williewoodburn
Well-Known Member
Death knell surely for the set up. Good its one of the Diddy teams.
As they always fcking doThey are making it up as they go along
It only requires one of the panel to agree with the ref for the ban to stay in placeA valid point made that this surely isn't the first time this has happened. Also a 3 man panel requiring a 2-1 vote so two of the panel must have agreed with the ref. Really bizarre this. Basically shout loud enough and it will be challenged, no chance if this was one of our players would this be happening.
OK, how many ‘diabolical’ decisions have Celtic experienced this season in comparison with us?
I’m sure you’ve got a list.
Don't watch mentally challenged games so wouldn't know.
Exactly mateIf Inverness never made their statement, this would not be happening.
There is a lesson to learned from that for our board ..
If the original decision was 2 in favour of overturning the yellow card and 1 who was against, the appeal fails, and he's still banned.
But of the one who originally rejected the appeal changes in favour, it becomes unanimous and the appeal would succeed.
So changing the mind of one member of the panel can make a difference
Perhaps they did vote unanimously to reject the appeal but I haven't seen any reports to suggest that was the case. Where did you read it was unanimous?Correct, but the report I read said that the appeal was rejected by a unanimous decision. Hence the first line of my post.
The SFA have basically said they employ cheats or kunts that are incompetent!
Any football minded person knew that was never a sending off. Perhaps they got mixed up as it was a Rangers game and targeted the guy in blue...
Their panels are infiltrated with mentally challengeds.
Now they're 1 down as the scummy kunt has fkd up...
Old saying give a catholic a high position and they will fck it up.
It was one of the newspaper reports, but I can't remember which one, as I don't buy papers, I only read them on here, or links posted on Facebook etc. Whether or not the journalist was correct or making an assumption, I don't know, but I can't see any reason to make that part up.Perhaps they did vote unanimously to reject the appeal but I haven't seen any reports to suggest that was the case. Where did you read it was unanimous?
I'd be astonished if all three were so wrong.
The clubs themselves all need to get together and demand better from the SFA.
For them to say they did not view "all" the evidence is absolutely outrageous.
It sounds like every single one of us on here has actually made more effort to watch a clip lasting seconds of the incident than the people who are actually paid to do this as part of their job.
Gibberish pish.Statement: James Keatings | Scottish FA | News
www.scottishfa.co.uk
There now will be another which is a good thing but sets a precedent.
Compromised in to irrelevance.What about previous decisions made by this panel member?
Calls all decisions into question.What about previous decisions made by this panel member?
Any other organisation would be disbanded because of their incompetenceSo what does it actually say?
That a panellist didn’t review the footage correctly, or did they not really review the evidence? They have come come to a flawed decision because they are too stupid to understand football?
The SFA are a joke and if it wasn’t so sinister in its dealings with clubs then we could just laugh. It’s gone WAY beyond laughable now.
They are, and have been for a long time now, a corrupt bunch of single minded, arrogant arseholes who should be cleansed from the bottom to the top.
You couldnt make it up with these guys.
When did they change the rule that you couldn't appeal a yellow card unless it was mistaken identity?
I'm sure their names have already been revealed on FF.NAME these faceless people, is it a secret society? Lawwells Lackeys, is Big Shifty involved ? these guys need to be answerable and transparent ,we should see who they are.
Discussions about the decision should also be heard all this shitey secrecy stuff is no good, openness and fairness and to be responsible for their actions is what is required that's providing they have nothing to hide.
I think what they actually mean is they can't get away with this one. Lying cheating bastards.Very long-winded and bullshit way of saying "aye, we fucked it".
Going by Chelsea v Spurs they ain't getting it right 'down there' either.If 3 people cannot watch evidence for as long as they want and not get it right what chance do we have with VAR in scotshit football when decisions have to made in a few minutes.We just couldn't trust them up here to get it right.
The SFA statement states twice that it was basically the fault of one single member of the panel. They also say that person will be removed from future pools for selection.It was one of the newspaper reports, but I can't remember which one, as I don't buy papers, I only read them on here, or links posted on Facebook etc. Whether or not the journalist was correct or making an assumption, I don't know, but I can't see any reason to make that part up.
Like you, I was also surprised that all 3 got it wrong, but if that wasn't the case, surely the SFA would have mentioned in their statement that it was a 2-1 vote and him not following the rules was the only reason that they got it wrong.
The fact that they didn't mention anything about how the previous vote went, suggests that there was some truth in the unanimous 3-0 report and they want to keep it quiet.
Probably when the started changing yellows to reds that they’re apparently not allowed to do.
The whole thing is more of a Circus than an Organisation.
On another note, I’m surprised nobody has every challenged a second yellow previously by challenging the red card and not the yellow. Ultimately the red is still issued, therefore, technically can be challenged.
The SFA is such a joke. It's embarrassing.
I must have missed that one can anyone post them again?I'm sure their names have already been revealed on FF.
For me it's more about the case of what it doesn't say.The SFA statement states twice that it was basically the fault of one single member of the panel. They also say that person will be removed from future pools for selection.