bunglebonce Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I understand why this bothers you, I really do. I care more about the misinterpretation of the rules than I do about ICT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I care more about the misinterpretation of the rules than I do about ICT. Sure you do. Obsessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/fifa-chief-wades-handballgate-insists-5564492 Good to see the Record casually throwing in 'The Northern Irishman said...' when quoting Boyce when none of the others I've seen have mentioned his nationality. I wonder why that would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Good to see the Record casually throwing in 'The Northern Irishman said...' when quoting Boyce when none of the others I've seen have mentioned his nationality. I wonder why that would be. No one else is quoted? Think you're reading too much into that tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Good to see the Record casually throwing in 'The Northern Irishman said...' when quoting Boyce when none of the others I've seen have mentioned his nationality. I wonder why that would be. If he had been French and the article mentioned his nationality I doubt you would have raised the issue. I wonder why that is? This article is French, it mentions Boyce's nationality. http://m.lequipe.fr/Football/Actualites/Arbitrage-la-suspension-d-un-joueur-enflamme-l-ecosse-la-fifa-s-en-mele/553140?xtref=https://www.google.co.uk/& Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphyscot Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Am sure the celtic fans would call it justice if the 3 man panel was going to be peter lawwell, scott brown and leigh griffiths. And that if josh if found guilty he'll get banned for the rest of the season and the game's going to have to be replayed with inverness reduced to 9 men and celtic given a 6-0 lead. Call me cynical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Chris Sutton has come out and called the official an idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londoner Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Is there any precedent in other leagues of this happening? (Obviously excluding serious fouls) Seems stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10menwent2mow Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Just to prove I'm not biased. What about when anderson punched it over the line against Motherwell at fir park last season. No compliance officer action then, despite it being raised at the time. We're getting to the stage in the top flight when we are gonna have folk banned more than they can play. The wee Hayes/harkins banter on twitter sums it up for me. It's how the players feel, how the fans feel and probably how the clubs feel. The only folk that want to continue with this compliance officer shit is the sfa/spfl. They don't seem to have it anywhere else, extreme cases of violent conduct (see Suarez bite) are dealt with by the governing body. What annoys me is that the compliance officer seems to respond to media scrutiny. If they want to continue the compliance officer role, they should have one for each top flight/ high profile match. They should watch the game live and then 1 re-run at full time with no media input or anything of that type. If they want to cite someone. It's done by 10 PM Saturday night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Brees Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 why the Scottish FA had to act on Josh Meekings' handball 22 April 2015 11:18 BST In the dock: Josh Meekings faces a ban from the Scottish Cup final. Pic: SNS Group The news that Josh Meekings faces retrospective action for his Scottish Cup semi-final handball has caused an outcry. Because the match officials did not see the ball hit the Inverness defender's hand from Leigh Griffiths' header, he could pick up a ban which will rule him out of the final. It is the first time a player has been pulled up for such an offence since the Scottish FA's judicial panel protocol was introduced in 2011. But that does not mean that Meekings being cited is an example of the governing body making things up as they go along. While it is unusual, their rules cover exactly such an occurrence. Many questions have been raised as a result of the action taken by compliance officer Tony McGlennan. What power does the compliance officer have to act on this? We are accustomed to "notices of complaint" by now but, generally speaking, they are normally issued for instances of violent conduct or serious foul play not seen by officials in matches. The relevant rule which allows the compliance officer to take such action actually extends to all alleged sending-off offences which are not seen. There are five areas this covers: serious foul play, violent conduct, spitting at an opponent, offensive/abusive language or gestures and, crucially, denying the opposing team or an opponent a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The definition of "not seen" is also crucial. The remit of the compliance officer is not to re-referee a decision. For action to have been taken, it must be the case that none of the officials saw the ball hit Meekings' hand. If a decision had been taken that the ball hit the hand but it was accidental, the decision taken by the referee would be final and binding. But there have been plenty handball offences not resulting in a penalty. Why has it taken until now? Presumably every offence to date has been seen by a match official, who has ruled at the time the act was not deliberate. Will we now see all handballs retrospectively punished? Clearly not. The compliance officer can only act on handball incidents if they would result in a sending-off offence, and if they were "not seen" by the officials. Some of the gripes on social media have related to the "re-refereeing" of every incident in a match and/or retrospectively punishing a player every time a handball is missed. The only time a handball offence will be taken up by the compliance officer is when it has been an act which has denied a goal or goal scoring opportunity. And, crucially, if none of the match officials have seen the contact with the hand. How can we say for certain it was deliberate handball? The judicial panel will have to prove, using their interpretation of the Laws of the Game, that the action by Meekings was deliberate or accidental. Many factors have to be considered to determine which side any decision should fall on. The referee who ultimately failed to give the decision, Steven McLean, coincidentally explained how officials interpret the handball rule in an interview with the BBC last year. "The key to handball is in the interpretation," he said. "Really that does lie with the referee. The law is quite clear in that it must be a deliberate