Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2024/25

[gaz5]

The whole point of the system is that it's about getting the most serious incidents that the referee genuinely missed. It's not about re-refereeing games. This fails that test and is therefore the incorrect decision.

That's exactly what the rule says.

The most serious incidents (A1, A2 or A3) that the officials genuinely missed.

Unless the referee wrote A1 down on the booking report and incorrectly booked Roofe for it rather than sending him off, then he genuinely missed it at the time, no.

There can't really be any other explanation if the match report recorded B1 (for example).

That's why the referees write the offence down and submit a report. So if it's clear one of those offences happened (which it is) and it's not recorded on the report (which it's not for Roofe to be cited) then it's lined at retrospectively.

So by your own words, this is the correct implementation of the law.

[Clockwork]

The whole point of the system is that it's about getting the most serious incidents that the referee genuinely missed. It's not about re-refereeing games. This fails that test and is therefore the incorrect decision.

Genuine question(s) here, how does the Compliance Officer decide which incidents have been missed by the match officials and which ones to raise a complaint against the offending player? How is this prioritised (there must have been numerous contentious decisions of dangerous foul play or otherwise, across the league this season already)?
The Ref issued a Yellow in this case, so presumably saw the challenge and meted out what he thought was an appropriate punishment.
When does the Compliance Officer step in and decide there is a case to be made for clear and serious Referee error?

[gaz5]

It clearly says that the offence was not seen by any  match officials, the referee saw it and dealt with it. The rule is for incidents that the officials never saw.
Could it have been a red, yes it could have been. Guess what thats what happens in football and  sometimes players escape a red card,  it's only an issue when the media stir up the mock (Sevco) outrage.
 
 

Unless he wrote A1 on the booking report, it wasn't seen or dealt with by the ref.

That's how the laws of the game work and why the offences for incidents are recorded.

If he has written A1 and booked him, that's a different argument, then this citation is wrong.

But given he's been cited, he clearly hasn't recorded the incident as A1, which it clearly was, meaning he missed an A1 offence at the time, meaning this is a proper implementation of the rules by the letter of the law.

[gaz5]

Genuine question(s) here, how does the Compliance Officer decide which incidents have been missed by the match officials and which ones to raise a complaint against the offending player? How is this prioritised (there must have been numerous contentious decisions of dangerous foul play or otherwise, across the league this season already)?
The Ref issued a Yellow in this case, so presumably saw the challenge and meted out what he thought was an appropriate punishment.
When does the Compliance Officer step in and decide there is a case to be made for clear and serious Referee error?

That's a different question and actually, in my opinion, the issue.

Incidents can't be compared with any other, they have to be dealt with in isolation on their own merits. There's no whataboutery in law.

In this instance did the official miss a clear A1 offence? Well yes, clearly. So is it right to retrospectively look at that? Yes, in the laws of the game it is.

The issue isn't this incident, the issue is that the law doesn't seem to be getting applied uniformly. And I feel for Roofe in the perspective. It's like two guys getting caught on camera pissing on a police car and only one of them getting pulled up. But that's a different issue from whether this citation falls within the laws or not.

[Clockwork]

That's a different question and actually, in my opinion, the issue.

Incidents can't be compared with any other, they have to be dealt with in isolation on their own merits. There's no whataboutery in law.

In this instance did the official miss a clear A1 offence? Well yes, clearly. So is it right to retrospectively look at that? Yes, in the laws of the game it is.

The issue isn't this incident, the issue is that the law doesn't seem to be getting applied uniformly. And I feel for Roofe in the perspective. It's like two guys getting caught on camera pissing on a police car and only one of them getting pulled up. But that's a different issue from whether this citation falls within the laws or not.

Yep I can see most of that, but If the interpretation of the Law isn’t applied consistently and uniformly, there will always be claims of ‘whataboutery’. Fans will automatically compare and contrast, the Laws govern how the game is played?
It’s much easier to accept inconsistencies across a number of referees but there’s only ONE Compliance Officer to make considerations, contest decisions and formally raise a complaint against a player if warranted. What excuse does the Compliance Officer have for such variances over the course of a season?

