ICT - Keatings - new tribunal rescinds card

[jamboozy]

Scottish football, the governing body of , is the joke that everyone laughs at. What a fecking shambles.

[true-jambo]

7 minutes 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. 

What if the anonymous one who admitted not viewíng all the evidence, was in the minority and voted to overturn the red card😂

[stotty]

Just now, true-jambo said:

What if the anonymous one who admitted not viewíng all the evidence, was in the minority and voted to overturn the red card😂

It's possible tbh... This whole thing is so hilariously pathetic and amateurish 😂

[SectionDJambo]

That statement is typical SFA. Complete goobledegook. Sounds like a statement designed to be more confusing than informative. They don’t want to fully explain why this decision was made, other than suggesting that an unnamed individual maybe didn’t bother looking at the incident before declaring his decision.

So how do we know that the individual will not be involved again and how did a second reviewer come to the wrong conclusion as well?

They probably thought that it was only Inverness so nobody would bother.

What a corrupt association we have “running” our national sport.

[Spellczech]

4 minutes ago, kila said:

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

5. 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.

6. 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?

 

 

Not sure how it reconciles with the cambridge dictionary definition..."group"? "Publicly discuss"? "as entertainment"

 

Edited February 22 by Spellczech

[Spellczech]

3 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

That statement is typical SFA. Complete goobledegook. Sounds like a statement designed to be more confusing than informative. They don’t want to fully explain why this decision was made, other than suggesting that an unnamed individual maybe didn’t bother looking at the incident before declaring his decision.

So how do we know that the individual will not be involved again and how did a second reviewer come to the wrong conclusion as well?

They probably thought that it was only Inverness so nobody would bother.

What a corrupt association we have “running” our national sport.

It's been explained - they can have a panel of one, and that one person can make a decision without bothering to view the evidence...

 

You couldn't make it up...

[stotty]

11 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

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. ..

That's assuming their latest version of events is true of course. I mean, the decision was so completely and utterly wrong, I'd have expected it to be queried with the panel members before returning their verdict?   

[Dannie Boy]

Why do we bother? 

[highlandjambo3]

19 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

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

FTFY

[Dannie Boy]

1 hour ago, John mcCartney said:

name and shame the incompetant bastrads

Completely agree. Said Panel Member should never be allowed to be on the Panel ever again.

[Spellczech]

1 minute ago, stotty said:

That's assuming their latest version of events is true of course. I mean, the decision was so completely and utterly wrong, I'd have expected it to be queried with the panel members before returning their verdict?   

I suspect the people on the panel are not told how many other people are on the panel with them for any particular decision. Since this was lower league diddy cup, they've decided to go with a panel of 1 member, and that member has just said "No, decision stands" probably because he saw the referee was standing by his mistake, so he didn't even bother to watch the videos ICT submitted...

[sac]

Just now, Dannie Boy said:

Completely agree. Said Panel Member should never be allowed to be on the Panel ever again.

Does this panel member exist? Probably done more as a response to the public outcry.

[SectionDJambo]

So Petrie has got involved after all. Making an exception of the no appeals situation by finding out that one of the panel didn’t do his job, they say.

Correct outcome, unless the new panel confirm the yellow card, but once again all done in secrecy, with an expectation that we should all just believe everything they say. No way of collaboration by knowing who the mystery man was. 
Obviously little chance of finding out if they just realised they weren’t getting away with this one, and are making this latest development up on the hoof. 
We can’t believe anything they say.

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 minute ago, sac said:

Does this panel member exist? Probably done more as a response to the public outcry.

Apparently he posts on JKB.

[Phage]

50 minutes ago, pettigrewsstylist said:

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

Alfredo isn't that great at penalties. As demonstrated at the Old Firm game in a backfiring attempt to boost his saleability lol

[sac]

Just now, The Real Maroonblood said:

Apparently he posts on JKB.

Cant be that big an arsehole surely? Then again ......

[pettigrewsstylist]

46 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

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

They would if they could

Back to reality next week tho!

[The Real Maroonblood]

6 minutes ago, sac said:

Cant be that big an arsehole surely? Then again ......

[John mcCartney]

The anonymity factor will be because of the arse cheeks.

What a bunch of fecking cowards they are  !!!!

[redjambo]

I am most definitely now living in a Truman Show-type environment. The world appears to be going quite crazy.

[Spellczech]

6 minutes ago, John mcCartney said:

The anonymity factor will be because of the arse cheeks.

What a bunch of fecking cowards they are  !!!!

