Livingston vs Motherwell 03/08/2019

[ropy]

1 hour ago, grizzlyg said:

Yep think that is a certainty......ps.   'What is Grimmy's favourite band?'..............ONE DIRECTION!!!!!.........ba boom

He loves a diagonal run but cannot veer off course

[Alpha1886]

2 hours ago, weeyin said:

I don't think the Compliance Officer just works from Sportscene highlights, despite what fans like to think. 

So how do they work? Do they watch every second of every game?  if so how? Please enlighten.

[Spiderpig]

2 hours ago, weeyin said:

I don't think the Compliance Officer just works from Sportscene highlights, despite what fans like to think. 

So unless they review every single booking and dodgy challenge over the weekend, how do they become aware of incidents they need to look at unless it been Broadcast and highlighted on national TV, it's trial by TV and the shite spouted by the alleged pundits.

The whole system is rotten to the core, the ref penalised the tackle, a yellow card , that should be the end of it, then the TV judges discuss it agree it should be looked at, and hey presto, the compliance officer then decided it's worth a 2 match ban, it's nonsense.

Will there be a consistent approach over the season , of course there won't be, but should anyone be surprised it's the SFA, incompetence and self justification is mandatory.

[texanwellfan]

Is there actually a documented procedure for how this is supposed to work? In most industries HR will have a well documented disciplinary process so that if they want to “punish” anyone they have a set procedure to be followed that supports their actions. I’m sure any half decent lawyer could rip the SFA (or whatever the governing body is) to shreds over their imposed disciplinary actions.  Since football is not just a sport anymore but is a business in which their disciplinary actions can affect the livelihood of people, they should be held accountable for having a proper repeatable unbiased disciplinary procedure in place. 

[Kmcalpin]

3 hours ago, weeyin said:

I don't think the Compliance Officer just works from Sportscene highlights, despite what fans like to think. 

Unless each Compliance Officer works differently they do indeed work from highlights.  The previous incumbent said publicly that his staff reviewed highlights footage at the start of the week following weekend games and flagged up potential cases for him to assess and perhaps action.  

[texanwellfan]

So basically dependent on what the tv channels want to select as highlights determines what they get to review.  

[Brazilian]

10 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

Is there actually a documented procedure for how this is supposed to work? In most industries HR will have a well documented disciplinary process so that if they want to “punish” anyone they have a set procedure to be followed that supports their actions. I’m sure any half decent lawyer could rip the SFA (or whatever the governing body is) to shreds over their imposed disciplinary actions.  Since football is not just a sport anymore but is a business in which their disciplinary actions can affect the livelihood of people, they should be held accountable for having a proper repeatable unbiased disciplinary procedure in place. 

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/5425/scottish-fa-judicial-panel-protocol-2019-20.pdf

[weeyin]

51 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

So unless they review every single booking and dodgy challenge over the weekend, how do they become aware of incidents they need to look at unless it been Broadcast and highlighted on national TV, it's trial by TV and the shite spouted by the alleged pundits.

So by that logic, nobody in the lower leagues will ever be punished by the Compliance Officer, as their games aren't on Sportscene, right?

And it's only ever incidents highligted on Sportscene that lead to players being disciplined?

I'm not claiming that if you appear on Sportscene you won't be disciplined. I'm saying that is not the ONLY reason players get disciplined. For example, there are UEFA observers at every game that write reports on the ref's performance (including missed red cards). That sounds like a much better source, and could even avoid the need for someone to watch the highlights - they could watch if they wanted to, but off the ball incidents, for example, often aren't caught on camera.

As we saw last season, the results of the review, of course, are often skewed in favour of the Old Firm - but that is a different story.

What would be great is an explanation of the decisions. In our infamous semi-final with Rangers, an ex Compliance Officer (Lunny, I think) gave an breakdown of all the incidents that would be reviewable, what wasn't reviewable (and why), and the explanation for each decision that was dished out. It was on the BBC website and made so much sense you can see why the authorities would never do it. Much too sensible.

[texanwellfan]

4 minutes ago, Brazilian said:

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/5425/scottish-fa-judicial-panel-protocol-2019-20.pdf

Thanks. I’ll need to read that

[Happy Dosser]

1 minute ago, weeyin said:

So by that logic, nobody in the lower leagues will ever be punished by the Compliance Officer, as their games aren't on Sportscene, right?

And it's only ever incidents highligted on Sportscene that lead to players being disciplined?

I'm not claiming that if you appear on Sportscene you won't be disciplined. I'm saying that is not the ONLY reason players get disciplined. For example, there are UEFA observers at every game that write reports on the ref's performance (including missed red cards). That sounds like a much better source, and could even avoid the need for someone to watch the highlights - they could watch if they wanted to, but off the ball incidents, for example, often aren't caught on camera.

