Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. vs Celtic F.C. // SC Semi Final

[hoopy1967]

Got to hand it to the SFA, they've done a decent job at deflecting the attention away from the incompetence of the officials, and more on to Meekings himself

[Jacksgranda]

Got to hand it to the SFA, they've done a decent job at deflecting the attention away from the incompetence of the officials, and more on to Meekings himself

There's been enough of that already...

[Hampden Diehard]

John Collins comes over as extremely thick.

Quite the opposite, but he's fallen in with a bad crowd.

[craigkillie]

Doesn't that mean the officials saw it, but called it incorrectly? In which case, Meekings has no case to answer.

Do the rules actually say anything like that? I thought the compliance officer was able to overturn decisions regardless of whether the referee saw the incident. Does that only apply to violent conduct?

[DavieCFC]

If the SFA had the ref's report on Monday after a Sunday game it's another first given the number of times I've read of them still waiting for a report midweek from Saturday games.

It must not be forgotten in this story that in the SFA's rush to follow their rules to the letter they have somehow overlooked offering Zaluska his ban after his assault. Yet again it's one rule for the bigots, another for the rest.

Why would the SFA do us a favour ?

Anyway onto the incident, i think anybody who honestly thinks that Celtic complained to the SFA in hope that it would get Meekings banned is deluded, i think it was fair to them to ask how in the f**k 3 officals who were in great positions all somehow managed to miss it. Instead they've made Celtic look like the bad guys by banning Meekings rather than binning the officals that quite frankly arn't up to the job if they cant get that right.

Video Technology please.

[DA Baracus]

I don't think the referees are that bad in Scotland. I think the bigger mistakes are just highlighted more. I'm not saying they're great, but they do a decent enough job for the most part.

Get video technology during games to f**k.

What the coward scum Celtic fans should be looking at is their team's inability to finish off the game at 1-0. Or their inability to hold on to a 1-1 or 2-2 draw. But no, they must always have an excuse, someone to blame.

[alimci]

Caley boss John Hughes refused to be drawn on the ban but admitted Celtic were RIGHT to complain.

He said: “I’m 100 per cent behind Celtic. Unfortunately it’s the referee that gets it.

“It was a penalty and a sending-off. It would have been 2-0 and game over but I’m 100 per cent convinced that it was an honest mistake by the officials.

Got to wonder about our boss sometimes.

I was trying to get through today as much as possible without raging, but that's pushed levels way back up again. WTF is he on? Thanks for believing in Esson's penalty saving abilities and presuming that we would have been trapped in our own half for the rest of the game.

[DA Baracus]

Why would the SFA do us a favour ?

Anyway onto the incident, i think anybody who honestly thinks that Celtic complained to the SFA in hope that it would get Meekings banned is deluded, i think it was fair to them to ask how in the f**k 3 officals who were in great positions all somehow managed to miss it. Instead they've made Celtic look like the bad guys by banning Meekings rather than binning the officals that quite frankly arn't up to the job if they cant get that right.

Video Technology please.

Why didn't Inverness do the same about Zaluska then? Why have Celtic admitted that they only wrote to the SFA after their fans cried about it?

[DA Baracus]

I was trying to get through today as much as possible without raging, but that's pushed levels way back up again. WTF is he on? Thanks for believing in Esson's penalty saving abilities and presuming that we would have been trapped in our own half for the rest of the game.

I was hoping that after this all, Hughes would finally have woken up and stop kissing Celtic (and Sevco's) arse. Disappointing to hear say such shite.

[bunglebonce]

As was said earlier. Why was the Dundee guy not done for this a couple of weeks ago against Aberdeen. Possibly because AFC didn't go whining to the SFA.

Presumably because the referee saw it and deemed it not deliberate. There's nothing a compliance officer can do about it then.

It may be the first time that the compliance officer has had the issue raised.

The SFA have the chance to set a precedence now. They can either dismiss the case and say that deliberate hand ball is not to be dealt with retrospectively or they can act upon the complaint and open the floodgates for many many similar issues to be raised.

The ball is with the SFA now.

This won't open the floodgates.

Handball should always be dealt with retrospectively, IF:

1. It denied the opposing team or an opponent a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity; AND
2. The referee and his assistants didn't see it.

Meekings's handball meets both of those. There aren't many handballs that do.

That we haven't seen any other cases like this in the three years that we've had the procedure means that either:

a) We haven't had another incident like this (see my first comment), or

b) It's taken a high profile incident for the CO to brush off the rule book.

I'm inclined to think the former, tbqh. How often are we going to see outfielder saves on the goal-line, missed by the ref, in a single season? A couple at most.

The challenge now for the hearing is deciding if it is deliberate or not.

