SFA release statement clarifying compliance procedures

Axelrod said:
And this is the main question everyone wants answered .

Why won’t they answer it I wonder ??
Click to expand...
Father O'Flaherty's name is not what they want to be seen to exposing him to possibly repercussions so they wont name him, and in his absence the Cardinal has overall power.
 
Last edited:
AnglianBear said:
The single most important question to come out of that statement. Who decides if they don't ask the ref.
Click to expand...
It’s actually earlier in the process than whether they should ask the referee. It’s how there becomes something to ask the referee (or not). This is what we need to get into.

If our players are genuinely guilty of foul play then it should be reviewed and they must cut it out BUT all other instances must equally be reviewed.
 
Is this the Scottish Football Family he refers to?

C-bWBD6W0AEaqYY.jpg
 
What's the point if they don't follow it. They still pick and choose,

As above - when are the scum being charged? There is no way on Earth they can escape it.
 
Realistically if the bbc decide to highlight incidents involving Rangers players the compliance officer has a moral right to investigate these incidents.As it is only these incidents and occasionally an incident involving one of the minor teams against septic that is highlighted is proof of a very unprofessional body running the game in this country.
 
I’d rather they just came out and said “We collectively despise Rangers and will stop at nothing to prevent them winning 55. We will also do our utmost to assist Celtic in any way we can”

...it’s what we all know to be true, not this mindboggling p!sh they’re coming out with!
 
JOHNNY BRAVO said:
thats just it if it only a player or club that can complain then surely we should be told about it you know for clarity
Click to expand...
Where does it say that?
I've just read through the whole shebang, but but cannot see anywhere which individuals or organisations are considered competent to raise a "Notice of Complaint."
 
None of Morelos incidents were even close to a red card, and were seen by the referee.

The stamp on Morelos and the elbow on arfield, I'm not were seen and both red card offences

Think we should be the ones complaining
 
Now thats out the way they can concentrate on compiling the charges against Celtic for bringing the game into disrepute.
 
Craigie said:
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?
Click to expand...
We still are not told what criteria has to be met to trigger CO investigation.

Mrs Whyte (not to blame by the way) is not sitting watching every minute of every game on TV and conducting investigations.

Who or what triggers the potentially “unseen” incidents to be subject of review?

No triggers for other incidents in the very same game!
 
Tim Hunter said:
Where does it say that?
I've just read through the whole shebang, but but cannot see anywhere which individuals or organisations are considered competent to raise a "Notice of Complaint."
Click to expand...
well you obvoiusly missed my first post where i asked is it only a player or club that can complain
the whole statement is clear as mud but the tone is thats the gist of it
 
Seriously how can a person that has never played the game at even amateur level review and decide what is actionable and what isn't.

A complete farce of a situation that must have seasoned pro's in this country shaking their heads in disbelief.
 
JOHNNY BRAVO said:
thats just it if it only a player or club that can complain then surely we should be told about it you know for clarity
Click to expand...
OK, I'll ask again. After reading through the rules it doesn't define anywhere, as far as I can see, that only either a player or club can raise a "Notice of Complaint."
I can't find anywhere in the regulations where it defines who is or who is not competent to do this. Please tell me where the rules state this, I will be really grateful?
 
Tim Hunter said:
OK, I'll ask again. After reading through the rules it doesn't define anywhere, as far as I can see, that only either a player or club can raise a "Notice of Complaint."
I can't find anywhere in the regulations where it defines who is or who is not competent to do this. Please tell me where the rules state this, I will be really grateful?
Click to expand...
ffs thats what were asking
its late on a friday mate calm doon
 
Erik Bo Selecta Anderson said:
The referee seen every single one of the Morelos ‘incidents’ as action was taken at the time. So why was the compliance officer even looking at them?? ...or am I misunderstanding something here?
Click to expand...
It's a very dangerous road they are on, If they are saying if a referee doesn't see an incident then they can step in, who exactly brings to their attention these incidents the referees miss. Somebody is giving them a heads up no doubt.

