Jump to content
kila

More SFA smokescreen

Recommended Posts

kila

 

Text:

 

 

 

Compliance & Disciplinary Q&A


The following Q&A will help to clarify a number of points which have been the subject of debate, discussion and, in some cases, misrepresentation in recent weeks. 

 


Can the Compliance Officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents?


The Compliance Officer can only raise a Fast Track Notice of Complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.


When investigating a potential Fast Track case, the Compliance Officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the Laws of the Game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials.


When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the Compliance Officer seeks opinions from three independent experts. Those experts are drawn from a pool of former Category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A Fast Track Notice of Complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence.

 


How does the Claims process work?


In certain circumstances a player or a club can raise a Claim against a wrongful dismissal, mistaken identity, or wrongful caution for simulation.


A specially trained Fast Track Tribunal determines whether there has been an obvious refereeing error based on the case put forward by the player/club, a factual report by the referee, and the relevant laws of the game. Every Fast Track Tribunal includes an expert on the Laws of the Game. If it is determined that an obvious refereeing error has been made, the disciplinary action taken by the match referee can be rescinded by the Fast Track Tribunal.


It should be noted that the Compliance Officer is not involved in the Claims process. In addition, the disciplinary department itself does not make any decision on whether a sanction should be imposed, or a red card rescinded.

 


Has the system changed this season?


The rules relating to the Claims procedure and Fast Track Notices of Complaint changed for season 2018/19 following extensive consultation across the Scottish footballing family.


There was input on the proposed revisions to Section 13 of the Judicial Panel Protocol (relating to Fast Track Proceedings) from a range of different stakeholders. This included clubs, players’ representatives, the Head of Referee Operations, and the Scottish Senior Football Referees Association. All parties agreed that the revisions were appropriate and necessary.

 


What information is published?


A focussed effort has been made by to improve transparency and understanding of the disciplinary processes this season. 


The disciplinary section of the Scottish FA website makes available all of the recent determinations of the disciplinary tribunals. It also includes full written reasons for each of the cases determined by a Fast Track Tribunal. Those reasons may include excerpts from the referee’s statement. Referees are advised as part of the process that the statements provided by them are evidence, to be considered by the Tribunal.


The Judicial Panel Protocol and the Scottish FA’s Handbook are also available online.


The fully searchable disciplinary section of the website can be found here - https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/.

 


In summary


We are committed to enforcing the highest standards of behaviour and professionalism across the Scottish game.


It is our responsibility to protect match officials and the integrity of the Laws of the Game and apply our disciplinary rules with fairness and consistency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

Enough wiggle room in there to wiggle a ****ing planet.     They can **** off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboGraham

So given the shit storm going on with officials and compliance officer someone at the SFA thought a late Friday evening tweet during the winter break would sort things out...amateur once again...

 

Twitter is doing its job in replies...basically ripping the Q&A to shreds with real examples...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy

So Beaton seen Morelos kick and hit out 3 times but thought naw nothing in it !! They really do treat us with contempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst

So what if a referee has seen an incident, but fails to take appropriate disciplinary action, e.g. Beaton / Morelos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnking123

They really are embarrassing :lion: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

So what if a referee has seen an incident, but fails to take appropriate disciplinary action, e.g. Beaton / Morelos?

Well exactly, they're saying they'd rather knowingly get it wrong than go against the referee. ******* mental!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
3 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

So Beaton seen Morelos kick and hit out 3 times but thought naw nothing in it !! They really do treat us with contempt.

 

And Collum saw Ryan Stevenson crunch Mcpake and did nothing (supposedly ruling out the need for the CO to intervene) but still he did iirc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jamtartan74

Laughable as ever from the sfa ? they do love trolling us supporters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riccarton3

Cringeworthy and tiresome that they still think it's worth trying to pretend the administration of the game at the top level in Scotland has any semblance of credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

The absolutely crucial part in that is when the referee 'confirms' he either saw something or did not.    It is that conversation that enables either or both parties to reach whatever conclusion they desire.     Bent as ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Gio

The compliance officer  has created more controversy than solving it this season. 

