Jump to content
Shanks

ICT - Keatings - new tribunal rescinds card

Recommended Posts

stotty
15 minutes ago, Smithee said:

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.

Yep, just needs Gary Lineker to tweet about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnthomas
12 minutes ago, Smithee said:

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.

Think they've concocted a story to make this possible . 

Sheer contempt for the clubs . SFA exists for the clubs . They , the clubs , should review the whole structure .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Special Officer Doofy
3 hours ago, jamboozy said:

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


The problem is, they try and still be tough when it comes to everyone outside of the OF. They keep setting precedents with OF clubs that they then try and not apply when it’s another club, and vice-versa. They wouldn’t keep ending up a laughing stock if they just tried to apply the same rules to everyone without fear nor favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Newton51

Wonder who was on the panel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
6 hours 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.

 

5 hours ago, Yoda said:

Making it up as they go along.  Embarrassing. 

 

2 hours 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 completely calls into question the whole process. And other decisions. Certainly all the other decisions of the tribunal which were the fines and Jamie Hamilton who while I have a bit of sympathy is as clear a red card as there can be. 

 

Arguably this raises even more questions about the whole set up. Just that SFA are too stupid to see that. 

 

Of course the statement is complete shite and made up. 

 

Keatings playing in the final would be justice though. But that's the only good thing about this. 

Edited by Mikey1874

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beave1874

So so embarrassing, we are a laughing stock. Just adds to the view we are a pub league. Boils my piss big time. Not a Keatings fan but hopeful he makes the final.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiwidoug

Would I be incredulous if the panel decided against keatings again?

 

No I wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paulp74

Having Rod Petrie as one of the top guys just sums the SFA up. Total joke of an organisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CJGJ

I don't know why they are bothering to have a new tribunal and wasting money as a result

 

The outcome is already known by all of the footballing world....we all know he will have the booking rescinded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Bazza

If there was only one person on the panel and they didnt view the footage can it even be classed as a panel? Surely they have just pocketed the ICT cash.

It must raise questions over previous decisions. In the championship season did Walker not get banned for a 'headbutt' with Kris Boyd 'not proven' for an identical incident? Im sure Gary O'J also got a citation for a blatant dive rescinded.

Being serious though how unlucky are the SFA? The only incident that they didnt review properly just happens to be the only one they got wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obua

This sums up Scottish football I’m afraid, “we fecked up but let’s try again because the guy who got it wrong won’t get to do it again. And no we will not name and shame.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiwidoug

Maybe I'm not clear but if they are saying one person didn't review the evidence, doesn't that mean that the other two did and at least one of them stood by the referees decision?

 

And while I'm at it, why is it a secret panel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonedinoz
5 hours ago, Big Bazza said:

If there was only one person on the panel and they didnt view the footage can it even be classed as a panel? Surely they have just pocketed the ICT cash.

It must raise questions over previous decisions. In the championship season did Walker not get banned for a 'headbutt' with Kris Boyd 'not proven' for an identical incident? Im sure Gary O'J also got a citation for a blatant dive rescinded.

Being serious though how unlucky are the SFA? The only incident that they didnt review properly just happens to be the only one they got wrong.

That was what I thought.

 

Presumably the 'panel' came to a collective decision before it is handed down.

Even if one of them didn't give a toss about  making the right decision why didn't the other members pursue it?

Surely they must have known such a decision would cause problems, yet none had the guts tó say...'we better look at this again..otherwise we'll suffer the consequences"

Its not the ONE panel member who should be stood down, its ALL of them who were on that panel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DETTY29
6 hours ago, Big Bazza said:

If there was only one person on the panel and they didnt view the footage can it even be classed as a panel? Surely they have just pocketed the ICT cash.

It must raise questions over previous decisions. In the championship season did Walker not get banned for a 'headbutt' with Kris Boyd 'not proven' for an identical incident? Im sure Gary O'J also got a citation for a blatant dive rescinded.

Being serious though how unlucky are the SFA? The only incident that they didnt review properly just happens to be the only one they got wrong.

Hearts didn't appeal the Walker incident because we were sure it was a red card offence.

 

Rangers did and won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DETTY29

If the Compliance Officer spots something that the referee doesn't, it goes to 3 ex category one refs.  All 3 need to agree a red card should have been awarded.

 

If a club or player appeals a referee decision, it goes to a 3 member panel where only one needs to be a 'laws specialist'  Not clear in this QA but I think is a majority decision.

 

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/compliance-disciplinary-qa/

 

Personally I'm not that clear on what really needs to be overhauled about the appeals process less than 2 years after it was completely re written.  If it does then the clubs need to admit THEY got it wrong.

