the whole thing is a mess and completely inconsistent.
How the same panel could rule differently on the Morelos and McGregor incidents is difficult to understand, although I suppose we probably don't even know if it was the same panel.
Do we even know who is referring them to the panel in the absence of a compliance office? Is it someone at the SFA? Is it Harper MacCleod?
The whole thing is a mess and its all over the place to the point where it probably needs a clean slate or at the very least complete open transparency to the process from start to finish
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
If our matchday officials were even nearly competent we wouldn't have the problem.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
So does anyone know if the 'intent' thing is a load of pash?
Is a lot of this down to folk deciding whether someone meant something or not?
If folk are going to get cited every time someone accidentally catches someone then they are basically pushing the game towards being non contact.
I said a wee while ago I watched an old Leeds vs Liverpool game on Sky. It was fanstastic to watch - so much better than the stop start sterile pash that gets offered up these days.
Under current rules Lee Bowyer would have been sent off about three times in the first 20 minutes!
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Zachsda( it’s 55, fifty five, LV.cinquante-cinq) (U1850)
posted 1 minute ago
If folk are going to get cited every time someone accidentally catches someone then they are basically pushing the game towards being non contact.
It’s morphed into re-refereeing games
I thought the idea was to catch off the ball incidents
It’s Aldi VAR atm without any clarity(as far as I can see) on what or who decides what and why an incident is cited
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The re-refereeing of games is a different issue but also one that boils my beans.
The ref had a great view of the Roofe incident and gave him a yellow - presumably because he thought there was no malice in it and he accidentally caught the boy.
And then he get cited.
Have other people now decided that Roofe meant to injure the player? Have they looked at the stills and the various replays and decided it was worse than initially thought?
As you say its essentially like VAR after the fact.
And do they do this for every incident and every game?
Will there be action taken against the ref who is now deemed to have got it wrong first time out - despite footage showing he had a great view of the incident?
Its crazy.
They should just let Jonathan Sutherland, Steven Thompson and Michael Stewart decide the punishments on the Saturday night. That way we all know what's happening straight away rather than having to wait until Monday.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 12 minutes ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in the game earlier in the season he did one just as bad if not worse to Roofe. Nowhere near the same outcry, cause he's not that type of player.
By that I think they mean white and Scottish.
Even if they kept the broken system what would maybe be useful is the following.
The full list of incidents looked at by the compliance officer is published with a description of why it was selected for review, why they decided it would be put to the panel.
The panel then clearly explain why they give the sanction
The panel itself could also benefit from being consistent, maybe actually select the 3 man panel at the start of the season and keep it for the full season with a 4th ref that could replace if it's one of their matches or cover for abscence etc
Shocker of a challenge and you can try and dress it up any way you want. As such, the compliance officer should be asked to review the incident.
I do however completely understand the lack of consistency which in itself is the only consistent factor we've ever had in the way our games are officiated,
comment by Zachsda( it’s 55, fifty five, LV.cinquante-cinq) (U1850)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 31 seconds ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s one step away from fining SSB and saying
“If he pyoor done that in the St he’d be lifted for assault”
Known in legal circles as the idiot hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't mean youze wouldn't be screaming for Davidson to be cited. If he'd done that to a Celtic player I'd want him banned.
Aye and Scott Brown too.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
Cheers for the recap on the thread mate
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 24 seconds ago
Cheers for the recap on the thread mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologies
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 12 minutes ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that an informed medical opinion?
Because he seemed fine when he got up and played on.
It looked bad. The reality is it is impossible to tell how bad it 'nearly' was.
Its not really the point though. My questions were around intent and whether or not that is important.
I dont think it was reckless from a Ryan Porteous or Curtis Main point of view. They throw in OTT challenges that eventually will hurt someone.
In Roofes case he performed a movement that has been effective with gaining control of the ball and protecting it. And on this occasion Davidson got there slightly ahead of him and so he caught him.
I am not arguing that he could easily have been sent off.
I just think the rules around intent have been completely lost.
And I agree that there seems to be re-refereeing of certain games and certain incidents.
Fine if the ref never saw a dive and gave a penalty.
Fine if someone throws an elbow off the ball and the ref never saw it.
But the ref had a great view of Roofes challenge and deemed it a yellow. So why is he being offered a ban?
