SFA release statement clarifying compliance procedures

Konkey Dong

Well-Known Member
#1
The following Q&A will help clarify a number of points which have been the subject of debate, discussion and, in some cases, misrepresentation in recent weeks.

Can the Compliance Officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents?

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?

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is determined that an obvious refereeing error has been made, the disciplinary action taken by the match referee can be rescinded by the Fast Track Tribunal.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the disciplinary department itself does not make any decision on whether a sanction should be imposed, or a red card rescinded.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?

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?

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.

The Judicial Panel Protocol and the Scottish FA’s Handbook are also available online.

The fully searchable disciplinary section of the website can be found here - https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/.

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.

BACK TO LISTING
 

Craigie

Well-Known Member
#8
Two things.

This clarification is on the back of us winning a game against them. One game. How many statements will have to be issued when 55 arrives, whenever that may be?

Secondly, can this be a sticky for the all those ill informed posters on here who think that everything from a wrongly awarded throw in should be reviewed after every game?
 

Hurleyreyes

Well-Known Member
#12
Can the Compliance Officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents?
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.
No mention of how they decide this.
Basically whatever the Celtic media shout about the most.
 

DaveC

Well-Known Member
#13
No word on who determines what has to be investigated or what has to be ignored. Guessing it must still be Sportscene's exclusive gig.
This is the bit that sticks in my throat.

St Mirren at home to Hamilton, not one of the Morelos “incidents” committed by either of those teams players would even make the media.

Rangers, live on TV with bitter tims involved you just know every inch of the game will be dissected looking for an issue.

The system is different depending who you are, that can’t be right.
 

Tim Hunter

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
#19
I see the Judicial Panel Protocol is indeed available online. Is this a recent development or has it always been there?
Hopefully it will explain the reporting procedure, amongst other things. Will have a look when the pubs are shut.
 
#24
Wow So nobody knew FA until we beat Septic and now there's legal arguments going left right and centre

Mostly left

The law as it stands in any environment doesn't seem to suit them when it's not pro them

Scum
 

BlueMeanie

Well-Known Member
#27
No word on who determines what has to be investigated or what has to be ignored. Guessing it must still be Sportscene's exclusive gig.
No change or need to clarify , any one with an agenda against Rangers just needs to contact them and it will be investigated .as per usual
 

TN8

Well-Known Member
#29
No word on who determines what has to be investigated or what has to be ignored. Guessing it must still be Sportscene's exclusive gig.
Yep. Really good answers to the questions everyone knows the answer to and nobody cares about. Silence on the most important issue.
 

AnglianBear

Well-Known Member
#34
I am utterly confused. We have the following :

"When investigating a potential Fast Track case, the Compliance Officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials"

So they don't seek any opinion. Right, fair enough.

But then the next paragraph states:

When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen

Pray, tell, SFA, how a match official confirms an on field incident is unseen if the compliance officer does not seek their opinion? Is this done through ESP? Ouija boards? I mean, if an incident is unseen then it won't be in the refs report (because he didnt see it) so how does it happen???
 

dh1963

Well-Known Member
#35
This is going from ridiculous to scandalous.

Celtic release a statement after losing one fùcking game and the entire Scottish football world feels the need to crawl to them.

I really hope we beat them next time with a last minute penalty that was a foul 3 yards outside the box. Might as well see the bastards totally explode.
 

archimedes

Well-Known Member
#38
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.
I'm guessing this has been released by the CO to absolve herself of any of the blame for Morelos not being punished.

She obviously doesn't want her windows panned in.
 
#47
No word on who determines what has to be investigated or what has to be ignored. Guessing it must still be Sportscene's exclusive gig.
The Q and A issued by the SFA is, I believe, broadly understood by most supporters, with the obvious exception of the hard of thinking (usually known to us as the scum). However, this issue of how the Compliance Officer’s case load originates is absolutely the biggest concern.
I think that having how the system works and the clubs and others were, as explained in the Q and A, involved in developing it and were content with it is useful but there must be a demand for clarity with regard to how issues become issues. Might Club 1872 be in a position to pursue an answer to this?
 

daven37

Well-Known Member
#49
So are the SFA going to fine the filth or not?

Rangers complain, we face 5 charges and get a fine.

Filth complain, SFA forced to issue statements

One big difference between the two cases is the unrelenting media campaign that has gone behind the filth complaint that seems to have initiated the tsunami of pressure being put out there to have Morelos charged, have the compliance officer sacked and have Beaton continue to suffer.

There are clear double standards here if the filth are not to face the same charges we faced.
 
Top