 

This is simply down to the honesty and integrity of the current on field referees, ex referees and the individuals on the appeals panel.

 

Try and sort that out.  Best of luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

The surprising thing is that anyone is surprised. The incompetence in the football authorities in Scotland is beyond ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deevers
14 hours ago, johnthomas said:

Think they've concocted a story to make this possible . 

Sheer contempt for the clubs . SFA exists for the clubs . They , the clubs , should review the whole structure .

The problem is that two clubs really don’t want the structure changed because it invariably suits them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paolo

And people wander why others laugh at Scottish football.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
12 hours ago, Beave1874 said:

So so embarrassing, we are a laughing stock. Just adds to the view we are a pub league. Boils my piss big time. Not a Keatings fan but hopeful he makes the final.  

So,  given your comments on var in the epl, is that a laughing stock and a pub league too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jamboozy
15 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


The problem is, they try and still be tough when it comes to everyone outside of the OF. They keep setting precedents with OF clubs that they then try and not apply when it’s another club, and vice-versa. They wouldn’t keep ending up a laughing stock if they just tried to apply the same rules to everyone without fear nor favour.

Agree wholeheartedly, insulting the way that the ruling is twisted to suit that pair (see Saturday opening for the Sinclair signing) then revert back to type for everyone else. By extrapolation they are transparent because they know they can get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Special Officer Doofy
5 minutes ago, jamboozy said:

Agree wholeheartedly, insulting the way that the ruling is twisted to suit that pair (see Saturday opening for the Sinclair signing) then revert back to type for everyone else. By extrapolation they are transparent because they know they can get away with it.


Exactly. They spend more of their time trying to square circles to cover up their lack of equality between the OF and the rest. If they just strapped a pair of testicles on and applied the rules without fear nor favour across the board, they wouldn’t end up with so much egg on their faces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scottie Wanshot.

there was contact, but I think he made it worse than it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jonnothejambo

An utter shambles from start to finish. Typical of the tin pot organisation that purports to run the game. In reality, they couldn't run a bath. 

 

As for Keatings, I am pleased that this will be overturned. I liked him as a player. He gave his all for Hearts and I was disappointed when he left as he could have done a job better than Juanma or Reilly. I also don't get this traitor talk etc. Hibs gave him a chance and what professional would not do the same. He also won a Scottish Cup Winners medal so I suppose he had the last laugh, painful as it was for us. 

 

No , I'm not unwell. Just being honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
1 hour ago, jonnothejambo said:

An utter shambles from start to finish. Typical of the tin pot organisation that purports to run the game. In reality, they couldn't run a bath. 

 

As for Keatings, I am pleased that this will be overturned. I liked him as a player. He gave his all for Hearts and I was disappointed when he left as he could have done a job better than Juanma or Reilly. I also don't get this traitor talk etc. Hibs gave him a chance and what professional would not do the same. He also won a Scottish Cup Winners medal so I suppose he had the last laugh, painful as it was for us. 

 

No , I'm not unwell. Just being honest.

Not even a runny nose? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Slim Stylee
9 hours ago, Kiwidoug said:

Maybe I'm not clear but if they are saying one person didn't review the evidence, doesn't that mean that the other two did and at least one of them stood by the referees decision?

 

And while I'm at it, why is it a secret panel?


Would have thought that was obvious, Doug. There have been plenty of occasions when a follower of the Squirm Brothers has taken umbrage at a decision - any decision - going against them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
avhudtheteeshirt

Feel this saga is going to become very similar to the player who was not sent off against Celtic in the semi-final for hand ball!

Firstly he was given a retrospective red card, then it was rescinded as he would miss the final???

Funnily enough both have cropped up against old firm teams??

Seems to be a pattern???????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sadj
18 hours ago, Paulp74 said:

Having Rod Petrie as one of the top guys just sums the SFA up. Total joke of an organisation.


There are quite a few Chairmen of clubs who agree with you.......

 

11 hours ago, DETTY29 said:

If the Compliance Officer spots something that the referee doesn't, it goes to 3 ex category one refs.  All 3 need to agree a red card should have been awarded.

 

If a club or player appeals a referee decision, it goes to a 3 member panel where only one needs to be a 'laws specialist'  Not clear in this QA but I think is a majority decision.

 

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/compliance-disciplinary-qa/

 

Personally I'm not that clear on what really needs to be overhauled about the appeals process less than 2 years after it was completely re written.  If it does then the clubs need to admit THEY got it wrong.

 

This is simply down to the honesty and integrity of the current on field referees, ex referees and the individuals on the appeals panel.

 

Try and sort that out.  Best of luck.