[gaz5]

Yep I can see most of that, but If the interpretation of the Law isn’t applied consistently and uniformly, there will always be claims of ‘whataboutery’. Fans will automatically compare and contrast, the Laws govern how the game is played?
It’s much easier to accept inconsistencies across a number of referees but there’s only ONE Compliance Officer to make considerations, contest decisions and formally raise a complaint against a player if warranted. What excuse does the Compliance Officer have for such variances over the course of a season?

Absolutely none. They are failing in their role by not applying the laws consistently, or at least by not explaining what legitimate reasons their may be that make it seem that way to their stakeholders (the fans) if they believe that's not the case. (Have we ever replaced the one that left in December by the way?)

But that doesn't change my answer to the initial question asked here around the Roofe incident. Under the laws of the game it was an incident that fits the criteria for retrospective punishment.

In a case like this, where no one is arguing it was a red card offence, arguing it shouldn't be looked at because other similar incidents haven't been isn't a defence, it's an observation.

[DMCs]

58 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

That's exactly what the rule says.

The most serious incidents (A1, A2 or A3) that the officials genuinely missed.

Unless the referee wrote A1 down on the booking report and incorrectly booked Roofe for it rather than sending him off, then he genuinely missed it at the time, no.

There can't really be any other explanation if the match report recorded B1 (for example).

That's why the referees write the offence down and submit a report. So if it's clear one of those offences happened (which it is) and it's not recorded on the report (which it's not for Roofe to be cited) then it's lined at retrospectively.

So by your own words, this is the correct implementation of the law.

Very interesting. What is the difference in definition between A1, A2, A3?

[wastecoatwilly]

9 minutes ago, DMCs said:

Very interesting. What is the difference in definition between A1, A2, A3?

The referee can book a player then it gets upgraded to a red if he only partially sees the tackle.

[gaz5]

Very interesting. What is the difference in definition between A1, A2, A3?

SECTION 3: SCHEDULE OF OFFENCES

Sending-Off Offences
A1 Serious foul play
A2 Violent conduct
A3 Spitting at an opponent or any other person
A4 Denying the opposing team or an opponent a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity as defined
by law 12
A5 Offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
A6 Receiving a second caution in the same match

Cautionable Offences
B1 Unsporting Behaviour
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour which include, but
are not limited to, when a player:
a) Impedes an opponent with contact
b) Recklessly trips or attempts to trip an opponent
c) Recklessly tackles or challenges an opponent
d) Recklessly kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
e) Denies an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity as defined by Law 12
f) Holds or pushes an opponent
g) Commits an offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack outwith the penalty area
h) Excessively celebrates the scoring of a goal as defined by Law 12
i) Handles the ball deliberately
j) Shows a lack of respect for the game
k) Commits an act of simulation
l) Commits any other offence(s) deemed by a match official to be unsporting behaviour
B2 Dissent by Word or Action
B3 Persistently offending against Laws of the Game
B4 Delaying the restart of play
B5 Failing to respect the required distance at restart of play
B6 Entering or re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission

---------

The definition of serious foul play from IFAB:

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

-------

A1, A2 and A3 are the 3 offences covered by the retrospective rule.

I suspect in this case Roofe was cautioned for B1c on the referee report.

It's pretty clear that the offence fits the description of serious foul play (A1) from IFAB.

So if the referee wrote anything other than A1 (as I suspect he would have had to for this citation) then by definition he didn't see the A1 offence.

He saw the "incident" and thought it was B1c. But he didn't see the A1 "offence" (which is the wording of the rule) within that incident. So by the rules, it's a legit citation.

[Clockwork]

Absolutely none. They are failing in their role by not applying the laws consistently, or at least by not explaining what legitimate reasons their may be that make it seem that way to their stakeholders (the fans) if they believe that's not the case. (Have we ever replaced the one that left in December by the way?)

But that doesn't change my answer to the initial question asked here around the Roofe incident. Under the laws of the game it was an incident that fits the criteria for retrospective punishment.

In a case like this, where no one is arguing it was a red card offence, arguing it shouldn't be looked at because other similar incidents haven't been isn't a defence, it's an observation.

