Super-Ally216
Well-Known Member
I intend to put this out today
TRUE BLUE LIES
SFA chief executive Ian Maxwell has defended compliance officer Clare Whyte after what he feels to have been “grossly unfair” criticism in the wake of some high-profile decisions.
“The role of compliance officer is to ensure that all those involved in Association Football in Scotland observe the Disciplinary Rules, which includes reviewing misconduct missed by match officials and to subsequently raise a notice of complaint where appropriate.
“One of the major changes made this season, agreed by all stakeholders, was to remove the burden on the compliance officer of having to decide both whether an incident was worthy of review and what the outcome of that review should be. Contrary to opinion, the compliance officer does not offer any judgement on any incident.
“When an incident has been identified, the compliance officer asks one fundamental question: was the incident seen, in its entirety, by the match officials?
“If the answer is yes, the matter is closed pursuant to IFAB Law 5: the match official’s decision is final.
Both video footage and Photographs emerged showing Madden had a clear view of the incident, and even waived play on. An immediate enquiry must be conducted in to Whyte and Madden’s communication on this matter. If Bobby Madden alleges he never saw this incident, then his position is untenable. If Ms. Whyte has proceeded with the charges without consulting Bobby Madden, her position is uneatable.
We will not allow this matter to be swept away with an SFA vanilla statement. IFAB Law 5 is a FIFA law and I am sure they will be very interested to hear about this matter.
Jim
Their recent actions draw attention to how this remark can be interpreted;
"When an incident has been identified, the compliance officer asks one fundamental question: was the incident seen, in its entirety, by the match officials?
“If the answer is yes, the matter is closed pursuant to IFAB Law 5: the match official’s decision is final."
If an official sees an incident and takes action then surely he's seen it in its entirety. Which draws the question, why was Darnell Johnson's yellow card upgraded to a red when the referee clearly saw the incident and thought a yellow card was suffice?
Does the compliance officer, when an incident has been highlighted, consult with said referee who then admits to a mistake?
SFA's statement just makes an already ambiguous process appear even more ambiguous.