 

A scenario where you become the headlines it's time to quit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jamtartan74

Expert ? category 1 referees ? who are up to date ? specially trained fast tracked tribunal ? 

 

what a load of pish ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zico

When did the Old Firm change their name to the Scottish footballing family?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1971fozzy

Just proves the whole set up is a complete and utter sham. How they can sleep at night is anyone’s guess. Farcical doesn’t come close. I actually despise that organisation with a passion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Icon of Symmetry
21 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

So Beaton seen Morelos kick and hit out 3 times but thought naw nothing in it !! They really do treat us with contempt.

 

To be fair, wee Fredo can just be a bit silly sometimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riccarton3
11 minutes ago, Victorian said:

The absolutely crucial part in that is when the referee 'confirms' he either saw something or did not.    It is that conversation that enables either or both parties to reach whatever conclusion they desire.     Bent as ****.

A club is protected from disciplinary action against its players so long as the referee says he saw something - yet took no action- which to everyone else, including any panel,  is obviously foul play. How can that be right? it is time for Scottish football to describe itself as something other than professional sport to save any further embarrassment

Edited by Riccarton3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Icon of Symmetry
3 minutes ago, Zico said:

When did the Old Firm change their name to the Scottish footballing family?

:spoton:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Icon of Symmetry
2 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:

Just proves the whole set up is a complete and utter sham. How they can sleep at night is anyone’s guess. Farcical doesn’t come close. I actually despise that organisation with a passion 

 

Probably quite comfy sleeping in Peter Lawwel’s kennel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
colinmaroon

 

The SFA is simply making sure that the "rules" have enough gaps to drive the corruption bus through without even scraping its sides.

 

All they need to do is apply whichever gap they want to reinforce the travesties that we've seen, particularly in the past few years.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Koolkeith

So basically they’re saying it’s up to the Ref to look back and decide if he’s missed anything?  In this instance Beaton has looked back and doesn’t think they’re worth a ban. ?‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
3 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

A club is protected from disciplinary action against its players so long as the referee says he saw something - yet took no action- which to everyone else, including any panel,  is obviously foul play. How can that be right?

 

Did you see it?     Nut.

Did you see the other it?    Aye.

Did you see that?    Nut

 

Ok.   Ok.    Right... are you sure you didn't see that?    Yes.     Ok... right.     I think you should be absolutely sure.     Did you see that?      Aw aye,   aye I did aye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riccarton3
2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Did you see it?     Nut.

Did you see the other it?    Aye.

Did you see that?    Nut

 

Ok.   Ok.    Right... are you sure you didn't see that?    Yes.     Ok... right.     I think you should be absolutely sure.     Did you see that?      Aw aye,   aye I did aye.

five letter starting with C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy
10 minutes ago, Glib and Shameless Crier said:

 

To be fair, wee Fredo can just be a bit silly sometimes. 

 

Aye he's a wee rascal and totally misunderstood. It will interesting to see after the break if he still gets away with murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alwaysthereinspirit

Would have been better if they had started it with

            Dear Celtic,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jamboman9

I really really wish their crooked Ivory Tower would disappear down a sinkhole,or be engulfed by some sort of fiery abyss with each and every one of the corrupt ******* inside. ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
merrymac
57 minutes ago, kila said:

 

Text:

 

 

 

Compliance & Disciplinary Q&A


The following Q&A will help to clarify a number of points which have been the subject of debate, discussion and, in some cases, misrepresentation in recent weeks. 

 


Can the Compliance Officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents?


The Compliance Officer can only raise a Fast Track Notice of Complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.


When investigating a potential Fast Track case, the Compliance Officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the Laws of the Game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials.


When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the Compliance Officer seeks opinions from three independent experts. Those experts are drawn from a pool of former Category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A Fast Track Notice of Complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence.

 


How does the Claims process work?