If they can also downgrade a red to a yellow and upgrade a yellow to a red there is no reason why they can't delete a yellow.
 
devilman said:
What's the point if they don't follow it. They still pick and choose,

As above - when are the scum being charged? There is no way on Earth they can escape it.
Click to expand...
It looks to me like that’s exactly what has happened. They would have been brought up on it by now. It’s an absolute circus with these people. Issuing clarification while fining one team and not even citing another for the same “ offence”. I hope Rangers aren’t taking this and are doing something about it in the background.
 
daven37 said:
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.
Click to expand...

We need to put a stop to this. I wonder what Stewart Robertson thinks about it.
 
Del said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s only the single most important and most asked question though.
 
I keep saying It, the scum shout louder and longer than we do so they get more notice.
Dignified silence is doing us no good.
Stevie and mark have tried to be suptle when they mention the way Alfredo gets treated but it will be ignored.
The 2 incidents against us, the broonaldo elbow and the handball in the area would have been the biggest talking points if it had been our players who did them.
 
theytriedtokillus said:
I keep saying It, the scum shout louder and longer than we do so they get more notice.
Dignified silence is doing us no good.
Stevie and mark have tried to be suptle when they mention the way Alfredo gets treated but it will be ignored.
The 2 incidents against us, the broonaldo elbow and the handball in the area would have been the biggest talking points if it had been our players who did them.
Click to expand...
Broon9's studs high follow-through on Candeias would have been a red if it had been a Rangers player committing it.
That is a stick on.
 
bilkobear said:
Broon9's studs high follow-through on Candeias would have been a red if it had been a Rangers player committing it.
That is a stick on.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this.

Swap Brown for Jack and Candeias for NaeNeck and it’s a red card and a public flogging all day long
 
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.

This part has to be a joke..

Independent experts?
Category 1 referees?
How can referees be up to date on the rules when the SFA are totally ignorant of them?

Do these people actually exist in Scotland?
 
That clearly states that the club can only appeal if it affects one of their own players.

So, the big question is, how does the mechanism above lead to Morelos being reviewed? There is no mechanism stated above.

The only clarity that statement introduces is that there is an undetermined route for citing players not appealed for their own club and that this is clearly not covered in their statement.

In summary: their statement to clarify their process ironically muddies the waters.
Classic SFA.

As a side note, I notice they don’t cover the selection process for the compliance officer which is currently running at an odds of 0.4% chance of their being 3 RCs selected in a row.

I guess at least those odds aren’t as long as Glasgow’s Lord Provost!
 
Virgil Hilts said:
Scott Brown elbow.
Click to expand...
Never shown once after the match, never brought up as a talking point by sky , BBC, or the media , if it was morelos, Jack or any of our players it would have been shown over and over again till the compliance officer became involved. I really dont understand why we haven't made more of this incident, it's a def ban for Brown if it had been dealt with properly.
 
Del said:
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.
Click to expand...

This all day long. I reckon that’s the biggest question we all want answered. Just exactly who, how and when is a decision made on the incidents to investigate?
 
They investigate what the BBC and other mhedia outlets highlight.

And some people want the BBC back at Ibrox!
 
Rangers raise a legitimate complaint that seems to have now been backed up by the ref himself, charged and fined.

Celtic have a whiny cry wank over a series of nothing incidents because they have a massive inferiority complex. They have a summit and clarification of the compliant officer role.

Scottish football’s corrupt alright.
 
Last edited:
EC54 said:
Never shown once after the match, never brought up as a talking point by sky , BBC, or the media , if it was morelos, Jack or any of our players it would have been shown over and over again till the compliance officer became involved. I really dont understand why we haven't made more of this incident, it's a def ban for Brown if it had been dealt with properly.
Click to expand...


IF our gaffer responds to any questions about Alfie’s crimes against hughmanity, his reply should be:

I’ll spend as much time talking about this as you lot spent writing about the elbow, tackle on Tav / stonewall penalty.

next question
 
daven37 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And still we, the supporters, have not heard from Willie Collum as to exactly why he booked Candeias and then sent him off. The report that it was because of "gestures" seemed to have come from unnamed sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top