If the lawyer lady who acts as Compliance Officer does not now threaten to resign unless they overhaul the system then she is not doing her job. 

[Saint Jambo]

17 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

I suspect the people on the panel are not told how many other people are on the panel with them for any particular decision. Since this was lower league diddy cup, they've decided to go with a panel of 1 member, and that member has just said "No, decision stands" probably because he saw the referee was standing by his mistake, so he didn't even bother to watch the videos ICT submitted...

 

The referee didn't stand by his decision. The ref isn't asked to say whether he thinks he got it right in retrospect, just to explain why he made the decision at the time.

 

The panel meets by video conference which makes it pretty hard to understand how a panel member failed to take into account all the evidence. Surely the relevant evidence would have come up in discussion. It sounds to me like the SFA know they've messed up and have learnt on one of the panel members to say they didn't follow the protocols. This way it is an individual failure and not a systemic issue. Sweeps it nicely under the carpet.

 

Poster above who said trial by Match of the Day trumps trial by Sportscene was spot on. Ridiculous how much the disciplinary system is driven by media coverage.

 

[Lord Montpelier]

Questions should be asked as to whether the panel have fulfilled their duties correctly retrospectively as well.

[Lovecraft]

****ing embarassing.

 

 

[redjambo]

Just now, Lord Montpelier said:

Questions should be asked as to whether the panel have fulfilled their duties correctly retrospectively as well.

 

Will never happen. Pandora's box and all that.

[Kiwidoug]

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

Just overturn it you ****ing roasters

Correct.  What an utter laughing stock they are.

[Spellczech]

4 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

The referee didn't stand by his decision. The ref isn't asked to say whether he thinks he got it right in retrospect, just to explain why he made the decision at the time.

 

The panel meets by video conference which makes it pretty hard to understand how a panel member failed to take into account all the evidence. Surely the relevant evidence would have come up in discussion. It sounds to me like the SFA know they've messed up and have learnt on one of the panel members to say they didn't follow the protocols. This way it is an individual failure and not a systemic issue. Sweeps it nicely under the carpet.

 

Poster above who said trial by Match of the Day trumps trial by Sportscene was spot on. Ridiculous how much the disciplinary system is driven by media coverage.

 

From the ICT statement linked on P1:

You are right that the ref did not "stand by" his decision but rather sought to explain it, but it amounts to the same thing in the end. This is about an ex-referee backing up a referee without bothering to view the evidence offered to counter it

Edited February 22 by Spellczech

[redjambo]

Perhaps we could start remedying things by stopping payments to the panel members, which encourages complacency by providing motivation other than coming to the correct and fair conclusion. There aren't that many appeals and surely we can get together a group of knowledgeable and experienced individuals with the love of the game at heart who can spend 5-10 minutes every few weeks examining a report and some video.

[Spellczech]

Just now, redjambo said:

Perhaps we could start remedying things by stopping payments to the panel members, which encourages complacency by providing motivation other than coming to the correct and fair conclusion. There aren't that many appeals and surely we can get together a group of knowledgeable and experienced individuals with the love of the game at heart who can spend 5-10 minutes every few weeks examining a report and some video.

Foreign panel? Absolutely no need to us ex-referees from Glasgow and west

[Saint Jambo]

1 minute ago, Spellczech said:

From the ICT statement linked on P1:

 

Yes, exactly my point. As the statement covers he explains why he made the decision at the time. No where does he say that on reflection he thinks he got it right or wrong. He gives his reasoning because that gives the panel the basis on which to judge whether he made a clear error. This was discussed on the Terrace podcast on Thursday. They had spoken to the SFA about the appeals process (in relation to a previous incident) and the SFA had confirmed that the ref isn't asked as part of the process to say whether they think they got it right or wrong.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Spellczech said:

Foreign panel? Absolutely no need to us ex-referees from Glasgow and west

 

I'd be up for that, but the idea would no doubt be rejected on the grounds that foreign referees just "don't quite understand our game".

[AGoodLaugh]

"Sorry one of our tribunal panel forgot to watch the replays"

I love Scottish football 😂

[Bull's-eye]

Seriously

 

Imagine VAR with nobody watching the screens. It could actually happen in Scotland  🤣🤣🤣🤣

[TypoonJambo]

34 minutes ago, John mcCartney said:

The anonymity factor will be because of the arse cheeks.

What a bunch of fecking cowards they are  !!!!

Why is it accepted in Scotland that a judge can make a decision publicly which effects lifes, family and someones freedom and he is named, yet a fooball committee is deemed needing of anonymity. 

