SFA compliance officer

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

The lad mcginn not being punished for what can only be described as assault ! The whole system is an absolute shambles in my opinion.

[letsalldothebeattie]

He was booked by Collum so it’s been dealt with that will be their outlook on it

[Victorian]

The whole system is designed to allow selective action and to ensure no one person is attributed accountability.

 

Fact.

[Beast Boy]

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

The whole system is designed to allow selective action and to ensure no one person is attributed accountability.

 

Fact.

 

Exactly. Whole sorry affair needs scrapped.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Glib and Shameless Crier said:

 

Exactly. Whole sorry affair needs scrapped.

 

Can only see it being scrapped if it failed to achieve it's purpose.     To suit the authorities and deflect accountability.    Achieving the correct results and providing fairness and improving standards are not reasons why it exists.     It will be changed only if and when it ceases to protect the corrupt from criticism.

 

VAR would be operated within the same psychology and would therefore fail miserably.   

[joondalupjambo]

So one down one to go in relation to direct assaults.  McGinn charged the boy and rammed his elbow into his face, no ban.   McGregor got the ball and led with a straight leg challenge a couple of feet off the ground and could have broken the Aberdeen boys leg in two, a ban it has to be?  If McGinn and McGregor both get off with bans then who would have any confidence in this process?  It is bad enough even with one of them getting off.

Edited February 12, 2019 by joondalupjambo

[Rudolf]

10 minutes ago, letsalldothebeattie said:

He was booked by Collum so it’s been dealt with that will be their outlook on it

The Hibs guy was booked for his assault on Izaguire but has now been given a retrospective red and a two match ban.

[joondalupjambo]

2 minutes ago, Rudolf said:

The Hibs guy was booked for his assault on Izaguire but has now been given a retrospective red and a two match ban.

I am really getting confused with all this. Did the Compliance Officer say previously that she could not do anything because the ref had seen the incident and/or had taken action? What was that game again or am I making that up in my mind?  I was sure that was a debate before around this subject.

[Famous 1874]

Why was McKenna given a two match ban earlier in the season even though Madden said he saw it? Seems like they are making it up as they go along.

[Rudolf]

Just now, joondalupjambo said:

I am really getting confused with all this. Did the Compliance Officer say previously that she could not do anything because the ref had seen the incident and/or had taken action? What was that game again or am I making that up in my mind?  I was sure that was a debate before around this subject.

That used to be the case but they've clearly changed it.

 

It's a complete and utter joke, it's almost as if they make it up as they go along

[Elshin]

2 minutes ago, joondalupjambo said:

I am really getting confused with all this. Did the Compliance Officer say previously that she could not do anything because the ref had seen the incident and/or had taken action? What was that game again or am I making that up in my mind?  I was sure that was a debate before around this subject.

Sure when morelos flicked the celtic lads nads it was that the ref saw the incident so no retrospective ban could be made.   

 

Yet a ref shows a yellow and they can make it a red? Im confused, unless its purely to benefit the bigot brothers

[Maroonjam]

3 minutes ago, joondalupjambo said:

I am really getting confused with all this. Did the Compliance Officer say previously that she could not do anything because the ref had seen the incident and/or had taken action? What was that game again or am I making that up in my mind?  I was sure that was a debate before around this subject.

That's definitely been the case in the past. But it's the SFA so can change the rules to suite their needs. 

[joondalupjambo]

No wonder the players and managers are all confused when we are all confused.

[Deevers]

Definitely just a lackey. The whole system is a joke and purposly designed to be vague and open to any interpretation that they want. 

[Rabbie_Burns]

Appears to be based on who Richard Gordon, Willie Miller and Co shout the loudest about on the radio after particular matches 

[DETTY29]

Hibs player has had a yellow upgraded to a red.  So why couldn't  McGinn's?

 

Power's tackle on Jack correctly not looked in to and stays as a yellow.

[Jambo-Fox]

SPFL & SFA appearing to be amateur organisations run by well paid professionals acting like amateurs! Scottish football keeps sinking further into the mire. It is crying out for decent leadership to raise the standards at all levels!

