Jump to content
Shanks

ICT - Keatings - new tribunal rescinds card

Recommended Posts

Shanks
14 minutes ago, Kiwidoug said:

The more I think about this, the more I think it has to be deliberate and it has to be some form of corruption.  It simply can't be an error or poor judgement.  You couldn't ask for clearer evidence that the referee made an error.

 

Why would they want to penalise a player and a club in the biscuit cup?

 

It makes no rational sense and really requires an independent investigation.

 

This is why it annoys me as well.  There is no rational explanation and I can't think of any reason why this decision would be made?  

 

Sums Scottish football up really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Real Maroonblood
17 hours ago, Longshanks said:

 

This is why it annoys me as well.  There is no rational explanation and I can't think of any reason why this decision would be made?  

 

Sums Scottish football up really. 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnthomas
17 hours ago, Longshanks said:

 

This is why it annoys me as well.  There is no rational explanation and I can't think of any reason why this decision would be made?  

 

Sums Scottish football up really. 

If our media had any balls they would make a programme about this featuring the most ridiculous decisions .

I know it's not going to happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SectionDJambo

It would take someone of courage and honest principles, within the SFA, to stand up and say that this isn't right. Since James Keatings has played for Hibernian, who's chairman at the time was Rod Petrie, now the SFA president, there is an obvious candidate to do the courageous thing.

What are the chances?

Slim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
true-jambo
3 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

It would take someone of courage and honest principles, within the SFA, to stand up and say that this isn't right. Since James Keatings has played for Hibernian, who's chairman at the time was Rod Petrie, now the SFA president, there is an obvious candidate to do the courageous thing.

What are the chances?

Slim?

Nil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...a bit disco

Scottish FA Statement: James Keatings

scottish-fa-crest-1000x500.jpg?mode=crop&width=820&height=305&anchor=top
Saturday 22 February 2020

The Scottish FA’s Chief Executive, Ian Maxwell, has received notification that the tribunal convened to hear the Claim for Wrongful Caution raised by Inverness Caledonian Thistle on behalf of James Keatings failed to implement its duties as per the Judicial Panel Protocol.

Specifically, one of the panel members has advised that, despite raising no concerns throughout the process, they did not undertake their obligations with respect to the consideration of all the available evidence.

While the Fast Track Claims process is by definition an appeal, and therefore not open to further consideration, none the less the Chief Executive and Presidential team, Rod Petrie and Mike Mulraney, are unanimous that the tribunal outcome cannot be considered competent in light of the disclosure from the panel member and that the input from that panel member must be withdrawn.

With that in mind, and only in extremis based on the information provided by the panel member, the determination cannot be considered valid. Therefore, the Judicial Panel Secretary has been instructed to convene a new tribunal and a fresh date will be set in due course.

The initial outcome is rendered invalid by the acknowledgement of a panel member of their failure to dispose of their duties in respect of section 13.13.4 of the Judicial Panel Protocol and, in particular, the following paragraph:

The Determination of the Claim shall be made by the Fast Track Tribunal by examining and deliberating upon: (ii) all of the evidence and submissions delivered by the Claimant in support of the Notice of Claim.

The Scottish FA upholds the independence of the Judicial Panel Protocol but cannot in this instance consider the tribunal verdict competent, based on the admitted failure of a panel member to adhere to the process as outlined.

The panel member in question has subsequently been withdrawn from the pool of potential panel members for all future tribunals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...a bit disco

What a cop out though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kila

:laugh:

 

So all we need to do is to get enough retweets of future crimes against non-OF clubs and SFA will fold?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Real Maroonblood
Just now, kila said:

:laugh:

 

So all we need to do is to get enough retweets of future crimes against non-OF clubs and SFA will fold?

 

 

If only. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FarmerTweedy
16 minutes ago, ...a bit disco said:

Scottish FA Statement: James Keatings

scottish-fa-crest-1000x500.jpg?mode=crop&width=820&height=305&anchor=top
Saturday 22 February 2020

The Scottish FA’s Chief Executive, Ian Maxwell, has received notification that the tribunal convened to hear the Claim for Wrongful Caution raised by Inverness Caledonian Thistle on behalf of James Keatings failed to implement its duties as per the Judicial Panel Protocol.

Specifically, one of the panel members has advised that, despite raising no concerns throughout the process, they did not undertake their obligations with respect to the consideration of all the available evidence.

While the Fast Track Claims process is by definition an appeal, and therefore not open to further consideration, none the less the Chief Executive and Presidential team, Rod Petrie and Mike Mulraney, are unanimous that the tribunal outcome cannot be considered competent in light of the disclosure from the panel member and that the input from that panel member must be withdrawn.