handball. "The guidelines have given us different levers which allow us to make sense of certain situations. "So we interpret: has the player had the opportunity to take his hand out the way? Or has he left his hand there deliberately? "Is his hand in a natural or unnatural position for that action he has taken? So if I was standing here naturally, my arm would be in that position [by the side], rather than in that position [outstretched]. "Has he made his body bigger to become an obstacle to block the ball? Has the ball struck the hand from such a short distance and the player's had no opportunity to move out the way? Or is the distance such that he has moved his hand towards the ball? "We use all these different factors to try and determine: is it deliberate?. But 'deliberate' is the key to the laws of the game." Who will decide whether Meekings is guilty or not? A three-person panel, drawn from a list of around 100 people, will be allocated the case by the Scottish FA. They are not hand-picked for the specific case. The governing body operate a "taxi rank" system, meaning the next three in line to sit on a panel will be assigned to it. If any of those three are deemed, or deem themselves, to have a conflict of interest, they are excused and replaced by the next person on the list. Those who sit on judicial panels are drawn from many walks of life. They range from former players and coaches to ex-referees, members of the legal profession and even people involved in the governance of other sports. Can Meekings appeal if he is found guilty? In a word: no. To quote the Scottish FA's rules on this matter: "Determinations made under the fast track procedure shall be final and binding. There shall be no right of appeal of a determination in fast track proceedings. Can the ban be extended? No. A one-match ban would have been applied if Meekings had been caught at the time and the same punishment will be handed down if he is found guilty by a panel. Does it cost Inverness to contest this? There is no payment to the Scottish FA for contesting a notice of complaint. It only costs clubs money if they appeal a decision by a referee, such as a red card. Is this happening because Celtic wrote a letter to the Scottish FA? One man who is qualified to speak about external pressures affecting the compliance officer is his predecessor Vincent Lunny. "Tony is a very experienced advocate with many years experience at the very top level in criminal legal circles," he said. "He will be making a decision based on the application of the rules. Just to put that to the side - the social media and the Celtic aspect would be a complete irrelevant consideration. "It is a question of does the action match up with the criteria within the protocol? If it doesn't then he will be cleared. If it does he will get the one-match ban." Why no action against Lukasz Zaluska for his tackle on Edward Ofere? The only way the compliance officer can take action in this instance is if he deemed the referee did not seen an act of serious foul play or violent conduct. While any decision on this is ultimately subjective, it is difficult to argue Zaluska was guilty of a red card offence. A penalty would have been a reasonable decision, but the compliance officer can not retrospectively award a spot kick. Who is responsible for these rules? Ultimately the clubs. The protocol was adopted four years ago with the nation's football teams accepting all of the processes. The rule regarding sending-off offences has been in place from the inception of the judicial panel protocol. The regulations are due to be reviewed this year and the clubs have the power to raise an issue to be discussed at this summer's Scottish FA annual general meeting. http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs...ings-handball/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 We are aw Jim Boyce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Everybody needs to calm the f**k down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Darkest Timeline Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I wouldn't worry ICT fans. With his record with the SFA this season for stuff he didn't do, Paul Paton'll probably be the one that ends up being charged for it. Seriously though, what a fucking shambles. I suppose in the wider scheme of Scottish football, that makes it consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Brees Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Everybody needs to calm the f**k down. When Celtic are involved these rockets will never calm down, small minded, petty dipsticks motivated by their hatred of a football team. f**k every one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutralfan80 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 If the sfa uphold the suspension then next season EVERY decision that clubs feel aggrieved by are open to letter then TV evidence trial, we'll have the fairest and cleanest, cheat free game in the world! We'll also have nobody to referee and probably be the black sheep of Fifa (not that it matters, we don't do world cups anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Brees Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 If the sfa uphold the suspension then next season EVERY decision that clubs feel aggrieved by are open to letter then TV evidence trial, we'll have the fairest and cleanest, cheat free game in the world! We'll also have nobody to referee and probably be the black sheep of Fifa (not that it matters, we don't do world cups anyway) Only if they are red card offences missed by the officials, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny van Axeldongen Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 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. Brown-nosing for when Deila gets his jotters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 With regards to the "not seen" aspect, I've just seen it again on the news, and I find it very difficult to believe that the official on the goal line hasn't seen it. He actually moves across to get a better view just before Griffiths heads it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 When Celtic are involved these rockets will never calm down, small minded, petty dipsticks motivated by their hatred of a football team. f**k every one of them. Well i for one applaud your self awareness. Quite right sir, f**k Celtic fans, every one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobles Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 When Celtic are involved these rockets will never calm down, small minded, petty dipsticks motivated by their hatred of a football team. f**k every one of them. And well done to ICT for f**king your treble. Bairns behave better than the so called adults at your club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.