Of course its re-refereeing the games. Which is what should happen

Unless you think wrong decisions should just stand

comment by Joe-ny Stokes is my da (U15888)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Joe-ny Stokes is my da (U15888)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
I've no issue with the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the process?

How do they select which incidents to review? They clearly don't review every game.

So how do they choose which games and which incidents to review?

I genuinely have no idea what the process is for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the moment I don't even think we know who at the SFA is doing the process either
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly 'the disciplinary team' at the SFA do it then pass to the CO who is now a floating member of an independent legal firm. As I understand!

However, if your defence is 'somebody else did it and never got cited' you're probably on a shaky peg from the start? But that's why the SFA ought to be doing a better PR effort in explaining why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think there are multiple questions that have to be asked.

I am not sure Rangers will go to the SFA and say MacGregor unintentionally stamped on Kamara therefor Roofe should be allowed to unintentionally stamp on Davidson.

But in general terms it is a legitimate question to ask why the two are treated differently.

You talked about a 'process'.

I genuinely havent seen any evidence of a process which explains which games are analysed and which incidents - then the process for selecting the ones which result in charges.

I said it before - there seemed to be a pretty unanimous agreement that Devante Cole dodged a red card against celtic.

Which aspect of the 'process' resulted in no action being taken against him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the referee said he saw the whole incident..

As i said in my previous comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So what did the referee book Roofe for in the first place?

He had a great view of it.

There was only one single motion and one moment where he caught the boy.

What else was there for him to see?

Did he just guess when he booked him?

How do we even know that the Roofe citation is as a result of the ref deciding he never saw the whole incident?

It might just be that the compliance officer takes a different view of it and the ex refs that review it might agree.

In which case we are simply into having a second go at refereeing the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you never saw an incident that you were sure was a yellow then when you actually seen it you realised it was a red
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not a professional referee.

In the Roofe incident I am struggling to see how a referee who had a great view of an incident deemed it worthy of a yellow then decided he never saw the whole thing.

It wasa pretty straightforward incident. Tried to plant his foot behind the ball and planted it in Davidsons leg instead.

The question still stands - what did he think he saw that was so different?

What was Roofe booked for initially?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you never saw an incident that you were sure was a yellow then when you actually seen it you realised it was a red
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't that re refereeing?

Unless we receivew every yellow card then it's really not fair

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Joe-ny Stokes is my da (U15888)
posted 4 minutes ago
Of course its re-refereeing the games. Which is what should happen

Unless you think wrong decisions should just stand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do it with every game and incident then

comment by Joe-ny Stokes is my da (U15888)
posted 1 minute ago
Of course its re-refereeing the games. Which is what should happen

Unless you think wrong decisions should just stand
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So do you think all games should be re-refereed in their entirety after the fact by different individuals?

I think plenty of wrong decisions stand all the time. Its part of the game.

Throw ins given the wrong way, free kicks wrongly awarded, corners given instead go goal kicks. Happens all the time.

Its where you draw the line thats the question.

Diving for penalties, off the ball incidents, tackles that the ref completely missed and didnt give any punishment - sure - address them after the fact.

But tackles that the ref had a great view of and took what he thought was appropriate action at the time - its a dangerous road to go down.

comment by Miller (U9310)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Joe-ny Stokes is my da (U15888)
posted 4 minutes ago
Of course its re-refereeing the games. Which is what should happen

Unless you think wrong decisions should just stand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do it with every game and incident then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s called VAR

VAR i'd be fine with. It would at least be applied in every game

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

So do you think all games should be re-refereed in their entirety after the fact by different individuals?

For what its worth and if we could afford it i wouldnt be entirely against every game being re watched by say the 4th official or another ref (perhaps even let the actual ref acknowledge too after watching the game) and things being called out that way.

How practical or costly it would be I don't know but you would expect it to be fair and consistent.

What we have now is not

You can have clear sight of an incident and never see the whole of it. That’s the marvel of 16 cameras, repeats and slo-mo - they get closer to that experience. So a ref never really sees the whole of anything. Thankfully, they don’t have to for the vast majority of cases.

comment by Zachsda( it’s 55, fifty five, LV.cinquante-cinq) (U1850)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Miller (U9310)
posted 4 seconds ago
VAR i'd be fine with. It would at least be applied in every game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fook naw
It’s killed the joy of the moment

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that not why folk film themselves pumping?

But tackles that the ref had a great view of and took what he thought was appropriate action at the time - its a dangerous road to go down.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And if they are saying that the ref did have a view of the whole incident and his judgement didnt meet with the expectations of the governing body then action needs to be taken with that ref.

Its one thing to say a refs view was physically impaired (which it wasnt in Roofes case) and its another to say they saw it all and were unable to process all of the information in time to allow them to be able to make the right decision.

Well I am sorry - that is part of the skill of being a good professional referee.

If you are saying you cant have a great view of an incident and make the right decisions then you are in the wrong game.

Whether it is demotion down the leagues or missing games for a period of retraining - some action must be taken against that ref.

Its not productive if they say after the fact that 'these three referees have looked at this and agree you didnt do your job right' without addressing both issues.

Suspend the player and take some sort of action with the ref who got it wrong.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Better tell all those rich leagues with full time refs leveraging var that they’re conning everyone then?

Suspend the player and take some sort of action with the ref who got it wrong.

Ha. We'd have none left after 4 weeks

Like the days when the opposition star play under 12s Dad plays linesman and you're offside in your own half

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Miller (U9310)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Joe-ny Stokes is my da (U15888)
posted 4 minutes ago
Of course its re-refereeing the games. Which is what should happen

Unless you think wrong decisions should just stand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do it with every game and incident then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s called VAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you on VAR too, I like it and if done right can actually add excitement to the game.

They have made a mess of it in England though.

The fact the main argument against VAR is cost though is embarrassing in itself though.

If Morocco, Malta, egypt, peru, poland and many more can afford it then we need to have a look at how we are running the game

comment by Zachsda( it’s 55, fifty five, LV.cinquante-cinq) (U1850)
posted 1 minute ago
Ffs the thing we all miss most is the spontaneity of being there
Let’s take that away cos some coont was the length of ma boaby offside
Just play fifa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No if your boaby has been all over the controller.

comment by Miller (U9310)
posted 35 seconds ago
Suspend the player and take some sort of action with the ref who got it wrong.

Ha. We'd have none left after 4 weeks

Like the days when the opposition star play under 12s Dad plays linesman and you're offside in your own half
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s a long time to hold a grudge, mate

Haha. Aye I'll take it to the grave

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
You can have clear sight of an incident and never see the whole of it. That’s the marvel of 16 cameras, repeats and slo-mo - they get closer to that experience. So a ref never really sees the whole of anything. Thankfully, they don’t have to for the vast majority of cases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Roofes incident was a very straightforward one though.

That is the issue I would have here. What did the ref book him for - what did he think he saw versus what is he being charged with now.

I understand it can get complicated if there a bit of a crowd or a tangle of legs.

Roofe planted his foot down to the ground but Davidson got there first and he accidentally stamped on him.

I think the ref was being pragmatic giving a yellow card. It was accidental, these things happen.

Yes it looks worse in stills and slow motion and yes another ref would most likely have taken a different view on the day.

But you have to think the ref saw it all or he wouldnt have booked him.

I think for whatever reason - maybe media outcry - the compliance officer has been compelled to simply take a different decision with pretty much the same information about the incident that the ref had.

and that's where we undoubtedly are Hamish the number of replays on sportscene clearly seems to dictate the process

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Roofes incident was a very straightforward one though.
——

The evidence suggests otherwise.