WE ARE ALL WELL AWARE OF THE INJUSTICE TO JAMES KEATINGS ..A PETITION IS RUNNING AT (CHANGE.ORG) WE HAVE OVER 350 SIGNATURES IN ONE DAY ..SO COME ON 2 MINS TO SIGN .LETS SEE WHAT FAN POWER CAN ACHIEVE. THANK YOU

 

https://www.change.org/p/scottish-football-association-wrong-decision-made-by-ref-and-sfa-on-james-keatings-red-card-sign-petition-please

 

Edited February 21, 20206 yr by Scotty
edited to add link to petition

Signed yesterday and shared on loads of posts in twitter. Up to 384.

The SFA’s Ian Maxwell will be asked about this incident on Sportsound this afternoon. I don’t imagine he’ll be saying anything specific about it though. Apparently on Tuesday the reasoning behind the decision will become available. 
 

Edit- they’ve just updated to say it won’t happening - no doubt the SFA are too busy trying to work up a vaguely plausible justification for the decision. Good luck with that.

Richard Gordon believes the panel was an ex-ref and 2 non-football people, with the vote going 1-2.

Edited February 22, 20206 yr by Yngwie

BREAKING NEWS

***SFA are convening a new panel to review the appeal! ***

SFA to review the red card

There is a lengthy statement, but basically one of the panel members has admitted to not having carried out their duties by reaching a conclusion after reviewing the evidence presented. The member has stood down from being considered in future.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scottish-fa-statement-james-keatings/?rid=13929

I hope this is true and not just a rumour

 

There will be no whitewash, in the Whitehouse.

Sorry I was being a worry-guts.  Great news.  Surely now the red card will be rescinded.  If not, there will be certainly be more red faces at SFA. 

 

Take nothing for granted, it could very well be the one person who is rumoured to have sided with us that has been ditched....this is the SFA after all.

so the un-named and anonymous panel member has been forced to fall on their sword so the SFA can say the decision was invalid and reconsider. This un-named and anonymous panel member will no longer be a part of future panels with other un-named and anonymous members (yeah right!) ....  spin, whitewash and squirming to what is hopefully the correct result. 

If you happen to believe the SFA statement (and I take it with a full salt mine) .... If the function was simply to review video and decide if the card was merited, does them not fulfilling the duty mean they didn't watch the video in the conference call ? How else would you not fulfill the obligations of the panel ? 

Work not done though - these panels have to be reformed and made transparent. They cannot be anonymous and need to be able to explain their decisions . The comment earlier from Radio Scotland I think, that this panel apparently was made up of one ex-ref and two "non footballing" people beggars belief. Why are two non footballing people making a decision about the rules of football ? 

 

Scapegoat....

However if it get where we want to be then...

The right decision will be made in the end but only by the SFA throwing out it's own rulebook and not out of any sense of justice but only to bring the ridicule which they have rightly been subjected to to an end.

It's clear that the system needs to be reformed. There is no reason why written reasons for the decision can't be issued with 24 hours. Why give them effectively a full week to concoct something ?

Justice in the end but those charged with our national game are a national embarrassment. Actually, the way this was going viral, they were quickly becoming an international embarrassment.

Despite the volte face we still need to see in writing why two of the panel came to such an extraordinary conclusion in the first place.

Job only partly done.

Edited February 22, 20206 yr by Kingsmills

13 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Why are two non footballing people making a decision about the rules of football ? 

Because the panel do not "re-referee" the decision...that was a point that was established during the Josh Meekings case.

What they do is make a decision on whether the official has correctly applied the rules.  If the official, as they have here, says that even allowing for the contact they consider the player to have gone down easy and it was simulation then (as per the Meekings precedent) it's not for the panel to say if that was right/wrong.

I know that sounds absolutely ridiculous, and I am not saying it is right, but that is the system....and that is what needs changing.

Given the public outcry and the pressure on the SFA I think we'll find the card is rescinded...but that will be a decision taken without following the current system.  It will allow the SFA to make it go away, but it it will do nothing to prevent it happening again in future.

An apology to ictfc and Keatings should be made aswell as refunding the club the fee.

Spot on CaleyD. The system is obviously not fit for purpose but one assumes the clubs were aware of the system and agreed to it at some point. This should be the catalyst for change therefore.