I think you can distinguish this from the recent Ciftci/Brown incidents, because the onus for those was proving they intended to stamp etc in arguably intentionally vague body movements.

For Meekings, I doubt an objective 'reasonable person' would think the ref wouldn't have sent him off, if the ref had an unrestricted view of it in ideal conditions. Meekings has both made his body bigger to block the ball and he has moved the hand towards the ball in the time that it strikes him. Both of those are in the guidelines for deciding if a handball is deliberate.

I think a panel of three will come to a majority that it was deliberate, therefore the ban is upheld.

Further reading: http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/inverness/318059-explained-why-the-scottish-fa-had-to-act-on-josh-meekings-handball/

[DavieCFC]

Why didn't Inverness do the same about Zaluska then? Why have Celtic admitted that they only wrote to the SFA after their fans cried about it?

By all means they should, if it means we dont have to see that uselss sack of shit in a Celtic jersey again, i'm all for it.

Why not? Imo there was no harm in asking a simple question that was on every Celtic supporters mind. I don't think anybody, even Celtic would have predicted what happened next.

[stonedsailor]

Presumably because the referee saw it and deemed it not deliberate. There's nothing a compliance officer can do about it then.

This won't open the floodgates.

Handball should always be dealt with retrospectively, IF:

• It denied the opposing team or an opponent a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity; AND
• The referee and his assistants didn't see it.

Meekings's handball meets both of those. There aren't many handballs that do.

That we haven't seen any other cases like this in the three years that we've had the procedure means that either:

a) We haven't had another incident like this (see my first comment), or

b) It's taken a high profile incident for the CO to brush off the rule book.

I'm inclined to think the former, tbqh. How often are we going to see outfielder saves on the goal-line, missed by the ref, in a single season? A couple at most.

The challenge now for the hearing is deciding if it is deliberate or not.

I think you can distinguish this from the recent Ciftci/Brown incidents, because the onus for those was proving they intended to stamp etc in arguably intentionally vague body movements.

For Meekings, I doubt an objective 'reasonable person' would think the ref wouldn't have sent him off, if the ref had an unrestricted view of it in ideal conditions. Meekings has both made his body bigger to block the ball and he has moved the hand towards the ball in the time that it strikes him. Both of those are in the guidelines for deciding if a handball is deliberate.

I think a panel of three will come to a majority that it was deliberate, therefore the ban is upheld.

Further reading: http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/inverness/318059-explained-why-the-scottish-fa-had-to-act-on-josh-meekings-handball/

There have been cases of goals being scored after the ball having struck a hand. Surely that is no different to the case here?

[Harry Chibber]

If Celtic had any class at all they would be writing to the SFA (again) and explaining that their intention was to question the conduct of the official and not to penalise the player for the incident and lose him the opportunity to play in a cup final.

Lunny also needs to have a look at himself as well for making his opinion known to a broadcaster and then trying to deflect afterwards by saying the board will make their decision without external pressures?!! F**king brilliant that is... because they of course will not take into consideration the opinion of their peers.

In every explanation supporting the suspension of Meekings I have heard that "Celtic would obviously still win"... can I just remind everyone they still had 95 minutes of football to play and it was after this incident that Gordon decided to take down Watkins in the box. Any arguement based on what might have happened afterwards is completely irrelevant and if Lunny (apparently someone who should know what he's talking about in this situation) believes this to be a relevant point to take into consideration then no wonder he's out the job.

To be honest I think all this has done is given us the motivation to make sure we get over the line on May the 30th but I do genuinely feel sorry for Meekings who has been outstanding for us and might never get the opportunity to play in a final of this magnitude ever again.

Draper and Devine at the back are still better than most in the SPFL

[bunglebonce]

There have been cases of goals being scored after the ball having struck a hand. Surely that is no different to the case here?

That doesn't even meet point 1) of the criteria in my post, let alone both 1) and 2).

So it's very different.

[Jack Sparrow]

I bet the Celtic fans boo Josh Meekings in our final league game of the season at Scabbyheid

Yogi should play him in goal that day for a laugh

[davie2wheels]

I am sick to the back teeth of this. Penalty kicks decide games week in, week out and I would take it that the compliance officer will be required to review all such kicks from here on in. The sheer spinelessness of the SFA in this is breathtaking - to respond to an avalanche of criticism that has varied from the measured to the ridiculous by hanging out their officials and a player to dry because they are unable to stand up and follow the spirit of the rules that has always been in place is astounding. The referee is the "sole arbiter of fact" in the rules of the game. His decisions are final. it doesn't matter what you, me, Yogi or Deila think - the referee decides fact. That is the law of the game. This decision relegates referees to being no more than technical advisers to the compliance officer and his panel, who sit extrajudicially and in complete anonymity and therefore open to question. By reason of having this complaint referred to the panel, the compliance officers employers have shown themselves to be complicit in an unprecidented interference in the outcome of a game and for what? Because a big club from their powerbase in Glasgow was beaten by a team who played better on the day, scored more goals and were tactically better. And the best they could muster? wheedling and entitlement ridden complaints of masonic interference, religiously motivated chichanery and a psychotically delusional paranoia about some nebulous "establishment" You couldn't make it up, except that someone has.