With that in mind, and only in extremis based on the information provided by the panel member, the determination cannot be considered valid. Therefore, the Judicial Panel Secretary has been instructed to convene a new tribunal and a fresh date will be set in due course.

The initial outcome is rendered invalid by the acknowledgement of a panel member of their failure to dispose of their duties in respect of section 13.13.4 of the Judicial Panel Protocol and, in particular, the following paragraph:

The Determination of the Claim shall be made by the Fast Track Tribunal by examining and deliberating upon: (ii) all of the evidence and submissions delivered by the Claimant in support of the Notice of Claim.

The Scottish FA upholds the independence of the Judicial Panel Protocol but cannot in this instance consider the tribunal verdict competent, based on the admitted failure of a panel member to adhere to the process as outlined.

The panel member in question has subsequently been withdrawn from the pool of potential panel members for all future tribunals.

It is, at the same time, both quite stunning and not remotely surprising, that one of the panel has effectively admitted that they didn't even bother to watch the replays!!!!

 

I'm going to guess that they get paid a fee for being on a panel, and simply got the case details sent to them, waited a bit, then sent back their 'verdict' and pocketed the fee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John mcCartney

name and shame the incompetant bastrads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joondalupjambo

Knowing this mob they will reconvene on a date after the Challenge Cup final so Keatings will miss the game anyway😃😃😃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stotty

There were 3 people on the panel, so I fail to see how 1 member apparently not reviewing all the evidence led to that outcome... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankfurter
1 minute ago, stotty said:

There were 3 people on the panel, so I fail to see how 1 member apparently not reviewing all the evidence led to that outcome... 

Does it require all three to agree to overturn a decision?

 

Or maybe the other two were split.

Edited by Frankfurter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kila
1 minute ago, stotty said:

There were 3 people on the panel, so I fail to see how 1 member apparently not reviewing all the evidence led to that outcome... 

 

I think for a decision to be overturned the panel have to vote unanimously

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stotty
Just now, Frankfurter said:

Does it require all three to agree to overturn a decision?

 

 

 

 

Just now, kila said:

 

I think for a decision to be overturned the panel have to vote unanimously

 

 

Didn't know that - still reeks of a cover up to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kila
Just now, stotty said:

Didn't know that - still reeks of a cover up to me. 

 

It is only because the case went viral that they have intervened. The setup and the competence of those enlisted is all under SFA control. Bunch of useless arseholes taking a wage while the governance of our game rots.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankfurter
Just now, stotty said:

 

 

Didn't know that - still reeks of a cover up to me. 

The panels are made up of one representative each from Celtic and Rangers, plus a token neutral. Here obviously the Rangers rep saw their Colts team involved, so didn't need any further evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stotty
1 minute ago, kila said:

 

It is only because the case went viral that they have intervened. The setup and the competence of those enlisted is all under SFA control. Bunch of useless arseholes taking a wage while the governance of our game rots.

 

 

That's my take on it too - their ludicrous decision has attracted too much unwanted attention and they've had to backtrack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stotty
2 minutes ago, Frankfurter said:

The panels are made up of one representative each from Celtic and Rangers, plus a token neutral. Here obviously the Rangers rep saw their Colts team involved, so didn't need any further evidence.

Sadly, that's probably not far from the truth 😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
milky_26
2 minutes ago, stotty said:

That's my take on it too - their ludicrous decision has attracted too much unwanted attention and they've had to backtrack. 

yep when gary lineker tweets about it they know they needed to do something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toxteth O'Grady
3 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

yep when gary lineker tweets about it they know they needed to do something

Trial by Match of the Day trumps Trial by Sportscene

 

The SFA really are unfit for purpose

Edited by Toxteth O'Grady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

:lol:

 

Just overturn it you ****ing roasters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
weehammy

As Henry McLeish once said, ‘It was a muddle not a fiddle’.

Although in this case one wonders!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

They’re basically saying the panel ignored the evidence. Corrupt *****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cruickie Was King

Not so much as a foul, more an assault!! Disgraceful that this decision was not overturned! How would we be feeling if this happened to a Jambo!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
1 minute ago, Cruickie Was King said:

Not so much as a foul, more an assault!! Disgraceful that this decision was not overturned! How would we be feeling if this happened to a Jambo!!


Something about Leigh Griffiths or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gnasher75

"The panel member in question has subsequently been withdrawn from the pool of potential panel members for all future tribunals."

