Shengus Malengus
Well-Known Member
Just wait until we get to the tenth CO.
Shorter odds on winning the lottery jackpot or the voting in of a non RC Glasgow Lord Provost.
Is there proof compliance officer is a celtc fan and is there a complete list of every decision made.
- Thread starter Weetoonblue
- Start date
Shorter odds on winning the lottery jackpot or the voting in of a non RC Glasgow Lord Provost.
Ter
Well-Known Member
The system really needs to be transparent. At the moment it isn't clear who is reporting incidents, who decides if an incident is worthy of punishment and who is dishing out the punishment.
There is absolutely no consistency and it seems that incidents involving Celtic players are being overlooked.
Why not have the person who is looking at the incidents and deciding if there is a case to answer be a former referee from outside Scotland who doesn't have any leanings to any clubs here?
There is absolutely no consistency and it seems that incidents involving Celtic players are being overlooked.
Why not have the person who is looking at the incidents and deciding if there is a case to answer be a former referee from outside Scotland who doesn't have any leanings to any clubs here?
smileyteddybear
Well-Known Member
Does it matter. We could prove without reasonable doubt that they have been or are Celtic fans that make sure all decisions benefit only one club. Not one newspaper or news agencies would carry the story. Fans of other clubs wouldn’t give a shit either.
They have control of sfa and press. All we can do now is win this fucking league and watch them implode.
They have control of sfa and press. All we can do now is win this fucking league and watch them implode.
Superrangers
Well-Known Member
Yet fans sit in jail for singing TBB?!
geoallison
Well-Known Member
You have to be septic minded, a certain cult member, and employed by the bbc.
Super-Ally216
Well-Known Member
An interesting narrative is that its seldom questioned by any of the dobbers who constantly berate decisions that are made how those decisions are made. Surely with the ingrained injustice some fans have they'd ask for the process to be outlined to understand how a case gets to where it does.
It's odd to say the least you don't have any consistency in the game where decisions are and arent made, we were all under the impression that if the referee seen it and issued a card then it couldn't be reviewed but with whats happened with the hibs player that's clearly not true.
I'm the last person to cry out conspiracy, i just think the whole system is ran totally back to front and it being the way it is the powers at be sometimes know how to use it to their advantage.
It's odd to say the least you don't have any consistency in the game where decisions are and arent made, we were all under the impression that if the referee seen it and issued a card then it couldn't be reviewed but with whats happened with the hibs player that's clearly not true.
I'm the last person to cry out conspiracy, i just think the whole system is ran totally back to front and it being the way it is the powers at be sometimes know how to use it to their advantage.
StuGers
Well-Known Member
It is statistically possible.
But considering there have been 3 compliance officers, all “Celtic-minded”, the probability is 1 in 125. Make of that what you will.
Starting Anew
Well-Known Member
As someone else said, it would be fascinating to see how many players from the other clubs were cited right before meeting Celtic. If the numbers are disproportionate the way we expect then that would surely be utterly damning.
PMB1872
Well-Known Member
Seconded, and a right gloating wee shite of a one he is too.
Der Berliner
Well-Known Member
You can find current and old decisions here:
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/
On the right, "Past JP Outcomes" gives you access to the files from 2014 onwards, methinks.
The SFA-chief had a Q&A recently on the topic of the CO:
Here's the Q&A in full
Can the compliance officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents?
SFA: "The compliance officer can only raise a fast track notice of complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.
"When investigating a potential fast track case, the compliance officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the laws of the game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials.
"When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the compliance officer seeks opinions from three independent experts. Those experts are drawn from a pool of former category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A fast track notice of complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence."
How does the claims process work?
SFA: "In certain circumstances a player or a club can raise a claim against a wrongful dismissal, mistaken identity, or wrongful caution for simulation.
"A specially trained fast track tribunal determines whether there has been an obvious refereeing error based on the case put forward by the player/club, a factual report by the referee, and the relevant laws of the game. Every fast track tribunal includes an expert on the laws of the game. If it is determined that an obvious refereeing error has been made, the disciplinary action taken by the match referee can be rescinded by the fast track tribunal.
"It should be noted that the compliance officer is not involved in the claims process. In addition, the disciplinary department itself does not make any decision on whether a sanction should be imposed, or a red card rescinded."
Has the system changed this season?
FA: "The rules relating to the claims procedure and fast track notices of complaint changed for season 2018/19 following extensive consultation across the Scottish footballing family. "There was input on the proposed revisions to Section 13 of the judicial panel protocol (relating to fast track proceedings) from a range of different stakeholders. This included clubs, players’ representatives, the head of referee operations, and the Scottish Senior Football Referees Association. All parties agreed that the revisions were appropriate and necessary."
What information is published?
SFA: "A focussed effort has been made by to improve transparency and understanding of the disciplinary processes this season.
"The disciplinary section of the Scottish FA website makes available all of the recent determinations of the disciplinary tribunals. It also includes full written reasons for each of the cases determined by a fast track tribunal. Those reasons may include excerpts from the referee’s statement. Referees are advised as part of the process that the statements provided by them are evidence, to be considered by the tribunal."
In summary
"We are committed to enforcing the highest standards of behaviour and professionalism across the Scottish game.