Because several pundits and fans (including myself) have said it could easily have been a red? Because still images and multi angle replays dont look great?
Thats all well and good but if thats how we are going to run the game for every booking, for every penalty shout, for every possibly contentious issue then the games a bogie.
And its even worse if we are only doing it for certain games, certain teams or certain players - because it seems rampantly inconsistent.
I never saw the incident at the Weekend with Cole of Motherwell. But I heard several pundits saying it was a clear red and they expected action from the compliance officer.
Yet not a peep.........
The use of the word "intent" is and can be misleading I believe.
How does one prove "intent"? Nobody but the player himself knows so it's by its nature purely subjective.
Did player A decide he wanted to break player's B leg? I would doubt it on every occasion where that was the outcome.
Did Player A want to hurt his opponent? Maybe, but to what degree? let him know he was there? A bit of a "take that" for an unfair challenge previously? Trying to stamp his authority in the game and get his team mates up for the fight? Could be any of those or none at all.
Player A puts Player B out of the game by a completely unintentional consequence of trying to get the ball? Who knows?
It's got to come down to whether the beaks believe it too forceful, dangerous to the extent it could cause severe injury, out of control or the like. fwiw I think Roofe's challenge is the second one there. He only intended to get the ball but his momentum and force could have easily resulted in a bad injury by endangerment.
But proving intent? Nah. Not for me.
The use of the word "intent" is and can be misleading I believe.
How does one prove "intent"? Nobody but the player himself knows so it's by its nature purely subjective.
_____________________________-
100% correct
I am not arguing that he could easily have been sent off
===
Really..?
Just set up a pay to text system for nominating who gets cited. It'll be daft still but make a few coins.
Sign in if you want to comment
Compliance Officer/Rules
Page 1 of 5
posted on 10/2/21
the whole thing is a mess and completely inconsistent.
How the same panel could rule differently on the Morelos and McGregor incidents is difficult to understand, although I suppose we probably don't even know if it was the same panel.
Do we even know who is referring them to the panel in the absence of a compliance office? Is it someone at the SFA? Is it Harper MacCleod?
The whole thing is a mess and its all over the place to the point where it probably needs a clean slate or at the very least complete open transparency to the process from start to finish
posted on 10/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/21
If our matchday officials were even nearly competent we wouldn't have the problem.
posted on 10/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/21
So does anyone know if the 'intent' thing is a load of pash?
Is a lot of this down to folk deciding whether someone meant something or not?
If folk are going to get cited every time someone accidentally catches someone then they are basically pushing the game towards being non contact.
I said a wee while ago I watched an old Leeds vs Liverpool game on Sky. It was fanstastic to watch - so much better than the stop start sterile pash that gets offered up these days.
Under current rules Lee Bowyer would have been sent off about three times in the first 20 minutes!
posted on 10/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Zachsda( it’s 55, fifty five, LV.cinquante-cinq) (U1850)
posted 1 minute ago
If folk are going to get cited every time someone accidentally catches someone then they are basically pushing the game towards being non contact.
It’s morphed into re-refereeing games
I thought the idea was to catch off the ball incidents
It’s Aldi VAR atm without any clarity(as far as I can see) on what or who decides what and why an incident is cited
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The re-refereeing of games is a different issue but also one that boils my beans.
The ref had a great view of the Roofe incident and gave him a yellow - presumably because he thought there was no malice in it and he accidentally caught the boy.
And then he get cited.
Have other people now decided that Roofe meant to injure the player? Have they looked at the stills and the various replays and decided it was worse than initially thought?
As you say its essentially like VAR after the fact.
And do they do this for every incident and every game?
Will there be action taken against the ref who is now deemed to have got it wrong first time out - despite footage showing he had a great view of the incident?
Its crazy.
posted on 10/2/21
They should just let Jonathan Sutherland, Steven Thompson and Michael Stewart decide the punishments on the Saturday night. That way we all know what's happening straight away rather than having to wait until Monday.
posted on 10/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/21
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
posted on 10/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 12 minutes ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well in the game earlier in the season he did one just as bad if not worse to Roofe. Nowhere near the same outcry, cause he's not that type of player.
By that I think they mean white and Scottish.
posted on 10/2/21
Even if they kept the broken system what would maybe be useful is the following.