 

Given this is all anonymous, how can we know this is true?  

 

It would be more believable if they added another paragraph:

 

"The SFA are recruiting a new independently-minded member to join the panel. Please apply, quoting your Ibrox season ticket reference and/or Lodge membership number."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yoda

Making it up as they go along.  Embarrassing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pettigrewsstylist
On 20/02/2020 at 09:47, Phage said:

Well shan on Keats. Got clattered in that video.

 

Cheats the lot of them. Alfredo would have got decision turned over

Alfredo would have had no decision to contest. He would have scored both the resultant 2 penalties awarded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimbo99
43 minutes ago, kila said:

 

It is only because the case went viral that they have intervened. The setup and the competence of those enlisted is all under SFA control. Bunch of useless arseholes taking a wage while the governance of our game rots.

 

 

:spoton:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
highlandjambo3

So.......smoke and mirrors aplenty.

 

I copied and pasted that statement into google translate and this is what came out:

 

“yes we know we fc***d it up but you know what, we don’t really care, we will convene again and change our minds and, we’re closing ranks to protect our own so we won’t disclose who messed this up the first time”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sadj
10 minutes ago, gnasher75 said:

"The panel member in question has subsequently been withdrawn from the pool of potential panel members for all future tribunals."

 

Given this is all anonymous, how can we know this is true?  

 

It would be more believable if they added another paragraph:

 

"The SFA are recruiting a new independently-minded member to join the panel. Please apply, quoting your Ibrox season ticket reference and/or Lodge membership number."

😂😂😂😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sadj
Just now, highlandjambo3 said:

So.......smoke and mirrors aplenty.

 

I copied and pasted that statement into google translate and this is what came out:

 

“yes we know we fc***d it up but you know what, we don’t really care, we will convene again and change our minds and, we’re closing ranks to protect our own so we won’t disclose who messed this up the first time”


Even Google knows 😂😏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sooperstar
1 hour ago, John mcCartney said:

name and shame the incompetant bastrads

They can't. They made it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankfurter
26 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

They’re basically saying the panel ignored the evidence. Corrupt *****

 

I wonder how they found out. Phoned him, "Did you even look at it?", "Nah couldnae be arsed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davemclaren

Be funny if the new panel comes to the same decision. 😍 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pettigrewsstylist
1 hour ago, ...a bit disco said:

Scottish FA Statement: James Keatings

scottish-fa-crest-1000x500.jpg?mode=crop&width=820&height=305&anchor=top
Saturday 22 February 2020

The Scottish FA’s Chief Executive, Ian Maxwell, has received notification that the tribunal convened to hear the Claim for Wrongful Caution raised by Inverness Caledonian Thistle on behalf of James Keatings failed to implement its duties as per the Judicial Panel Protocol.

Specifically, one of the panel members has advised that, despite raising no concerns throughout the process, they did not undertake their obligations with respect to the consideration of all the available evidence.

While the Fast Track Claims process is by definition an appeal, and therefore not open to further consideration, none the less the Chief Executive and Presidential team, Rod Petrie and Mike Mulraney, are unanimous that the tribunal outcome cannot be considered competent in light of the disclosure from the panel member and that the input from that panel member must be withdrawn.

With that in mind, and only in extremis based on the information provided by the panel member, the determination cannot be considered valid. Therefore, the Judicial Panel Secretary has been instructed to convene a new tribunal and a fresh date will be set in due course.

The initial outcome is rendered invalid by the acknowledgement of a panel member of their failure to dispose of their duties in respect of section 13.13.4 of the Judicial Panel Protocol and, in particular, the following paragraph:

The Determination of the Claim shall be made by the Fast Track Tribunal by examining and deliberating upon: (ii) all of the evidence and submissions delivered by the Claimant in support of the Notice of Claim.

The Scottish FA upholds the independence of the Judicial Panel Protocol but cannot in this instance consider the tribunal verdict competent, based on the admitted failure of a panel member to adhere to the process as outlined.

The panel member in question has subsequently been withdrawn from the pool of potential panel members for all future tribunals.

Banana Republic nonsense. Sounds exactly what it is, a dictatorship realising they pushed the abuse and bullying too far.

Medieval monarchy,,,esque!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pettigrewsstylist
5 minutes ago, Sooperstar said:

They can't. They made it up.

Exactly, the anonymous patsy guff. 😁😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambof3tornado

Change must happen. No need to have such a secret squirrel setup.

 

A rep should be put forward for the panels from each club in the top 4 divisions.

