SFA compliance officer's remit ?

[happyaccie]

I struggle to understand what this role encompasses , as I'm led to believe this position is supposed to deal with any misdemeanour carried out by a player on the field of play which isn't dealt with by the match officials , this apparently does not apply to the SFA's beloved auld firm , if either mad broon or fat Pena had been wearing an Accies top in recent clashes both these players would have recieved retrospective bans . I might be getting cynical in my old age , but the SFA brought this role about to attain a level of fairness , initially to make sure players who had committed identical/similar offences were both dealt with equally either through the, on the day rulings of match officials or retrospective rulings of said compliance officer , this " fairness" should be extended to all their registered player's then and not special considerations given if a cited player represents either half of the auld firm, those individuals hearings should be dealt with in the same manner as all players from other member clubs.

[Rugster]

Must admit I'm completely baffled by this one. If ever there was a stick on for a retrospective ban it was for Pena in that match. In fact he could easily have been shown a red card on three separate occasions, albeit one a second yellow. 

Wonder if it is anything to do with who the referee was. The golden boy as it were. 

[RandomGuy.]

Yet Ricky Foster faces a ban for kicking a door after the match, based entirely on the word of one witness who doesn't have any video evidence.

Strange world.

[Dons_1988]

Yet Ricky Foster faces a ban for kicking a door after the match, based entirely on the word of one witness who doesn't have any video evidence.

Strange world.

Ricky foster always deserves banned to be fair

[7-2]

31 minutes ago, happyaccie said:

I struggle to understand what this role encompasses , as I'm led to believe this position is supposed to deal with any misdemeanour carried out by a player on the field of play which isn't dealt with by the match officials , this apparently does not apply to the SFA's beloved auld firm , if either mad broon or fat Pena had been wearing an Accies top in recent clashes both these players would have recieved retrospective bans . I might be getting cynical in my old age , but the SFA brought this role about to attain a level of fairness , initially to make sure players who had committed identical/similar offences were both dealt with equally either through the, on the day rulings of match officials or retrospective rulings of said compliance officer , this " fairness" should be extended to all their registered player's then and not special considerations given if a cited player represents either half of the auld firm, those individuals hearings should be dealt with in the same manner as all players from other member clubs.

Sorry ha but if you genuinely think there is any fairness in Scottish football where the bigot brothers are concerned then you just haven't been paying attention, especially since 2012. The words corrupt, to, the and core immediately spring to mind.

[RandomGuy.]

To be fair, Ricky Foster is an arsehole.

No doubt. We've also had a player suspended for an elbow that wasn't clear on the highlights

[Swello]

I like the idea of having the ability to retrospectively fix things where the referee misses something or gets it very wrong during a game - but the utter lack of consistency in decision making and the seemingly arbitrary nature of the stuff that they do look at makes it (in the grand traditions of the SFA) a total fucking shambles. If the compliance officer role is to have the confidence of the clubs and the supporters, the process needs to be more transparent, which would involve actually writing some clear rules down and publishing them.

The Pena incident was a 100% stick on red card if the referee had seen it - and it makes a mockery of the whole process that nothing is being done.

My favourite one (under the previous compliance officer) was when Micheal Higdon got a retrospective ban for doing his Bras d'honneur celebration towards the 'Well fans at Tannadice after he scored. There was no action taken at the game but the compliance officer stepped in after seeing it on Sportscene. It actually endeared Higdon to the support and spawned the "let's all do the higgy" stuff - but I can't think of many more bizarre interventions from the compliance officer. A Higgy after you score = 1 match ban, elbow to the face = nothing to see here.

[capt_oats]

What was the last on the park incident that's been missed by a ref or an incorrect decision that the compliance officer has stepped in and addressed retrospectively?

I'll admit I've not really been paying attention but the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Schalk's dive against Celtic last season. Since then it seems to largely have been "nope, nothing to see here."

[Dunning1874]

1 hour ago, Rugster said:

 Wonder if it is anything to do with who the referee was. The golden boy as it were. 

I know people tend to be hyperbolic in their criticism of referees, but Dallas genuinely is the worst referee I've ever seen at a professional level by a considerable distance.

Is there anyone who seriously doubts that he's ascended to the level he's at because of his surname rather than his ability?

[Rugster]

2 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

I know people tend to be hyperbolic in their criticism of referees, but Dallas genuinely is the worst referee I've ever seen at a professional level by a considerable distance.

Is there anyone who seriously doubts that he's ascended to the level he's at because of his surname rather than his ability?

It's incredible. He's like a rabbit in the headlights consistently. The blame isn't solely at the door of the SFA, he's a FIFA ref too, so someone's seeing something in him that no layman is. He's an absolutely dreadful referee.