"It is our responsibility to protect match officials and the integrity of the laws of the game and apply our disciplinary rules with fairness and consistency."
dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/footba…-wide-ranging-qa-13843784
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/
On the right, "Past JP Outcomes" gives you access to the files from 2014 onwards, methinks.
The SFA-chief had a Q&A recently on the topic of the CO:
Here's the Q&A in full
Can the compliance officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents?
SFA: "The compliance officer can only raise a fast track notice of complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.
"When investigating a potential fast track case, the compliance officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the laws of the game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials.
"When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the compliance officer seeks opinions from three independent experts. Those experts are drawn from a pool of former category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A fast track notice of complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence."
How does the claims process work?
SFA: "In certain circumstances a player or a club can raise a claim against a wrongful dismissal, mistaken identity, or wrongful caution for simulation.
"A specially trained fast track tribunal determines whether there has been an obvious refereeing error based on the case put forward by the player/club, a factual report by the referee, and the relevant laws of the game. Every fast track tribunal includes an expert on the laws of the game. If it is determined that an obvious refereeing error has been made, the disciplinary action taken by the match referee can be rescinded by the fast track tribunal.
"It should be noted that the compliance officer is not involved in the claims process. In addition, the disciplinary department itself does not make any decision on whether a sanction should be imposed, or a red card rescinded."
Has the system changed this season?
FA: "The rules relating to the claims procedure and fast track notices of complaint changed for season 2018/19 following extensive consultation across the Scottish footballing family. "There was input on the proposed revisions to Section 13 of the judicial panel protocol (relating to fast track proceedings) from a range of different stakeholders. This included clubs, players’ representatives, the head of referee operations, and the Scottish Senior Football Referees Association. All parties agreed that the revisions were appropriate and necessary."
What information is published?
SFA: "A focussed effort has been made by to improve transparency and understanding of the disciplinary processes this season.
"The disciplinary section of the Scottish FA website makes available all of the recent determinations of the disciplinary tribunals. It also includes full written reasons for each of the cases determined by a fast track tribunal. Those reasons may include excerpts from the referee’s statement. Referees are advised as part of the process that the statements provided by them are evidence, to be considered by the tribunal."
In summary
"We are committed to enforcing the highest standards of behaviour and professionalism across the Scottish game.
"It is our responsibility to protect match officials and the integrity of the laws of the game and apply our disciplinary rules with fairness and consistency."
dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/footba…-wide-ranging-qa-13843784
weetam3106
Well-Known Member
I’d bet long before her name became public a full sweep of her social media postings were scoured and cleaned. Any pictures of her with hoopy the huddle hound will be in the recycle bin somewhere.
In my experience it’s hugely unusual for anyone her age to have no social media presence.
So she might only be ensuring the rules are applied fairly across the cited cases BUT who and how is the list of cases to be cited decided? Is this decided upon by BBC Scotland and the poison alumni cabal of St Columba/ St Mungos/ insert papish sectarian chamber of secrets here?
Why are scum players getting away with full on assaults when our players barely touch opposition players and get three game bans?
The whole CO role stinks. Question, when did the CO role start and what were the stats prior to Clare Whyte, in the days of lispy Stewart Regan?
In my experience it’s hugely unusual for anyone her age to have no social media presence.
So she might only be ensuring the rules are applied fairly across the cited cases BUT who and how is the list of cases to be cited decided? Is this decided upon by BBC Scotland and the poison alumni cabal of St Columba/ St Mungos/ insert papish sectarian chamber of secrets here?
Why are scum players getting away with full on assaults when our players barely touch opposition players and get three game bans?
The whole CO role stinks. Question, when did the CO role start and what were the stats prior to Clare Whyte, in the days of lispy Stewart Regan?
The Pontiac Bandit
Well-Known Member
She is 100percent a Celtic fan and was quite open about it in the past.
As was Lundy the 1st Compliance officer.
Mcglennin claims to be a Manchester United fan.
As was Lundy the 1st Compliance officer.
Mcglennin claims to be a Manchester United fan.
Football Fan
New Member
The compliance officer is not the reason for Rangers are not top of the league or won a trophy. Questions should be asked of Gerrard’s naivety at times - take the length of time it took him before he made changes against Killie as an example. Poor decision making.
There was also a recent article around class A referees officiating in the country and that they mainly support Rangers - how is that working out? Although it probably wont ever substantiated, much like this debate about the complaince officer, it’s pure conjecture. Time to focus on football chaps and stop shifting the blame elsewhere.
There was also a recent article around class A referees officiating in the country and that they mainly support Rangers - how is that working out? Although it probably wont ever substantiated, much like this debate about the complaince officer, it’s pure conjecture. Time to focus on football chaps and stop shifting the blame elsewhere.
Shengus Malengus
Well-Known Member
bilkobear
Well-Known Member
Yes, there is nothing to see here.
No matter how much evidence there is that supports the case of overwhelming bias, the stupid orange bstrds can be told there is nothing sniffy and they should stop looking.
Quite.
What will be your next post?
All the kids from Celtc Boys Club are making it up and it was only horseplay?
Well, at least you tried pal.
