Jump to content
Shanks

ICT - Keatings - new tribunal rescinds card

Recommended Posts

jamboozy

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spellczech
4 minutes ago, kila said:

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:

 

 

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

 

image.png.18d62f2296a7b5d7ff39007222062208.png

Edited by Spellczech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy

Why do we bother? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


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

Apparently he posts on JKB.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Real Maroonblood
6 minutes ago, sac said:


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

:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John mcCartney

The anonymity factor will be because of the arse cheeks.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Montpelier

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lovecraft

****ing embarassing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiwidoug
1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

:lol:

 

Just overturn it you ****ing roasters

Correct.  What an utter laughing stock they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

image.thumb.png.b87259e98349f090627154d3c0694c46.png

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 by Spellczech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


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

From the ICT statement linked on P1:

image.thumb.png.b87259e98349f090627154d3c0694c46.png

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AGoodLaugh

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

I love Scottish football 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bull's-eye

Seriously :rofl:

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamboelite

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sadj
1 hour ago, kila said:

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:

 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

tenor.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiwidoug

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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...