Edited February 12, 2019 by Jambo-Fox

[kila]

It is a cover for the GFA - there is a lot of freedom this position has in enforcing/interpreting the laws of the game in for each individual incident. No precedent gets set, they can just make it up as they go along.

 

Rangers and Celtic seem to benefit quite well from this setup.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2019 by kila

[Don Dan]

The set up is a farce. It was farcical before then they made changes to make it even more farcical. 

[skinnybob72]

10 minutes ago, kila said:

It is a cover for the GFA - there is a lot of freedom this position has in enforcing/interpreting the laws of the game in for each individual incident. No precedent gets set, they can just make it up as they go along.

 

Rangers and Celtic seem to benefit quite well from this setup.

 

 

So it's working exactly as it should. 

[DETTY29]

8 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

The set up is a farce. It was farcical before then they made changes to make it even more farcical. 

Not saying in the cases over the weekend this is what happened but one of the changes were to align to the English system where 3 ex refs would review a decision and identify if the ref has made a mistake understandable or otherwise.  Previously it was the CO and Head of Refs have a discussion, CO decide on whether to cite and then 3 randoms decided on how they wanted to interpret the rules.

 

And it works in England, but we've managed to cock it up.

 

It's getting harder to understand any form of consistency,  seems as if its make it up as you go along, collude long before hearings to get desired result and no confidence in the integrity of evdn the 3 ex refs.

 

I stand by that the Head of Referees should be sole arbiter, all hearings, refs and evidence in full are made public imnediately  and he stands or falls by his consistency, no-one else's.

 

And he's on a fixed term 3 year max contract.  If not less.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Not fit for purpose. 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Not fit for purpose. 

 

The polar opposite actually.    The only thing it is 'fit for' is it's purpose.    One of the reasons they get away with this shit is that people errantly believe there is some inherent purpose of best faith to their chicannery.

 

Not fit for purpose.    No.     Not fit for the implied,  bogus purpose of the SFA,   which in reality does not exist.   Entirely fit for the real purpose.    

[DVB]

The citing of players appear to be erratic.

 

The decisions being made seem to be erratic especially those involving the old firm.

[Don Dan]

Just listening to BBC Scotland. They were discussing the McGregor incident. I can see that thug getting off with it. Goalkeepers should not be exempted from being punished for dangerous tackles. If it was an outfield player he would have been off straight red all day long.

if that tackle had been the other way round then I’m positive it would have been a red.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Dannie Boy

[BEDNAR BOY]

2 hours ago, letsalldothebeattie said:

He was booked by Collum so it’s been dealt with that will be their outlook on it

The Hibs guy was booked by Thomson too but he does get a ban.

good enough for him but it’s not consistent.

In fact it’s ludicrous and not sure anyone knows what they are doing particular the compliance officer after some of the things I’ve been hearing.

 

 

 

[DVB]

7 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

Just listening to BBC Scotland. They were discussing the McGregor incident. I can see that thug getting off with it. Goalkeepers should not be exempted from being punished for dangerous tackles. If it was an outfield player he would have been off straight red all day long.

if that tackle had been the other way round then I’m positive it would have been a red.

Not to mention he’s got plenty of previous for trying to endanger players.

[Don Dan]

1 minute ago, DVB said:

Not to mention he’s got plenty of previous for trying to endanger players.

 

No surprise there. 

Just remembing the Utchy 50/50 with the Motherwell keeper. The Kangaroo courts that are the media had Utchy guilty off maiming the keeper. Double standards all day long.

[DETTY29]

3 hours ago, Famous 1874 said:

Why was McKenna given a two match ban earlier in the season even though Madden said he saw it? Seems like they are making it up as they go along.

Could be wrong but I think Madden said he gave what he did from the angle that he had and if he'd had another angle / view he would likely have given a red.  I think we'll find out that the same thing will have happened with the Hibs guy / ref.

 

I'm not as convinced it's that they make it up as they go along, but it does seem that they try to protect the refs as much as possible.  

 

There is no way that Collum should have just yellow carded McGinn.  None of the evidence can come to any other conclusion that Collum made a terrible mistake.  So just say insufficient evidence to over turn.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2019 by DETTY29

[milky_26]

2 hours ago, DETTY29 said:

Hibs player has had a yellow upgraded to a red.  So why couldn't  McGinn's?

