SPL appeals process

Earl of Leven

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
#1
Is it actually true that they can only look at certain angles and NOT any stills or slow mo replays?

That was on here and I laughed at the superb piss take but guy at football repeated it yesterday.

How can they seriously have a process whereby everyone in Scotland already knows Alfie didn't dive and it was a penalty, yet next day uphold his booking saying they can't use same pictures media, fans and club use?!?

How archaic is that?! Is it from Victorian era?
 
#3
Slow-mo's and stills can show an entirely different "picture" to real time, so i'd agree that that's not a valid way to prove/disprove incidents.
But if the evidence is there in plain sight, as with Alfie's and it's ignored, then it's nothing but negligence.
 
#5
The appeals panel will do and use anything they want that's suit their agenda of the day, nothing in Scottish football is a surprise, these people and rules ain't fit for purpose
 

Bigbluebear

Well-Known Member
#7
The appeals process is to decide if the ref made a clear and obvious error.

If it takes slow motion to prove its wrong then its not clear and obvious.

Designed to protect the refs
 

john307

Active Member
#9
Is the referee at the appeal. Was Clancy shown the tv footage. If Clancy saw it and still said Alfie dived then he is a cheat. The footage showed the players arm around Alfies neck. The 3 panel members stuck with him. That shows you what we are up against. VAR will make no difference if these are the people looking at it.
 

Spart7

Well-Known Member
#11
Is the referee at the appeal. Was Clancy shown the tv footage. If Clancy saw it and still said Alfie dived then he is a cheat. The footage showed the players arm around Alfies neck. The 3 panel members stuck with him. That shows you what we are up against. VAR will make no difference if these are the people looking at it.
To be overturned all 3 need to agree. I'd bet it was 2-1 in morelos's favour. Shambles tbh.
 

RenfrewBear72

Well-Known Member
#12
Process = rangers appeal or moan, fine and reject appeal, ceptic appeal or moan, hold a summit.

League is dead and only a complete overhaul from the outside will fix it.

By the way your understanding is correct, they only look at live video, not stills, so see when Morelos should’ve have a had a penalty and got booked for diving, the mong holding the camera pointed his camera through a guys legs so you could never tell what happened - the still images show a very different set of events.
 

bilkobear

Well-Known Member
#13
The appeals process is to decide if the ref made a clear and obvious error.

If it takes slow motion to prove its wrong then its not clear and obvious.

Designed to protect the refs
I don't think the issue here was the speed, surely it was always about the angle.
From behind the goal it becomes clear that Morelos was impeded and that he went down under heavy contact.

The irony is that Morelos was booked for a simulation that he never committed, whilst the referee found himself accosted by the Aberdeen goalkeeper and the perpetrator of the contact who then themselves both used bare-faced lies and actions of deception to assist the referee in making his mind up in order to compound the miscarriage of justice
Think about that for a moment?


noun: simulation; plural noun: simulations
  1. imitation of a situation or process.
    "simulation of blood flowing through arteries and veins"
    • the action of pretending; deception.
      "clever simulation that's good enough to trick you"
 

Govan36

Active Member
#14
Is it actually true that they can only look at certain angles and NOT any stills or slow mo replays?

That was on here and I laughed at the superb piss take but guy at football repeated it yesterday.

How can they seriously have a process whereby everyone in Scotland already knows Alfie didn't dive and it was a penalty, yet next day uphold his booking saying they can't use same pictures media, fans and club use?!?

How archaic is that?! Is it from Victorian era?
I've got an idea, why doen't the club issue a statement describing how the process works from the club's perspective.

They could begin by stating that after the Morelos appeal was rejected the club have had numerous questions from supporters about how the process works especially as many pundits agreed and most neutral observers would agree that Morelos was unfairly cautioned.

They could then describe the process starting with the panel of 3 which is selected from a group of 100.
"We, The Club, are not allowed to know who the 100 are or how they were selected and in fact what qualifications or experience they have to judge football matters"
A panel of 3 from the hundred is formed ( according to the BBC description they don't even meet but have a sort of "conferencr call " ) but The Club is not allowed to know who the 3 are. Nor are we allowed to discuss what sort of allegiances these 100 may have.

The statement could go on to explain what evidence is reviewed and what is "not admissible" ( I seem to remember a couple of years ago the incident with Andy Webster and John Hartson was not admissible because it was caught on the club's own video and didn't come from a broadcast partner "official" recording )

And so on, you get the gist of the idea, The Club could flesh it out a bit.

It could end with "In the interests of Sporting Integrity we should be told.
 
Top