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

25 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.

Only if you're using your very own definitions.  https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/grave defines "grave" as "very serious, important and worrying".

Given the potential effect of such an error on the mental wellbeing of someone unjustly accused in such a manner, it would seem considerably more than "only a game" to them, and may indeed result in death or injury. 

Do we need a 3 person panel to consider use of the word “grave”? Or can we just get this thread back on track please.

11 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Do we need a 3 person panel to consider use of the word “grave”? Or can we just get this thread back on track please.

Agreed. Fair enough. Though it's not a bad thing for posters to round on extreme pedantry. No need for it. 

Rumour is circulating that this time the appeal will not be heard by the Three Blind Mice!

17 minutes ago, Tree said:

Rumour is circulating that this time the appeal will not be heard by the Three Blind Mice!

The panel have decided to not be anonymous this time and one of the members has already denied his allegiance to a certain team from Glasgow. 

 

Bottom line is that the SFA realise that this one will not go away so have to save face, so have scapegoated. The card will be rescinded and James will be able to play in the final.

Indeed. But after all this, I can’t help feeling that there’s an increased chance that he’ll end up missing the final due to injury!  

16 hours ago, Yngwie said:

Indeed. But after all this, I can’t help feeling that there’s an increased chance that he’ll end up missing the final due to injury!  

I was going to post that but knew there would be another jolly Jonah in the wings !! 

On 2/22/2020 at 5:38 PM, Tree said:

Rumour is circulating that this time the appeal will not be heard by the Three Blind Mice!

Wonder how much they paid the one blind mouse to say she failed to correctly review the evidence. If you read this in a book you wouldn't believe it. The backlash has been so great they had to find a scapegoat at any cost to protect their own non credibility. They created this "cab-rank" of reviewers so that they had something to hide behind in the first place. It's what councils and politicians do, create a body like "the national park authority" to keep the heat off themselves from the riff raff and blame someone else when it all goes pear shaped.

...'she'

🙄

42 minutes ago, wynthank15 said:

Wonder how much they paid the one blind mouse to say she failed to correctly review the evidence.

Precisely zero I would think. The anonymous figure who fell on their anonymous sword and will never appear on the list for future anonymous panels will remain anonymous .... nothing to stop them from being selected for an anonymous role in future if no-one knows or admits to who they are. The whole thing stinks and needs to be reformed regardless of the fact that ICT will hopefully get the correct result here. 

Surely the three names of the decisionmakers must have been made public ?

10 minutes ago, Scotty said:

The anonymous figure who fell on their anonymous sword and will never appear on the list for future anonymous panels will remain anonymous...

Scary to think that this person could be called up for jury duty!

Do people really believe that there's someone who didn't look at all the evidence?

All seems a little too convenient a 'get out' for the SFA to cover up an error in a system which is not fit for purpose!

I personally don't think the panel need to be named...even if there really is one of them who's done what they are accused of...but whoever was there from the club will know who they are and given how far they went with the statement, if they felt they needed named I'm sure they would have named them.

Of course it's an excuse and attempted face saver. There also will probably be some feckin confidentiality clause. All that is frustrating me is that if someone did not follow the protocol then they should be named and shamed. And there again the actions of one individual should have "rubber stamped" by the SFA itself. I bet the next decision will ALL be out in the open ?

The problem is there was at least two on that panel who were incompetent and didn't review all the available evidence or were unprofessional and couldn't be bothered to take it seriously. But like CaleyD says it's all too convenient. I have a strong suspicion it was a on unofficial punishment from the SFA against Robbo as his comments didn't breach any rules and this was their way at putting little Inverness back in their place. How spectacularly did that backfire.

15 hours ago, CaleyD said:

Do people really believe that there's someone who didn't look at all the evidence?

All seems a little too convenient a 'get out' for the SFA to cover up an error in a system which is not fit for purpose!

I personally don't think the panel need to be named...even if there really is one of them who's done what they are accused of...but whoever was there from the club will know who they are and given how far they went with the statement, if they felt they needed named I'm sure they would have named them.

I don't believe there was anyone.  If it's all anonymous, then very few will know who was involved, and no-one outside the inner circle will know that no-one has been dropped from the panel.

However, you say "whoever was there from the club will know who they are".   Just for clarification, are you saying that ICT will know who the three on the panel were?   If so, the SFA will have to make sure not to use "the offender" on another ICT case.

The appeal I was present for had the 3 panel members sitting around the same table....so unless anything has changed, the club would have been sitting with them and/or they would have been on the screen (via video call).

14 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

The appeal I was present for had the 3 panel members sitting around the same table....so unless anything has changed, the club would have been sitting with them and/or they would have been on the screen (via video call).

BBC Scotland podcast had a representative from the SFA on and they said the three were not in the same room and did not consult each other they submitted their findings by webex. It also said that the fast track appeal does not allow clubs or player representatives to be present?.

As it was us raising the "complaint" and it was fast-tracked then I think it may be correct* that the club don't take part in the principal hearing....so it's possible that they won't know who the panel were.

However, the idea that the panel all joined a Webex conference and just sat saying nothing to each other is a bit ridiculous.

 

*By correct I mean in relation to the JP Protocols, not correct in terms of common sense.

38 minutes ago, MorayJaggie said:

BBC Scotland podcast had a representative from the SFA on and they said the three were not in the same room and did not consult each other they submitted their findings by webex. It also said that the fast track appeal does not allow clubs or player representatives to be present?.

He is a consultant to the SFA (Darryl Broadfoot). There was talk around the fact that, with an assumed 2-1 majority at the first appeal, there must be another tribunal member (apart from the one who fell on his/her sword) who must have determined it to be a dive ... and presumably remains in situe ... presumably without facing a sanction. Hope he or she is not in the re-run 😏 As Tom English put it "I wouldn't trust that person to make me a cup of tea". Surely an individual with that level of incompetence cannot continue in that role going forward. Some interesting remarks about whether the 2nd and 3rd persons were football people or not (which could throw up fresh controversies). DB gave the impression he was in the know about who they were, though given his role that wouldn't be a surprise I imagine.

Suffice to say the podcast is well worth a listen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p084mxzv

Edited February 25, 20206 yr by cif73

So basically the three people on the panel will never know who the other two were. But there simply has to be a lead - a Chairperson - surely it is their responsibility to ensure that due process is followed. This must be the Scottish version of VAR 🤣

18 minutes ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

So basically the three people on the panel will never know who the other two were. But there simply has to be a lead - a Chairperson - surely it is their responsibility to ensure that due process is followed. This must be the Scottish version of VAR 🤣

They didnt actually say that? 

One panel member always an ex ref for advice. 

1 hour ago, old caley girl said:

They didnt actually say that? 

One panel member always an ex ref for advice. 

They all need to go to Specsavers!

Any word on the new review date?

8 minutes ago, Robert said:

They all need to go to Specsavers!

Any word on the new review date?

The podcast hinted it would probably be this week sometime.