SFA back-tracking on Keatings' appeal

A 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.
It only requires one of the panel to agree with the ref for the ban to stay in place
 
Don't watch mentally challenged games so wouldn't know.

They’re covered on TV and we sure as hell know on here when they feel aggrieved about something.

The papers go on and on about it for ages.

I haven’t seen anyone justifying the argument ‘it‘s due to incompetence and it all evens out‘ with data and examples.

In their case there are practically no examples of injustices to cite.
 
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

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 are a f.ucking amateur organisation, the folk running it are incompetent, the staff working for the incompetents must shake their heads on a day to day basis.
 
For a second, take them at their word, if someone on the panel did not use all the evidence at their hands, how many other times has this happened?

How many times have club submitted an appeal, costing them money and time gathering the evidence for the panel to ignore it.

This should be a massive scandal which should end in sackings.
 
Correct, but the report I read said that the appeal was rejected by a unanimous decision. Hence the first line of my post.
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.
 
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.
 
Amazing what happens when you actually take these incompetents on in public, well done ITC.
Time for more clubs to put real pressure on this farcical disciplinary process and end it now.
 
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.

This is the key thing we should be taking from this.

The amount of people that attempt to ridicule others on here about cheating referees, and today we have the SFA admit they were prepared to suspend a player from a cup final on the basis of someone's imagination.

There can be no doubt in anyone's mind now.
If the SFA are admitting their willingness to cheat, how can anyone claim their employees aren't at it?
 
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.
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.
 
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.

Like you say, there was only a few seconds of footage.

They are not claiming that he simply didn't bother watching anything and agreed with the ref. They are effectively saying that he watched some of the clip. So if he didn't watch "all" of the evidence, why only a bit and how much did he actually watch?

Maybe he put the video on, saw it was Rangers playing and just said "guilty" without watching the incident or reading the full details. Sadly, that may not be as far from the truth as you might think.
 
It's time that for all judicial panels and compliance officer actions they publish all the evidence that was reviewed along with written reasons for their decision, along with the identity of the panel.

The secrecy is leading to the corruption and poor decision making.
 
So 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.
 
Correct me if im wrong but all the evidence wasnt available/used (insert your own understanding) then its flawed something like all the rulings against our players.Or am i just pished?
 
A
So 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.
Any other organisation would be disbanded because of their incompetence
 
When did they change the rule that you couldn't appeal a yellow card unless it was mistaken identity?

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 whole process has to be transparent...but it won’t be. It’s a complete shambles and they’ve basically admitted it.
 
Even Sepp Blatter is surpassed by this mega corrupt organisation of all countries Associations run by this new mob that's in place.

Every one of them got their fingers in the FIFA /UEFA pie.
 
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.
 
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'm sure their names have already been revealed on FF.
 
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.
Going by Chelsea v Spurs they ain't getting it right 'down there' either.
 
We are at this point due to Celtic and the compliant media pushing for 'transparuncy' after a ref actually got a decision correct.

Instead of giving them a swift kick in the balls the SFA at the time caved and here we are.

The National game is a reflection of the idiots in charge, and the media seem only interested in assissting with the race to the bottom.

There was an incident in Chelsea Spurs yesterday. A Spurs player pushed out with the boot on Mason Mount who went down like poleaxed.
The ref basically laughed it all away and the game went on. No 300 replays. No faux outrage from the commentary team and I'll wager no campaignin the media to have retrospective punishment, no pressure on governing body to act. Because it was a push with his boot. A nothing incident.

Compare and contrast to Scotland, is it any wonder our game is viewed as a joke, a laughing stock?

The SFA are not fit to govern and any media worth its salt would be campaigning for change. But our clickbait journo-bloggers are also not fit for purpose, they're more interested in their Rangers bad rhetoric than actually promoting change.

Absolute embarrassment!
 
Mental thing is if ICT hadn’t went after them, the ban would stand and the SFA panel would just continue on as they were ignoring evidence. Absolute joke of an organisation
 
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.
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.
 
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.

It's a farce, candeias got his second yellow appeal at St Mirren knocked back a couple.of hears ago even though it was clear from.video he did nothing to merit it.

I fully agree that keatings also wasnt a yellow, but as far as I am aware, there is still no rule that allows the appeal of a second yellow, except for mistaken identity.
 
A perfect example of how Gerrard or us as a club with our profile should speak out

Seen the clip went viral and other analysts ex pros calling it laughable

We have an obligation to highlight absolutely ridiculous and double standard decisions against us
 
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.
For me it's more about the case of what it doesn't say.

All they say is that one member didn't follow protocol, it doesn't say anywhere that by not doing so, it impacted on the decision and they are simply using him as a get out clause, due to a breach of protocol.

If the other 2 members of the panel found in favour of the appeal, I would have expected the SFA to include that fact in their statement, as damage limitation at the very least. They didn't do that.
 
Back
Top