So they don’t need to know the laws 🤪

 

6 hours ago, Scottie Wanshot. said:

there was contact, but I think he made it worse than it was.


so not a dive then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andi17
On 22/02/2020 at 07:34, Mauricio Pinilla said:

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

Best description EVER 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff

Reckon that the SFA and the English FA were on the charlie early doors before the Fury fight.

 

No other logical conclusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beave1874
8 hours ago, XB52 said:

So,  given your comments on var in the epl, is that a laughing stock and a pub league too?

Close to it tbf. The Spurs incident and Man City calamity makes it a joke also. My point was more about how our league is perceived outwith Scotland.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

The whole ‘panel member said X’ thing is a complete lie. So transparent and it’s indicative of the SFA’s arrogance that they think they can say that. 
 

The SFA are a disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
9 hours ago, XB52 said:

So,  given your comments on var in the epl, is that a laughing stock and a pub league too?


Here’s the difference though. VAR is getting a hammering down south - players, managers, media, ex players. The people who operate it are facing huge amounts of scrutiny.

 

I strongly suspect that had it not been for Gary Lineker’s tweets, the SFA would have been allowed to brush the Keatings decision under the carpet. That’s what makes the SPL a pub league. The authorities get away with corrupt, tinpot behaviour time and again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

I mean, I’ll give you an example. This is a big interview published with Keatings this morning. It barely even mentions the ban or the farce behind it:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibernian/interview-james-keatings-on-going-from-hearts-to-hibs-winning-the-scottish-cup-and-the-dark-dark-days-which-followed-1-5094483/amp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ted Hastings

As has been alluded to before, with the fact that it was a 3 man panel and a majority is required to overturn the decision, this means that if their party line is true, then that panelist has ELECTED to out himself for having not reviewed all relevant materials and face the consequences even though at least one other member reviewed all materials and still didn’t vote to overturn the decision which is as bad imo. That person will also be allowed to preside over future panels.
 

it’s baffling that they think that is somehow a better and more pr friendly admission than simply overturning the decision which will obviously happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kirkierobroy

'Didn't review all the evidence'. Besides 2 seconds of video, what other evidence s there? And as others have pointed out, one member of the panel must have reviewed 'all' the evidence and still decided Keatings dived.

 

I think they're making it up. They don't have to name the panel so it's just a 'story' to enable them to review. And maybe pocket more ICT cash before, och, aye, rescinding the card.

 

Yes, they've only tried to wriggle out because it went viral - but it went viral because it was so ridiculous.

 

Incompetent and corrupt - like a blazered version of Johnson's cabinet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
On 22/02/2020 at 16:47, Spellczech said:

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

 

image.png.18d62f2296a7b5d7ff39007222062208.png

If the panel is only one person how can the decision be anything other than unanimous ?  What a farce. 

Share this post


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

If the panel is only one person how can the decision be anything other than unanimous ?

Andy Goram might be on the panel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CJGJ
3 minutes ago, Frankfurter said:

Andy Goram might be on the panel.

Which one ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
12 minutes ago, Frankfurter said:

Andy Goram might be on the panel.

Fair point. 😅

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fozzyonthefence
2 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

If the panel is only one person how can the decision be anything other than unanimous ?  What a farce. 


Has anyone at the SFA actually confirmed that there was only one person on the panel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick
4 hours ago, kirkierobroy said:

'Didn't review all the evidence'. Besides 2 seconds of video, what other evidence s there? And as others have pointed out, one member of the panel must have reviewed 'all' the evidence and still decided Keatings dived.

 

I think they're making it up. They don't have to name the panel so it's just a 'story' to enable them to review. And maybe pocket more ICT cash before, och, aye, rescinding the card.

 

Yes, they've only tried to wriggle out because it went viral - but it went viral because it was so ridiculous.

 

Incompetent and corrupt - like a blazered version of Johnson's cabinet.

Of course they are making it up! They've been embarrassed by the fact their plan was to support their ref and no one cares about ICT in the first place but they've been called to account. Imbeciles!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
14 hours ago, Scottie Wanshot. said:

there was contact, but I think he made it worse than it was.

 

It doesn't matter, he was clearly fouled. 

This whole thing is a result of the ref saying he saw no contact, that's what was submitted to the appeals panel, it's got nothing to do with what he made of it.

 

If there was contact it should have been overturned, end of story, and there was undoubtedly contact. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnthomas
8 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

It doesn't matter, he was clearly fouled. 

This whole thing is a result of the ref saying he saw no contact, that's what was submitted to the appeals panel, it's got nothing to do with what he made of it.

 

If there was contact it should have been overturned, end of story, and there was undoubtedly contact. 