My club has been in the senior leagues for 21 years and is third in the premiership and in a cup final. The SFA can't (despite continually trying) change that. By all means give us kick off times that our fans can't get to year after year. Give us as many fixtures as you can before major finals. Ignore our matches and don't attend them, and snub our players for international recognition. We will simply keep going.

There are implications, apart from the compliance officer ones. How can Josh Meekings be selected for games this weekend (he's in no fit state to play) or on the final day of the season at Parkhead? Is there a case for ICTFC to take legal action against the SFA for indirect discrimination by denying Meekings the right to work when he has breached no rules? Is there a case for ICTFC to decline any ticket allocation for the final game of the season? Is there a case for legitimate protest if or when ( we are fortunate enough) win the cup? Do we ignore the customary handshake of the governing body's representative?

Celtic fans are, and I get this completely, upset about the result that went against a team that they felt should have won but they have no idea how a young club with a small fan base feels on reaching their first Scottish Cup final. It's tanished, irrevocably - you couldn't even see us have one day in the sun. As it turns out, despite the tweets last night that wished me deid from celtic "fans" I'm still here. As will Caley Thistle be for a long time to come. Get used to it.

[bunglebonce]

If Celtic had any class at all they would be writing to the SFA (again) and explaining that their intention was to question the conduct of the official and not to penalise the player for the incident and lose him the opportunity to play in a cup final.

What difference would that make? Absolutely none.

Lunny also needs to have a look at himself as well for making his opinion known to a broadcaster and then trying to deflect afterwards by saying the board will make their decision without external pressures?!! F**king brilliant that is... because they of course will not take into consideration the opinion of their peers.

I think that's unfortunate. You need to appreciate he would have been hounded for a quote, but he should have had the foresight to not comment until after the hearing.

Draper and Devine at the back are still better than most in the SPFL

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Sorry m9. Got it from a m8 on Facebook.

Guess which team has the most penalties awarded to them and the least against them this season?

This is at least partly explained by the idea that stronger teams spend more time in their opponents penalty area and less in their own.

[Harry Chibber]

This won't open the floodgates.

Handball should always be dealt with retrospectively, IF:

1. It denied the opposing team or an opponent a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity; AND
2. The referee and his assistants didn't see it.

Meekings's handball meets both of those. There aren't many handballs that do.

That we haven't seen any other cases like this in the three years that we've had the procedure means that either:

a) We haven't had another incident like this (see my first comment), or

b) It's taken a high profile incident for the CO to brush off the rule book.

I'm inclined to think the former, tbqh. How often are we going to see outfielder saves on the goal-line, missed by the ref, in a single season? A couple at most.

The challenge now for the hearing is deciding if it is deliberate or not.

I think you can distinguish this from the recent Ciftci/Brown incidents, because the onus for those was proving they intended to stamp etc in arguably intentionally vague body movements.

For Meekings, I doubt an objective 'reasonable person' would think the ref wouldn't have sent him off, if the ref had an unrestricted view of it in ideal conditions. Meekings has both made his body bigger to block the ball and he has moved the hand towards the ball in the time that it strikes him. Both of those are in the guidelines for deciding if a handball is deliberate.

I think a panel of three will come to a majority that it was deliberate, therefore the ban is upheld.

Further reading: http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/inverness/318059-explained-why-the-scottish-fa-had-to-act-on-josh-meekings-handball/

Away boil your head.

The only reason anyone would believe this to be justified is a bitter Celtic fan or a dirty gypo on the wind up. You can decide what's what.

Football is played and should be conducted during the time the game is being played. I suspect the intention of this rule was to be applied to someone cheating by literally standing on the line to stop a goal going in... Meekings has not cheated but the rules can be interpreted to make his situation applicable based on inordinate amounts of pressure placed on the SFA by Celtic (their flagship team).

I sincerely hope that the rules are reviewed and updated to clearly state when and why a governing body should intervene becasuse this seems completely unjust to any real football fans that understand the game.

[RiG]

*Stuff*

Further reading: http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/inverness/318059-explained-why-the-scottish-fa-had-to-act-on-josh-meekings-handball/

Good article that. Cleared up a lot of things I didn't know about the process although I am confused by one line.

Surely if the panel prove (or conclude) that his actions were accidental then it cannot be construed as deliberate handball? Maybe "that the action..." should be "whether the action..." in the piece?