However, with the referee still insisting he made the correct decision, s major problem still exists with poor quality refereeing. If Gregg Aitken genuinely believe he made the correct decision, heaven help us as more poor and incorrect decisions will be made and not always rectified as hopefully this one will be.

1 minute ago, Huisdean said:

 

However, with the referee still insisting he made the correct decision

According to a Radio Scotland, Aitken acknowledges his error.

3 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

According to a Radio Scotland, Aitken acknowledges his error.

Did they say when he came to this conclusion? 

This stinks a bit no?

SFA have got their lawyers involved to find a way to reopen the case due to this 'mistake' which has timeously come to light...

They have caved in to pressure, that is all, and likely they have fabricated a story to dig themselves out of the poop.

Edited February 22, 20206 yr by Satan
Added poop.

5 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

According to a Radio Scotland, Aitken acknowledges his error.

Robbo has hinted that Aitken did say as much. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/john-robertson-makes-james-keatings-21550325

As long as justice for James is achieved ... that's the main thing. 

The SFA is a complete shambles but at least they've opened the door to correcting a grave error (rather than shutting up shop in arrogant defiance). 

It seems strange that it's only the panel member who owned up that has got binned. The whole panel should have been relieved from duties. 

 

Edited February 22, 20206 yr by cif73

36 minutes ago, cif73 said:

As long as justice for James is achieved ... that's the main thing. 

The SFA is a complete shambles but at least they've opened the door to correcting a grave error (rather than shutting up shop in arrogant defiance). 

It seems strange that it's only the panel member who owned up that has got binned. The whole panel should have been relieved from duties. 

 

It was a very blatant and inexplicable error. Not sure I would describe it as 'grave' though. A grave error is one that might result in death or injury. Football, as important as it is, is after all only a game.

If the referee has acknowledged he is wrong - in the end - then fair enough but he too has been on the end of pressure to change his mind because - if the papers are to be believed - he maintained his position until after the outcry at the review panel decision had gathered speed. I actually feel for referees who are on a hiding to nothing during a game. In many cases they are unsighted, or the action is moving too quickly for them to get everything right but they are expected, without technology, to come to the same conclusion as we do or as commentators do when watching on TV or from a far better vantage point. That's why we got VAR and that's why it can work well when the referee sees it as a valuable tool. 

MLS referees are the same as Scottish referees and no doubt countless other countries. We have good ones, we have bad ones, we have ones who admit mistakes and still others who cling onto the belief they can do nothing wrong as they are in charge. We have those who let the game flow and those who want to make it all about them. MLS implemented VAR 3 years ago now I think and for the most part it seems to work well. It is used not for every decision but for 'game-changing' events such as goals, penalties, offsides, red card offenses, or where the 5th official (VAR referee) has indicated something within criteria may need to be looked at.  When it works well, and the ref uses it as a useful tool to help him officiate then VAR has seen consistent results, but when you get a ref similar to Aitken then its only as good a tool as the tool using it ! 

What MLS also does well is to routinely review controversial plays over the next week with its disciplinary committee and hand out fines or additional game bans as well as reducing punishments. This is not a specially convened comitte, it just quietly goes about its business getting stuff done. It publishes the name of the chairman and some members, it routinely posts decisions on the league site and on its twitter feed and does Q&A sessions often .... the SFA could learn a lot from them ! : https://www.mlssoccer.com/league/official-rules/mls-disciplinary-committee-principles-and-parameters

 

 

6 minutes ago, Kingsmills said:

It was a very blatant and inexplicable error. Not sure I would describe it as 'grave' though. A grave error is one that might result in death or injury. Football, as important as it is, is after all only a game.

We had a player who was described by a board member as distraught after the game. That was before the original appeal was heard ... while there was hope of a reprieve (right word? ... I'm sure you'll set me straight). James came to our club having previously been open about difficulties with depression. In effect, he was being labelled as a cheat completely unjustly. He was set to miss out on a final. They don't come around every week. The dictionary definition of grave in this context includes "serious", no mention of life or death. 

Is your pedantry really required? 

Kingsmills is king of the pedants, but don't expect him to admit he's wrong. More likely to make a big announcement about leaving the forum before making more comebacks than Phil Mitchell in Eastenders.