Could it be something to do with the west coast retards? 🤔

[Space Pirate]

I bet this would have been brushed under the carpet if it wasn't for the amount of people outraged by it. 

Even Gary Lineker was tweeting about it. 

[Jamboelite]

Scottish football is a backwater hole in which corruption and incompetence runs free.

[John mcCartney]

10 minutes ago, TypoonJambo said:

Why is it accepted in Scotland that a judge can make a decision publicly which effects lifes, family and someones freedom and he is named, yet a fooball committee is deemed needing of anonymity. 

Could it be something to do with the west coast retards? 🤔

Indeed,retribution from some ****** knuckle on their doorstep .....Oh,inverness is far enough away tho eh

What an ugly ****ing set up it all is,makes one sick .

[Victorian]

Every time Scottish Football descends to a new bottom it scrapes out another hole to crawl down into.     

[TypoonJambo]

2 minutes ago, John mcCartney said:

Indeed,retribution from some ****** knuckle on their doorstep .....Oh,inverness is far enough away tho eh

What an ugly ****ing set up it all is,makes one sick .

Lets not forget the unfeasibly thin brake pipe cutters. 

[johnthomas]

42 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

The referee didn't stand by his decision. The ref isn't asked to say whether he thinks he got it right in retrospect, just to explain why he made the decision at the time.

 

The panel meets by video conference which makes it pretty hard to understand how a panel member failed to take into account all the evidence. Surely the relevant evidence would have come up in discussion. It sounds to me like the SFA know they've messed up and have learnt on one of the panel members to say they didn't follow the protocols. This way it is an individual failure and not a systemic issue. Sweeps it nicely under the carpet.

 

Poster above who said trial by Match of the Day trumps trial by Sportscene was spot on. Ridiculous how much the disciplinary system is driven by media coverage.

 

Hard to understand ! You're being very kind .

Recent panel decisions (Hamilton red card , Griffith stamp) could be deemed correct (not by me) . This (Keating's decision is just nonsense .

Now they've come out with a total ***** story as to why they're reviewing this .

Incompetent even at telling porkies

[OTT]

They should be announcing an independent review into the appeals process to ensure that above all else common sense prevails. 

 

Ridiculous useless *****. When are club chairmen going to sack up and start calling for resignations??

[sadj]

1 hour ago, kila said:

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

5. 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.

6. 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?

 

 

Even then they won’t be able to make it unanimous knowing the SFA. Our sole panel member could not come to a decision and therefore no majority has been reached. We have therefore decided to wait until we see that it will benefit Rangers or Celtic then we will make a decision ourselves

[kila]

10 minutes ago, sadj said:

Even then they won’t be able to make it unanimous knowing the SFA. Our sole panel member could not come to a decision and therefore no majority has been reached. We have therefore decided to wait until we see that it will benefit Rangers or Celtic then we will make a decision ourselves

 

 

[Kiwidoug]

Would I be right in assuming the panel would be made up of retired scottish referees?  If so, that explains everything.

[TypoonJambo]

36 minutes ago, OTT said:

They should be announcing an independent review into the appeals process to ensure that above all else common sense prevails. 

 

Ridiculous useless *****. When are club chairmen going to sack up and start calling for resignations??

Thats part of the problem. We never hear of instances when our chairmen/women challenge this corrupt shower of shit. Surely, as the customer, we should have some visibility. Its like an old boys club. 

Is there any justification for these minutes not being available in the public domain? 

[TypoonJambo]

2 minutes ago, Kiwidoug said:

Would I be right in assuming the panel would be made up of retired scottish referees?  If so, that explains everything.

Blind leading the blind 

[Footballfirst]

How many times previously and affecting which games/clubs/players have panel members not carried out their obligations?

 

Should all previous decisions now be reviewed for compliance with the protocol (not just those in which Panel member X has participated)?

[Saint Jambo]

27 minutes ago, Kiwidoug said:

Would I be right in assuming the panel would be made up of retired scottish referees?  If so, that explains everything.

 

It isn't known, but Michael Stewart was asked if he wanted to be in the pool they pick panels from which would suggest that it includes people who aren't referees.

[Zlatanable]

21 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

How many times previously and affecting which games/clubs/players have panel members not carried out their obligations?

 

Should all previous decisions now be reviewed for compliance with the protocol (not just those in which Panel member X has participated)?

It's a good question. 

[Smithee]

My takeaway from this is that whenever they say "we can't look at this again, it's the rules", well apparently they can. When it suits.