In certain circumstances a player or a club can raise a Claim against a wrongful dismissal, mistaken identity, or wrongful caution for simulation.


A specially trained Fast Track Tribunal determines whether there has been an obvious refereeing error based on the case put forward by the player/club, a factual report by the referee, and the relevant laws of the game. Every Fast Track Tribunal includes an expert on the Laws of the Game. If it is determined that an obvious refereeing error has been made, the disciplinary action taken by the match referee can be rescinded by the Fast Track Tribunal.


It should be noted that the Compliance Officer is not involved in the Claims process. In addition, the disciplinary department itself does not make any decision on whether a sanction should be imposed, or a red card rescinded.

 


Has the system changed this season?


The rules relating to the Claims procedure and Fast Track Notices of Complaint changed for season 2018/19 following extensive consultation across the Scottish footballing family.


There was input on the proposed revisions to Section 13 of the Judicial Panel Protocol (relating to Fast Track Proceedings) from a range of different stakeholders. This included clubs, players’ representatives, the Head of Referee Operations, and the Scottish Senior Football Referees Association. All parties agreed that the revisions were appropriate and necessary.

 


What information is published?


A focussed effort has been made by to improve transparency and understanding of the disciplinary processes this season. 


The disciplinary section of the Scottish FA website makes available all of the recent determinations of the disciplinary tribunals. It also includes full written reasons for each of the cases determined by a Fast Track Tribunal. Those reasons may include excerpts from the referee’s statement. Referees are advised as part of the process that the statements provided by them are evidence, to be considered by the Tribunal.


The Judicial Panel Protocol and the Scottish FA’s Handbook are also available online.


The fully searchable disciplinary section of the website can be found here - https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/.

 


In summary


We are committed to enforcing the highest standards of behaviour and professionalism across the Scottish game.


It is our responsibility to protect match officials and the integrity of the Laws of the Game and apply our disciplinary rules with fairness and consistency. 

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I am really struggling to stop laughing at that one:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spellczech

A Q&A? They are literally talking to themselves!!!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TypoonJambo
8 minutes ago, merrymac said:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I am really struggling to stop laughing at that one:rofl:

A wee bit pee just come out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
merrymac
Just now, TypoonJambo said:

A wee bit pee just come out

Yeh but that could just be an age thing:arry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

To be fair,   that is their responsibility.    The paragraph is quite right.

 

Living up to it?     That's a bit trickier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spellczech
9 minutes ago, merrymac said:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I am really struggling to stop laughing at that one:rofl:

Yeah, that is not a summary. It is a statement of purpose. What they don't do, is achieve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riccarton3

I wonder what Rangers and Celtic know that none of us do about their dealings with the SFA machine over decades? The list of 'indiscretions', let's say,  must be lengthy. However, they don't care because their secrets are safe in their own little Fight Club. Probably reached the conclusion that a level of corruption is acceptable and it became the norm. Too sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
colinmaroon
8 minutes ago, jamboman9 said:

I really really wish their crooked Ivory Tower would disappear down a sinkhole,or be engulfed by some sort of fiery abyss with each and every one of the corrupt ******* inside. ??

 

 

How would a Sodom and Gomorrah "event" suit?

 

The whole sulphur and fire thing?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
merrymac
1 minute ago, Victorian said:

To be fair,   that is their responsibility.    The paragraph is quite right.

 

Living up to it?     That's a bit trickier.

Maybe they should have the Compliance Officer look at themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
merrymac
1 minute ago, Spellczech said:

Yeah, that is not a summary. It is a statement of purpose. What they don't do, is achieve it.

All that is missing is "but we don't"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
1 minute ago, Riccarton3 said:

I wonder what Rangers and Celtic know that none of us do about their dealings with the SFA machine over decades? The list of 'indiscretions', let's say,  must be lengthy. However, they don't care because their secrets are safe in their own little Fight Club. Probably reached the conclusion that a level of corruption is acceptable and it became the norm. Too sad.