 

Without this outcry we wouldnt be even having the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...a bit disco

 

7 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Be funny if the new panel comes to the same decision. 😍 

 

:lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spellczech
1 hour ago, ...a bit disco said:

Scottish FA Statement: James Keatings

scottish-fa-crest-1000x500.jpg?mode=crop&width=820&height=305&anchor=top
Saturday 22 February 2020

The Scottish FA’s Chief Executive, Ian Maxwell, has received notification that the tribunal convened to hear the Claim for Wrongful Caution raised by Inverness Caledonian Thistle on behalf of James Keatings failed to implement its duties as per the Judicial Panel Protocol.

Specifically, one of the panel members has advised that, despite raising no concerns throughout the process, they did not undertake their obligations with respect to the consideration of all the available evidence.

While the Fast Track Claims process is by definition an appeal, and therefore not open to further consideration, none the less the Chief Executive and Presidential team, Rod Petrie and Mike Mulraney, are unanimous that the tribunal outcome cannot be considered competent in light of the disclosure from the panel member and that the input from that panel member must be withdrawn.

With that in mind, and only in extremis based on the information provided by the panel member, the determination cannot be considered valid. Therefore, the Judicial Panel Secretary has been instructed to convene a new tribunal and a fresh date will be set in due course.

The initial outcome is rendered invalid by the acknowledgement of a panel member of their failure to dispose of their duties in respect of section 13.13.4 of the Judicial Panel Protocol and, in particular, the following paragraph:

The Determination of the Claim shall be made by the Fast Track Tribunal by examining and deliberating upon: (ii) all of the evidence and submissions delivered by the Claimant in support of the Notice of Claim.

The Scottish FA upholds the independence of the Judicial Panel Protocol but cannot in this instance consider the tribunal verdict competent, based on the admitted failure of a panel member to adhere to the process as outlined.

The panel member in question has subsequently been withdrawn from the pool of potential panel members for all future tribunals.

They can dress it with all the legalise and chuck in a Latin phrase or two all they like - they have still just admitted that their appeals process is flawed, not fit for purpose, opaque and perhaps even corrupt. Someone, who they refuse to identify, made a decision without basis because he couldn't be bothered looking at the evidence...

 

This raises questions about every single panel this person has previously been a member of...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rick witter
1 hour ago, stotty said:

There were 3 people on the panel, so I fail to see how 1 member apparently not reviewing all the evidence led to that outcome... 

I agree mate. If it was only the one person that never viewed the material surely the two that viewed it should have overturned the decision anyway. 
They are a bunch of incompetent arseholes and it makes you wonder about every decision that panel has ever made. They could just make an on the spot decision without viewing any video evidence and we would never know. Corrupt 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauricio Pinilla

I mean scottish football is literally run like a ****ing bowling club isn't it. Just a bunch of auld pals getting pished. 

Edited by Mauricio Pinilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stotty
5 minutes ago, kila said:

 

 

So my initial thoughts were correct... Did think with a panel of 3 it would only be a majority required. Absolutely beggars belief that at least 2 of the 3 voted it was a dive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stotty
1 minute ago, rick witter said:

I agree mate. If it was only the one person that never viewed the material surely the two that viewed it should have overturned the decision anyway. 
They are a bunch of incompetent arseholes and it makes you wonder about every decision that panel has ever made. They could just make an on the spot decision without viewing any video evidence and we would never know. Corrupt 

There are plenty people on here who refuse to believe any corruption exists in Scottish football as well. 

Share this post


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

So my initial thoughts were correct... Did think with a panel of 3 it would only be a majority required. Absolutely beggars belief that at least 2 of the 3 voted it was a dive. 

It is clear that not bothering to view the evidence before submitting a decision is not limited to just one person - 2 people must've done it, but only one has owned up to it...As I wrote above, every past decision by these panels is now questionable. Specifically every panel upon which the 2 who voted to deny Keatings appeal should now be reviewed. ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nelly Terraces

Bwhahahaha. What an utter shambles! Complete amateur hour moment yet again for the game in the footballing backwater of Scotland!:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kila

Reading the Disciplinary Procedures - https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/5604/judicial-panel-protocol-2019-20.pdf

  1. 8.6.6  Where three Panel Members preside on a Tribunal, a Decision or Determination of said Tribunal may be made by a majority or unanimous verdict of the Panel Members.

  2. 8.6.7  Where one or two Panel Member(s) preside on a Tribunal, a Decision or Determination of said Tribunal must be made by a unanimous verdict of the Panel Member(s).

 

 

So there exists an appeals panel with one member/vote on it? :laugh:

 

 

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...