 

Power's tackle on Jack correctly not looked in to and stays as a yellow.

so the reason they said morelos could not get done for any of the incidents in the OF game was because the ref saw it. But the ref saw the hibs boy and booked him yet he gets a ban.

 

arse+elbow

 

piss up+brewery

 

scoring+brothel

 

all come to mind

[Horatio Caine]

1 hour ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

No surprise there. 

Just remembing the Utchy 50/50 with the Motherwell keeper. The Kangaroo courts that are the media had Utchy guilty off maiming the keeper. Double standards all day long.

Aye, and the keeper was playing the next week, while Uche's only just back.  No mention of that disparity in the media though.

[DETTY29]

25 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

so the reason they said morelos could not get done for any of the incidents in the OF game was because the ref saw it. But the ref saw the hibs boy and booked him yet he gets a ban.

 

arse+elbow

 

piss up+brewery

 

scoring+brothel

 

all come to mind

See my post above.

 

I get a strong feeling that it's all abut protecting the referee.

 

Video watched.  If the ref has made a mistake but there is some way they can make an excuse for the incorrect decision, they will over turn original onfield decision to the correct one retrospectively.

 

If it's an inexusable decision by the ref the decsion will be filed under seen and happy with at the time or insufficient evidence to progress.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2019 by DETTY29

[Jambof3tornado]

Thug mcgregor will get let off.

 

As mentioned, this all seems to suit the old firm so nothing will get done to make it fair and robust.

[DETTY29]

1 hour ago, Dannie Boy said:

Just listening to BBC Scotland. They were discussing the McGregor incident. I can see that thug getting off with it. Goalkeepers should not be exempted from being punished for dangerous tackles. If it was an outfield player he would have been off straight red all day long.

if that tackle had been the other way round then I’m positive it would have been a red.

That David Currie is useless, not that many of the presenters are any good.

 

How hard would it have been to ask all the panel

 

1)  How often have they seen a keeper come out to protect themselves with a straight leg (Actually Lloris did it at the weekend, but the player hurdled him)  I can't think of any others.

 

2) Asked Neil Alexander how often has he done it in his career - and if Alexander said reguarly, I would just have said I've watched you loads of times and I don't recall one, give me an example.

 

To be fair to Alexander he did say that not only was he a keeper but a pal of McGregor's.  I actually think Alexander didn't want to say so, but I had the feeling that he went off subject about protecting with knee as part of naturally jumping for a ball, he (Alexander) thought McGregor went beyond what is deemed acceptable protection.

 

Edited February 12, 2019 by DETTY29

[Bull's-eye]

All the compliance officer is there for is to remove the spotlight away from the horrendous officiating at games. 

 

It's the diabolical refereeing that creates all the problems, it's a well planned deflection tactic that is working very well as far as I can see. It's creating all sorts of confusion amongst players, managers and supporters. 

 

Give us a half decent standard of refereeing and there would be no need for a compliance officer.

[Don Dan]

2 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

That David Currie is useless, not that many of the presenters are any good.

 

How hard would it have been to ask all the panel

 

1)  How often have they seen a keeper come out to protect themselves with a straight leg (Actually Lloris did it at the weekend, but the player hurdled him.  I can't think of any others

 

2) Asked Neil Alexander how oftn has he done it in his career - and if Alexander said reguarly, I would just have said I've watched you loads of times and I don't recall one, give me an example.

 

To be fair to Alexander he did say that not only was he a keeper but a pal of McGregor's.  I actually think Alexander didn't want to say so, but I had the feeling that he went off subject about protecting with knee as part of naturally jumping for a ball, he (Alexander) thought McGregor went beyond what is deemed acceptable protection.

 

 

When I was playing I vividly remember a goalkeeper breaking a forward tibia and fibula doing exactly what McGregor did in that tackle that was at semipro level back in the late 80s. The sound of the leg break still resonates in my head. It was a horrific incident.

[DETTY29]

2 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

The polar opposite actually.    The only thing it is 'fit for' is it's purpose.    One of the reasons they get away with this shit is that people errantly believe there is some inherent purpose of best faith to their chicannery.