 

Penalties etc are given nowadays if there is 'contact' . Pisses me off but that's modern football (for want of a better expression)

In Keatings case the defender , in my opinion , misjudges his challenge and makes a huge amount of 'contact' i.e. clatters him .

Not even debatable 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DETTY29
16 hours ago, sadj said:


There are quite a few Chairmen of clubs who agree with you.......

 


So they don’t need to know the laws 🤪

 


so not a dive then?

Which makes the whole thing a farce.

 

How often do you hear folk including players and ex players saying 'I know its the laws, but not for me'  (Mind you the VAR ref in England got at least 3 clear decisions wrong on Saturday)

 

This attitude will come into the disciplinary process too.

 

As has been announced by the SFA one person didn't review all the evidence, which means one other did and also decided 'simulation'

 

Now you need to ask:-

 

Is the laws specialist an SFA or ex SFA employee, referee?

How did the specialist vote with Keatings incident?

Was the specialist the panel member who didn't review all the evidence?

Wider what is the percentages where the specialist backs the referee?  Even if clear miscarriage of justice.

 

This is typically SFA make it up you go along....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I P Knightley
On 23/02/2020 at 04:32, maroonedinoz said:

That was what I thought.

 

Presumably the 'panel' came to a collective decision before it is handed down.

Even if one of them didn't give a toss about  making the right decision why didn't the other members pursue it?

Surely they must have known such a decision would cause problems, yet none had the guts tó say...'we better look at this again..otherwise we'll suffer the consequences"

Its not the ONE panel member who should be stood down, its ALL of them who were on that panel.

I act as an appeals panel member in a different walk of life to football. We never physically meet and I never know who else is on the panel with me for any of the decisions I'm reviewing.

I get asked to review a case with any statements and declarations from the parties concerned (all by email) and to provide written feedback with my recommendation. I make sure to give a full, evidence-based explanation of my findings, including any areas where more evidence might have been helpful. The body for whom I do this receive the feedback from all panellists and then decide on their following actions. 

I've never actually had any feedback telling me what the panel's majority decision has been. There's certainly been no debate with other panellists. I have to assume that the governing body for whom I conduct these appeals has a transparent process at the other end; their paperwork certainly has all the right processes written down.

 

I imagine that it's intended to be a similar process with the SFA except that (a) in my case, no money changes hands so I don't have to think about whether I'm writing the 'right' thing in my deliberations, and (b ) the SFA are a crooked bunch of bastewards who'll twist any appeal to suit themselves. 

 

21 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

The whole ‘panel member said X’ thing is a complete lie. So transparent and it’s indicative of the SFA’s arrogance that they think they can say that. 
 

The SFA are a disease.

The whole statement appears to be a lie or, being charitable, a garbled message that none of us is expected to be able to understand but which definitely aims to avoid telling the truth about the appeals process and the holes that are all the way through it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
7 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

I act as an appeals panel member in a different walk of life to football. We never physically meet and I never know who else is on the panel with me for any of the decisions I'm reviewing.

I get asked to review a case with any statements and declarations from the parties concerned (all by email) and to provide written feedback with my recommendation. I make sure to give a full, evidence-based explanation of my findings, including any areas where more evidence might have been helpful. The body for whom I do this receive the feedback from all panellists and then decide on their following actions. 

I've never actually had any feedback telling me what the panel's majority decision has been. There's certainly been no debate with other panellists. I have to assume that the governing body for whom I conduct these appeals has a transparent process at the other end; their paperwork certainly has all the right processes written down.

 

I imagine that it's intended to be a similar process with the SFA except that (a) in my case, no money changes hands so I don't have to think about whether I'm writing the 'right' thing in my deliberations, and (b ) the SFA are a crooked bunch of bastewards who'll twist any appeal to suit themselves. 

 

The whole statement appears to be a lie or, being charitable, a garbled message that none of us is expected to be able to understand but which definitely aims to avoid telling the truth about the appeals process and the holes that are all the way through it. 


It’s code for “this decision is a joke, we’ve been called out as a joke but we don’t want to admit that we are. So let’s pretend the process was affected by a third party.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thewiseone

Actually think the panels first decision is correct and they've caved in to " mob rule public pressure.

Weakness of character indeed says all about they eejits running the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alwaysthereinspirit
23 hours ago, CJGJ said:

Which one ?

I would imagine both. They can bang things of each other. Look at things from both sides. Then collectively come up with an agreed plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
20 hours ago, Fozzyonthefence said:


Has anyone at the SFA actually confirmed that there was only one person on the panel?

No because there were 3 people on the panel. There are always 3 on the panel.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
23 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

If the panel is only one person how can the decision be anything other than unanimous ?  What a farce. 

There were 3 on the panel

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...