[accies1874]

I can’t remember where I saw it mentioned, but I like the idea of having a recorded panel making the decision with the video going up on the SFA’s website.

[Jakes Pal]

Compliance Officer has made a rod for his own back by refusing to take action against Brown. 

Had he taken action against the Lego Muncher for his elbow, I would not have complained if Pena had been done for his similar action. I agree that Pena's tackle where he was booked certainly could have been red, and of course the deliberate handball. However that is down to the incompetence of the referee rather than the CO.

[Guest Moomintroll]

I struggle to understand what this role encompasses , as I'm led to believe this position is supposed to deal with any misdemeanour carried out by a player on the field of play which isn't dealt with by the match officials , this apparently does not apply to the SFA's beloved auld firm , if either mad broon or fat Pena had been wearing an Accies top in recent clashes both these players would have recieved retrospective bans . I might be getting cynical in my old age , but the SFA brought this role about to attain a level of fairness , initially to make sure players who had committed identical/similar offences were both dealt with equally either through the, on the day rulings of match officials or retrospective rulings of said compliance officer , this " fairness" should be extended to all their registered player's then and not special considerations given if a cited player represents either half of the auld firm, those individuals hearings should be dealt with in the same manner as all players from other member clubs.

Remember, compliance officers have windows too.

[RandomGuy.]

What was the last on the park incident that's been missed by a ref or an incorrect decision that the compliance officer has stepped in and addressed retrospectively?
I'll admit I've not really been paying attention but the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Schalk's dive against Celtic last season. Since then it seems to largely have been "nope, nothing to see here."

Ricky Foster kicking a door

[Guest Moomintroll]

I know people tend to be hyperbolic in their criticism of referees, but Dallas genuinely is the worst referee I've ever seen at a professional level by a considerable distance.
Is there anyone who seriously doubts that he's ascended to the level he's at because of his surname rather than his ability?

Much as I like the guy (Collina, not Dallas jr), I'm pretty confident that his dad's pal being in charge of all FIFA Referee appointments has helped somewhat. Frankly wouldn't have him in charge of a Junior game but Nepotisms gonna Nepotism.

[Dons_1988]

Compliance Officer has made a rod for his own back by refusing to take action against Brown. 
Had he taken action against the Lego Muncher for his elbow, I would not have complained if Pena had been done for his similar action. I agree that Pena's tackle where he was booked certainly could have been red, and of course the deliberate handball. However that is down to the incompetence of the referee rather than the CO.

Let's hope (and I very much doubt this) that they don't share your Glasgow mentality of "what about Celtic!"

[Rugster]

52 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

What was the last on the park incident that's been missed by a ref or an incorrect decision that the compliance officer has stepped in and addressed retrospectively?

 

 

11 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

Ricky Foster kicking a door

 

What kind of football pitches have doors on them??

[happyaccie]

39 minutes ago, Jakes Pal said:

Compliance Officer has made a rod for his own back by refusing to take action against Brown. 

Had he taken action against the Lego Muncher for his elbow, I would not have complained if Pena had been done for his similar action. I agree that Pena's tackle where he was booked certainly could have been red and of course the deliberate hand ball. However that is down to the incompetence of the referee rather than the CO.

Thank you for validating my initial post , the CO on looking at the television evidence that both you and I have witnessed , has chosen not to act on the misdemeanours of Pena throughout the match that you have highlighted , just why the SFA have created this post if they can't  deploy it properly beggars belief and further heightens the fans opinion of them .

[Jakes Pal]

10 minutes ago, happyaccie said:

Thank you for validating my initial post , the CO on looking at the television evidence that both you and I have witnessed , has chosen not to act on the misdemeanours of Pena throughout the match that you have highlighted , just why the SFA have created this post if they can't  deploy it properly beggars belief and further heightens the fans opinion of them .

I think that the fact Pena was booked for the tackle means that  CO cannot take any further action as the matter is considered dealt with. As for the handball, I am unsure if the CO has the remit to take action where the alleged offence would only merit a yellow card (even if it means a second yellow and potential ban). I understand he is there to deal with potential red card offences only. Perhaps someone can clarify?

[Jakes Pal]

41 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

 

Let's hope (and I very much doubt this) that they don't share your Glasgow mentality of "what about Celtic!"

 

I am afraid that Whitabootery is as much a part of Scottish Football as the Masonic/Orange conspiracy. The Compliance Officer knew fine well that going after a Rangers player after failing to take action against a Celtic player for allegedly throwing an elbow just a few days before would have created one almighty shit storm. 

As for me, I can assure you that had we played your lot the week before, and a similar event had occurred, I would have been Whitabootin about that had Pena been sanctioned. Same goes for any other team for that matter.