 

Not fit for purpose.    No.     Not fit for the implied,  bogus purpose of the SFA,   which in reality does not exist.   Entirely fit for the real purpose.    

Figure out how to get to pre determined outcomes.

 

One of which is that our refs never make mistakes.  And if they do, there is always an excuse behind it.

 

 

[Homme]

3 hours ago, kila said:

It is a cover for the GFA - there is a lot of freedom this position has in enforcing/interpreting the laws of the game in for each individual incident. No precedent gets set, they can just make it up as they go along.

 

Rangers and Celtic seem to benefit quite well from this setup.

 

 

Haven't Rangers had the most citations? 

 

Someone suggested they had. 

 

Celtic have had 0 I think. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by Homme

[DETTY29]

9 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

When I was playing I vividly remember a goalkeeper breaking a forward tibia and fibula doing exactly what McGregor did in that tackle that was at semipro level back in the late 80s. The sound of the leg break still resonates in my head. It was a horrific incident.

Was he sent off?

 

Not quite the same and opposite way round but didn't Darren Jackson once put Cambell Money testes in to his (Money's) diaphragm?

Edited February 12, 2019 by DETTY29

[Saint Jambo]

9 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Was he sent off?

 

Not quite the same and opposite way round but didn't Darren Jackson once put Cambell Money testes in to his (Money's) diaphragm?

 

If you mean in a Hearts game, I'm fairly sure it was Iain Baird.

 

[DETTY29]

Just now, Saint Jambo said:

 

If you mean in a Hearts game, I'm fairly sure it was Iain Baird.

 

Jackson was playing for United at the time. 

 

I do remember Baird doing Money, now you've brought it up.

[Don Dan]

13 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Was he sent off?

 

Not quite the same and opposite way round but didn't Darren Jackson once put Cambell Money testes in to his (Money's) diaphragm?

 

Re the Goalkeeper can’t remember. I do remember the ambulance coming onto the park though!  

[Mikey1874]

20 minutes ago, Homme said:

Haven't Rangers had the most citations? 

 

Someone suggested they had. 

 

Celtic have had 0 I think. 

 

 

[kila]

What is that actually showing? Sounds like the number of incidents called for review.

 

What about the numbers showing successful appeals? Things like Morelosgate

[Mikey1874]

6 minutes ago, kila said:

What is that actually showing? Sounds like the number of incidents called for review.

 

What about the numbers showing successful appeals? Things like Morelosgate

 

Includes appeals and citings I think

[Pans Jambo]

4 hours ago, Rabbie_Burns said:

Appears to be based on who Richard Gordon, Willie Miller and Co shout the loudest about on the radio after particular matches 

This is absolutely spot on. If that lot make a big deal about an incident the the SFA C.O. “Takes a look at it”. Judged buy a bunch of GFA apologists. Joke. 

[Toxteth O'Grady]

29 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

 

Rangers should be fined for poor discipline - that's how it has worked for us 

[Thomaso]

3 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

Just listening to BBC Scotland. They were discussing the McGregor incident. I can see that thug getting off with it. Goalkeepers should not be exempted from being punished for dangerous tackles. If it was an outfield player he would have been off straight red all day long.

if that tackle had been the other way round then I’m positive it would have been a red.

 

How about a 13 year retrospective ban for McGregor for his Kung goo kick on Clum???

[geomac]

4 hours ago, DVB said:

The citing of players appear to be erratic.

 

The decisions being made seem to be erratic especially those involving the old firm.

 

Not wanting to defend Rangers but they've been cited more than us - 9 times to Celtic's zero

Hearts second highest I believe

I think there is a correlation between if your citation gets rescinded and who it was against?

Hibs player ban for foul on Celtic player upheld, anyone else see a pattern? Scott Brown never cited!!!!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Toxteth O'Grady said:

Rangers should be fined for poor discipline - that's how it has worked for us 

 

The difference is striking, including how easy the media are going on Rangers and Morales.

 

Even at the height of the SFA witch-hunt against Romanov and our supposed "indiscipline" in those days, we never had a player as dirty or with as many red cards as Morales.