Jump to content

SFA compliance officer's remit ?


Recommended Posts

Didn't we have three in the space of a few months on top of those?
Lee Croft for a tackle on a Ross County player which the ref was staring at but chose to let go.
Brian Graham for his dive against Inverness
James McFadden for his 'get it up ye' gesture to the Accies fans at McDiarmid Park.
 
All 3 deserved a booking, but were all trial by sportscene, as they chose to highlight these incidents and talk at length about them, but then completely ignore others.


Sportscene spent longer showing clips of McFadden making the gesture than actual highlights from the match
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Apparently the Compliance Officer's staff skim through the TV coverage after games and home in on incidents that the TV pundits highlight.  So, its a very subjective process and conseqently very inconsistent and random. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brush meet carpet, carpet meet brush.

The corrupt incompetent clowns who run our game are part of the reason we have became a third world footballing nation.

Would love the bigot bros to f**k off to their Euro/World/Atlantic/Oirish league or anywhere else they think are gagging to have them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1e5c216aa08d971e055c35824b146278.jpg
RandomGuy meltdown in 3... 2... 1...


It's things like this that frustrate fans. Yes he probably deserved the ban for being an absolute fanny. However there's not proof other than an eyewitness, no footage and no photos. Whereas Old Firm players can swing punches, elbows and choke people with clear visual evidence and hard facts and receive nothing. What's the point in even having a CO. It's laughable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Costanza said:

We’ve played twice since the Dundee game. I’m sure it’s just coincidence this two game ban comes into effect now ahead of the Rangers game.

It is.

This is the standard length of time for Notices of Complaint to be processed and decided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



It's things like this that frustrate fans. Yes he probably deserved the ban for being an absolute fanny. However there's not proof other than an eyewitness, no footage and no photos. Whereas Old Firm players can swing punches, elbows and choke people with clear visual evidence and hard facts and receive nothing. What's the point in even having a CO. It's laughable.

It is completely embarrassing and baffling. I genuinely don’t get how Pena hasn’t been banned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1e5c216aa08d971e055c35824b146278.jpg
RandomGuy meltdown in 3... 2... 1...


It's not worth a meltdown, utterly predictable pish.

It is.
This is the standard length of time for Notices of Complaint to be processed and decided.


Is it? It's been 19 days since the game, last time I remember us having something like that was Brian Grahams dive, and he was offered a ban just four days after the incident. Only time it seems to take over a week is holiday periods, or when Celtic are wanting to appeal so their captain can play in Old Firm matches
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bans for diving go through the fast-track process. An offer is made and only if it is rejected is there a full hearing.
This is Celtic levels of paranoia.


It took three days McFadden to be offered a ban for his GIRUY to Hamilton fans.

Took three days for Frazer Wright to be offered a ban for an elbow against Celtic.

Take it those situations also get fast tracked?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Foster kicked the referees door in anger (and the ref was in there), he's deserving of a ban IMO as it's a shite way behave - but - when supporters see Pena (or Scott Brown, or whoever) getting off scot-free for something that happened during a match and was arguably more serious in terms of misconduct, it's naturally going to lead to folk questioning the consistency of approach or the entire point of a compliance officer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to suggest that fast track procedures are followed when there's video evidence, whereas full hearings are convened when it's an off-the-field incident only mentioned in the referee's report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...