The full list of incidents looked at by the compliance officer is published with a description of why it was selected for review, why they decided it would be put to the panel.
The panel then clearly explain why they give the sanction
The panel itself could also benefit from being consistent, maybe actually select the 3 man panel at the start of the season and keep it for the full season with a 4th ref that could replace if it's one of their matches or cover for abscence etc
posted on 10/2/21
Shocker of a challenge and you can try and dress it up any way you want. As such, the compliance officer should be asked to review the incident.
I do however completely understand the lack of consistency which in itself is the only consistent factor we've ever had in the way our games are officiated,
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Zachsda( it’s 55, fifty five, LV.cinquante-cinq) (U1850)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 31 seconds ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
If he'd done that to Roofe youse would be screaming to get him jailed and quite righlty so.
Football and fans eh..?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s one step away from fining SSB and saying
“If he pyoor done that in the St he’d be lifted for assault”
Known in legal circles as the idiot hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't mean youze wouldn't be screaming for Davidson to be cited. If he'd done that to a Celtic player I'd want him banned.
Aye and Scott Brown too.
posted on 10/2/21
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 10/2/21
Cheers for the recap on the thread mate
posted on 10/2/21
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 24 seconds ago
Cheers for the recap on the thread mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologies
posted on 10/2/21
comment by Zico - Sharkhead Home of the Champions (U21900)
posted 12 minutes ago
Murray Davidson is lucky he's not got a broken leg.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that an informed medical opinion?
Because he seemed fine when he got up and played on.
It looked bad. The reality is it is impossible to tell how bad it 'nearly' was.
Its not really the point though. My questions were around intent and whether or not that is important.
I dont think it was reckless from a Ryan Porteous or Curtis Main point of view. They throw in OTT challenges that eventually will hurt someone.
In Roofes case he performed a movement that has been effective with gaining control of the ball and protecting it. And on this occasion Davidson got there slightly ahead of him and so he caught him.
I am not arguing that he could easily have been sent off.
I just think the rules around intent have been completely lost.
And I agree that there seems to be re-refereeing of certain games and certain incidents.
Fine if the ref never saw a dive and gave a penalty.
Fine if someone throws an elbow off the ball and the ref never saw it.
But the ref had a great view of Roofes challenge and deemed it a yellow. So why is he being offered a ban?
Because several pundits and fans (including myself) have said it could easily have been a red? Because still images and multi angle replays dont look great?
Thats all well and good but if thats how we are going to run the game for every booking, for every penalty shout, for every possibly contentious issue then the games a bogie.
And its even worse if we are only doing it for certain games, certain teams or certain players - because it seems rampantly inconsistent.
I never saw the incident at the Weekend with Cole of Motherwell. But I heard several pundits saying it was a clear red and they expected action from the compliance officer.
Yet not a peep.........
posted on 10/2/21
Better?
posted on 10/2/21
The use of the word "intent" is and can be misleading I believe.
How does one prove "intent"? Nobody but the player himself knows so it's by its nature purely subjective.
Did player A decide he wanted to break player's B leg? I would doubt it on every occasion where that was the outcome.
Did Player A want to hurt his opponent? Maybe, but to what degree? let him know he was there? A bit of a "take that" for an unfair challenge previously? Trying to stamp his authority in the game and get his team mates up for the fight? Could be any of those or none at all.
Player A puts Player B out of the game by a completely unintentional consequence of trying to get the ball? Who knows?
It's got to come down to whether the beaks believe it too forceful, dangerous to the extent it could cause severe injury, out of control or the like. fwiw I think Roofe's challenge is the second one there. He only intended to get the ball but his momentum and force could have easily resulted in a bad injury by endangerment.
But proving intent? Nah. Not for me.
posted on 10/2/21
The use of the word "intent" is and can be misleading I believe.
How does one prove "intent"? Nobody but the player himself knows so it's by its nature purely subjective.
_____________________________-
100% correct
posted on 10/2/21
I am not arguing that he could easily have been sent off
===
Really..?
posted on 10/2/21
Just set up a pay to text system for nominating who gets cited. It'll be daft still but make a few coins.
posted on 10/2/21
P.s Hedera Hashgraph
Page 1 of 5