As we saw last season, the results of the review, of course, are often skewed in favour of the Old Firm - but that is a different story.

Yes and I'm awaiting with interest the infringements by goalkeepers at penalties for bias towards the Ugly Sisters after the debacle with the Scotland Women's team.

Prediction: same old, same old, possibly starting on Saturday at FP...….

 

[Kmcalpin]

Just now, texanwellfan said:

So basically dependent on what the tv channels want to select as highlights determines what they get to review.  

In a word yes.

[dennyc]

33 minutes ago, Brazilian said:

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/5425/scottish-fa-judicial-panel-protocol-2019-20.pdf

That stuff shows clearly how the Panel operates and comes together....as well as highlighting that the panel can more or less come to whatever decision they like irrespective of evidence or even lack of evidence.......without having to give an explanation. But unless I missed it (which is entirely possible) it does not clarify exactly how possible offences can be brought to the Compliance Officer's attention.

It must only come either from TV Highlights or a referee supervisors report.  My bet is Trial by Television. Or can I or any other fan ask them to look at the next assault by Brown or Christie? I guess not. The whole thing is random and inconsistent. I can just see the BBC editor opting out of showing certain incidents in case it hurts his own team. whoever that is. And it's a great point about lower league matches with no TV coverage. I would imagine most folk would settle for the referee's decision being final, but that opens up a debate about erroneous red Cards being overturned. Can't have it both ways I suppose.

 

[Kmcalpin]

49 minutes ago, dennyc said:

It must only come either from TV Highlights or a referee supervisors report.  My bet is Trial by Television. Or can I or any other fan ask them to look at the next assault by Brown or Christie? I guess not. The whole thing is random and inconsistent. I can just see the BBC editor opting out of showing certain incidents in case it hurts his own team. whoever that is. And it's a great point about lower league matches with no TV coverage. I would imagine most folk would settle for the referee's decision being final, but that opens up a debate about erroneous red Cards being overturned. Can't have it both ways I suppose.

Good post.  In answer to your question, when the current system was first introduced, the then Compliance Officer said publicly that he would consider evidence from all sources; none would be excluded.  I sent in 2 examples. The first showed footage of a St Johnstone defender punching one of our attackers off the ball at a corner kick. I received no acknowledgement and no action was taken.  I then sent in a second one a few months later and again I received no acknowledgement and no action was taken.  Anyone is free to send in evidence but it won't be accepted. In short, its trial by television highlight. So, its down to Television company staff which incidents are shown or excluded and which are highlighted.     

[sbcmfc]

2 hours ago, texanwellfan said:

Is there actually a documented procedure for how this is supposed to work? In most industries HR will have a well documented disciplinary process so that if they want to “punish” anyone they have a set procedure to be followed that supports their actions. I’m sure any half decent lawyer could rip the SFA (or whatever the governing body is) to shreds over their imposed disciplinary actions.  Since football is not just a sport anymore but is a business in which their disciplinary actions can affect the livelihood of people, they should be held accountable for having a proper repeatable unbiased disciplinary procedure in place. 

This is exactly why Celtic and Rangers win almost every appeal, no matter how frivolous. The SFA know they’ll lawyer up and drive a bus through the holes in their case.

[Goggles & Flippers]

Wasn't it reported that the match delegate (in a suit in the stand) filed a report. In this case he/she probably thought the yellow was not fitting and conveyed that to the SFA. Upon looking at it we were fortunate to have Carroll finish the game, it was reckless and unnecessary. 11 v 10 on that pitch would have meant all hands to the pumps for us to walk away with a draw. We were fortunate to avoid it on the day and probably right to get it today. However as he wasn't elevated to a red card the 2 game ban seems harsh but still what we'd expect if he did walk on Saturday and he'd also have the extra disciplinary points.

I'm all for it as long as its transparent, and consistent and fair. This sort of thing can only target player and I suspect manager activity. Therefore it will be interesting to see if any Rangers player is charged for their role after their winner.

This next bit is distinct from the above and its important on here that distinction is made. Celtic's penchant for political statements, Rangers recently for pitch invasions and vandalism and both the Old Firm clinging onto sectarianism and to a lesser degree their diet versions in Edinburgh and Killie come under the remit of the SPFL. When are we eventually going to see some censure for their behaviour? Points deductions, fitting rather than paltry fines, closed doors games, etc?

I'd advocate the referee ceasing play at the first utterance of the sash or any Republican glorifying and matching the players off the park. Every minute is a point deduction ......

