" verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2205ian Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Something happened between Paton and Hayes and it wasn't the tackle. This doesn't make Paton guilty of spitting and the CO\SFA should only find guilt if they are sure it was a spit. But at this moment in time I strongly believe neither Paton or Hayes would be willingly to publicly come out and tell the truth. Nailed on head, it is clear from Hayes reaction something untoward took place. Wonder who would be the "reliable" witness in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 I'm struggling to see how, in the interest of fairness, a Compliance Officer for the whole of Scottish football, can only pass judgement on games that have TV cameras in attendance. Totally agree. It also relies on there being sufficient cameras there and of those cameras being of decent enough quality to accurately pick up this sort of things. Which means that celtic - ad they are on 'proper' tv more than anyone - are more likely to fall foul of the compliance officer than, say, Ross County. If this extends to the championship then us and rangers are in an even worse position as only a couple of games are covered each week and it usually involves us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 I'm struggling to see how, in the interest of fairness, a Compliance Officer for the whole of Scottish football, can only pass judgement on games that have TV cameras in attendance. Made this point way way back at the time of the Walker incident. Its a total nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Le Clos Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 The fact he cannot appeal it is absolutely mind boggling. Every one has the right to appeal, even if they are guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Something happens, which to everyone else with even half their brain cells happens, is worthy of a guilty charge with video evidence to prove it. Compliance Officer says - 'Not proven', which in the context is the same as not guilty given the offender gets off with no punishment. Something happens, which, even with the aid of some sketchy video evidence that doesn't confirm anything one way or the other. Most of us would agree that if ever there was a case for a 'not proven' verdict - this is the perfect example. Compliance Officer says - 'Guilty' and then removes any right to even appeal the decision. The mind boggles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 The fact he cannot appeal it is absolutely mind boggling. Every one has the right to appeal, even if they are guilty. Protecting his woeful start in the job. If we thought Lunny was bad, this boy takes the biscuit. Typical draconian crap from the SFA. They are an extreme example of an anachronism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Bubblebeard Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 He doesn't obviously appear to spit to me, but instead seems to have quite forcefully said something a little stronger than nicely asking Hayes to get up like a good chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambosdad Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Don't understand the problem, non OF player, must be guilty. It does look like the DU guy spits and Hayes lying on his front doesn't appreciate what has happened. Boyd did same as Walker and didn't get a ban. Surprised no!! The spitting would have been a non event or not proven if an OF player involved. OF player banned other clubs players will get no leeway. We have to be seen to be fair, ok!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Isn't Paton the one who was charged with the street attack on the Celtic keeper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.