I think we’re in agreement here, other than it is the Compliance Officer who has the opportunity here to ensure probity across the board. This clearly isn’t happening. I’m not trying to defend the player, I’m simply questioning how the CO applies the consistency that is missing from decisions made by officials on the Park. He/She alone has the opportunity to deliver this parity, it appears neither can manage it currently.
God help us if they’re eventually given the complexities of VAR to grapple with.

[DMCs]

2 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

The referee can book a player then it gets upgraded to a red if he only partially sees the tackle.

Yeah it is hard to see. Puts a lot of individual pressure on the referees.

[wastecoatwilly]

2 minutes ago, DMCs said:

Yeah it is hard to see. Puts a lot of individual pressure on the referees.

Referees could use this as a cop out,they don't get downgraded ,another honest mistake.
Referee kicks the can down the road,the SFA make a wee bit of dosh through the appeal keeps the compliance officer in a job and the 3 no-bodies that vote.
Dosh for old rope.

[bennett]

9 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Referees could use this as a cop out,they don't get downgraded ,another honest mistake.
Referee kicks the can down the road,the SFA make a wee bit of dosh through the appeal keeps the compliance officer in a job and the 3 no-bodies that vote.
Dosh for old rope.

Actually it's not a compliance officer anymore, the SFA have given the job to a law firm until they hire a new compliant officer. 

I wonder which law firm got this honour....

[wastecoatwilly]

4 minutes ago, bennett said:

Actually it's not a compliance officer anymore, the SFA have given the job to a law firm until they hire a new compliant officer. 

I wonder which law firm got this honour....

Var would put these guys on the dole can't have that FFS.

[bennett]

1 minute ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Var would put these guys on the dole can't have that FFS.

Basically we have a bunch of lawyers without the relevant football experience deciding which players should face retrospective action.

 

[Moomintroll]

1 minute ago, bennett said:

Basically we have a bunch of lawyers without the relevant football experience deciding which players should face retrospective action.

 

Or, playing devils advocate, they have no preconceived notions & are merely deciding if someone is guilty or not guilty based on preset parameters. Which when you look at it that way is their day job, given how they often defend the indefensible they will fit right in with the arse cheeks.

[The_Kincardine]

Some amount of diddy rage right across the Premiership sub forum at the moment.  The wee sheepies - whose rage hasn't abated since we signed that young boy from them - are in the lead with the Hibs fans not far behind.  @Ricfanned the flames with his thread of shame which really should be retitled, "Yoose will win the league and we're pyoor seething"

We have the whole gamut of P&B emotions: seethe, rage and, of course, salty tears from, among others, Irish I am scornful of poor people but I'm not a Sellick fan Bhoy, due to the Beeb having the audacity to play a Rangers song last night.  If it's this bad right now I can't imagine what it's going to be like when Tav lifts the league trophy.

I liked this version but it's nothing like Oor Tina's:

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by The_Kincardine

[bennett]

I keep forgetting to watch that show,  maybe next week. 

 

I hope there was no add ons.....

 

[DMCs]

13 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Referees could use this as a cop out,they don't get downgraded ,another honest mistake.
Referee kicks the can down the road,the SFA make a wee bit of dosh through the appeal keeps the compliance officer in a job and the 3 no-bodies that vote.
Dosh for old rope.

Haha "another honest mistake"

Did you write this? You seem to have the same victim mentality.

 

[AmericanFan]

2 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Some amount of diddy rage right across the Premiership sub forum at the moment.  The wee sheepies - whose rage hasn't abated since we signed that young boy from them - are in the lead with the Hibs fans not far behind.  @Ricfanned the flames with his thread of shame which really should be retitled, "Yoose will win the league and we're pyoor seething"

We have the whole gamut of P&B emotions: seethe, rage and, of course, salty tears from, among others, Irish I am scornful of poor people but I'm not a Sellick fan Bhoy, due to the Beeb having the audacity to play a Rangers song last night.  If it's this bad right now I can't imagine what it's going to be like when Tav lifts the league trophy.

haha