[texanwellfan]

1 hour ago, Goggles & Flippers said:

Wasn't it reported that the match delegate (in a suit in the stand) filed a report. In this case he/she probably thought the yellow was not fitting and conveyed that to the SFA. Upon looking at it we were fortunate to have Carroll finish the game, it was reckless and unnecessary. 11 v 10 on that pitch would have meant all hands to the pumps for us to walk away with a draw. We were fortunate to avoid it on the day and probably right to get it today. However as he wasn't elevated to a red card the 2 game ban seems harsh but still what we'd expect if he did walk on Saturday and he'd also have the extra disciplinary points.

I'm all for it as long as its transparent, and consistent and fair. This sort of thing can only target player and I suspect manager activity. Therefore it will be interesting to see if any Rangers player is charged for their role after their winner.

This next bit is distinct from the above and its important on here that distinction is made. Celtic's penchant for political statements, Rangers recently for pitch invasions and vandalism and both the Old Firm clinging onto sectarianism and to a lesser degree their diet versions in Edinburgh and Killie come under the remit of the SPFL. When are we eventually going to see some censure for their behaviour? Points deductions, fitting rather than paltry fines, closed doors games, etc?

I'd advocate the referee ceasing play at the first utterance of the sash or any Republican glorifying and matching the players off the park. Every minute is a point deduction ......

Yep I’m afraid the powers that be only pay lip service to stamping it out. As you just mentioned there’s one way.  I’m sure there are plenty more but we all know that’s not going to happen. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Happy Dosser said:

Yes and I'm awaiting with interest the infringements by goalkeepers at penalties for bias towards the Ugly Sisters after the debacle with the Scotland Women's team.

Prediction: same old, same old, possibly starting on Saturday at FP...….

 

These have already been wound down by IFAB, fwiw.

The way in which these were applied over the summer at international tournaments was not actually in keeping with the wording of the laws, so unless someone makes a complete dick of it, we shouldn't see this. 

[Happy Dosser]

13 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

These have already been wound down by IFAB, fwiw.

The way in which these were applied over the summer at international tournaments was not actually in keeping with the wording of the laws, so unless someone makes a complete dick of it, we shouldn't see this. 

Thanks, I didn't know that. Doubly tough on Scotland, then, with the penalty decisions also going against them.

Perhaps there was a realisation that such interpretations would cause endless controversy at the top end of the professional game, where matches are always televised.

What are the chances of finding "a complete" dick in the SFA or refereeing fraternity ?

[wellowell]

Have heard a few comments about us gaining an advantage with Carroll staying on take it these people were not at game as it was the 92nd minute this happened .

[sbcmfc]

9 hours ago, Goggles & Flippers said:

Therefore it will be interesting to see if any Rangers player is charged for their role after their winner.

I don’t even think they booked anyone for leaving the field. I’d be quite happy if they relaxed that rule, but feel it would’ve been appropriate in that instance.

No yellow cards

No yellow card

yellow card

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, Happy Dosser said:

Thanks, I didn't know that. Doubly tough on Scotland, then, with the penalty decisions also going against them.

Perhaps there was a realisation that such interpretations would cause endless controversy at the top end of the professional game, where matches are always televised.

Even more tough when you realise that IFAB has 8 votes, requiring a 3/4 majority to pass, and we're one of the 8...

[Goggles & Flippers]

4 hours ago, wellowell said:

Have heard a few comments about us gaining an advantage with Carroll staying on take it these people were not at game as it was the 92nd minute this happened .

Correct I wasn't, the 92nd minute makes his challenge even more unbelievably stupid

[supermarv]

4 minutes ago, Goggles & Flippers said:

Correct I wasn't, the 92nd minute makes his challenge even more unbelievably stupid

Wasn’t exactly an intentional tackle to hurt the player it was a poor challenge but still an attempt to win the ball. To give a booking then overturn it to not 1 but a 2 game ban is shocking.

[Kmcalpin]

3 hours ago, sbcmfc said:

I don’t even think they booked anyone for leaving the field. I’d be quite happy if they relaxed that rule, but feel it would’ve been appropriate in that instance.

No yellow cards

No yellow card

yellow card

Either its a yellow card or it isn't. SFA should make its mind up. 

[Goggles & Flippers]

45 minutes ago, supermarv said:

Wasn’t exactly an intentional tackle to hurt the player it was a poor challenge but still an attempt to win the ball. To give a booking then overturn it to not 1 but a 2 game ban is shocking.

It also wasn't exactly clever. I've just watched it back slowed down and from different angles, it was misjudged and dangerous. If you look back to my original post you see I agree with you on the 2 game ban though.