 

They've always been quite content whilst the pie of cheat has been evenly cut down the middle.      Either arse tends to start crying when they are presented with the shan half from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riccarton3
8 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

They've always been quite content whilst the pie of cheat has been evenly cut down the middle.      Either arse tends to start crying when they are presented with the shan half from time to time.

the person who wrote that Q & A knows the game is rigged. Think on that for a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TypoonJambo
14 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

 

How would a Sodom and Gomorrah "event" suit?

 

The whole sulphur and fire thing?

 

 

Your the man with the contacts, get it sorted. You couldn't throw in a plague of locust as well could you? 

Edited by TypoonJambo
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboAl
14 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

the person who wrote that Q & A knows the game is rigged. Think on that for a minute.

Two questions they overlooked

1. Why are all the top refs from Weegieland?

A.  Because we think they are the best on the planet

 

 

2,. Why can't these officials travel on the OF team buses to save expenses?

A. Because other teams might think these officials will favour the OF by seeing things when it suits the agenda and not seeing things otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauricio Pinilla

An excellent statement imo. We are lucky to have true professionals running things in Scottish football. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jonnyboy

So if it's seen and dealt with at the time (in the ref's eyes), then it can't be reviewed by the CP? Was MacLean not penalised with a foul but spared a booking (in the ref's eyes) in the semi at Murrayfield? Then the next day the CP waded in and handed out a 2 match ban? Or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spellczech
5 minutes ago, jonnyboy said:

So if it's seen and dealt with at the time (in the ref's eyes), then it can't be reviewed by the CP? Was MacLean not penalised with a foul but spared a booking (in the ref's eyes) in the semi at Murrayfield? Then the next day the CP waded in and handed out a 2 match ban? Or am I missing something?

 

A more accurate summary:

 

If you run over a child in your car, it is ok as long as you saw the child. If however, you did not see the child, a panel will decide if the child should have been on the road or not.

Edited by Spellczech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy

Doing a bit googling about jonnyboy post I came across this, 

An act directed towards the private parts of a player on the field is now considered an act of "brutality" and deemed violent conduct."

So if Beaton saw the two incidents where Morelos whacked a player in the goollies then he wilfully ignored violent conduct. The SFA are really taking the p!ss now if they think we are swallowing this ballocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
graygo
16 minutes ago, jonnyboy said:

So if it's seen and dealt with at the time (in the ref's eyes), then it can't be reviewed by the CP? Was MacLean not penalised with a foul but spared a booking (in the ref's eyes) in the semi at Murrayfield? Then the next day the CP waded in and handed out a 2 match ban? Or am I missing something?

 

Offered a 2 match ban, which we accepted.

There's their get out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
upgotheheads
2 hours ago, Riccarton3 said:

Cringeworthy and tiresome that they still think it's worth trying to pretend the administration of the game at the top level in Scotland has any semblance of credibility.

 

1 hour ago, 1971fozzy said:

Just proves the whole set up is a complete and utter sham. How they can sleep at night is anyone’s guess. Farcical doesn’t come close. I actually despise that organisation with a passion 

 

1 hour ago, jamboman9 said:

I really really wish their crooked Ivory Tower would disappear down a sinkhole,or be engulfed by some sort of fiery abyss with each and every one of the corrupt ******* inside. ??

 

I e-mailed them asking for an explanation of the Beaton affair. I specifically asked them for a response and expected at least an acknowledgement of receipt of the e-mail.

 

Of course I got **** -all back, which, to be fair, is all that I expected.

 

The fact is that the SFA treat us, the paying fans who fund there wages, with contempt. They couldn't even be arsed to press an automatic response key.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forrest
2 hours ago, kila said:
A Notice of Complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence.

 

That's a pile of horse manure for one thing. We've seen retrospective bans handed out for diving and feigning injury, both of which only constitute a yellow card of seen by the ref during the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambof3tornado

Not fit for purpose, just like their refs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy

Scottish Football is not fit for purpose. 

Just read some of the posts above. We should not be in a position where we need to vent our spleen on the obvious corruption that’s plagued Scottish Football for years now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...