• Guest Signup

    You are welcome to browse most areas of our site as a guest but please register to view more and to be able to participate in forum discussions. 

  • tm4tj
    tm4tj

    Tora Tora Tora!

    Sign in to follow this  

    Anyone see a dive here. 

    I find it difficult to understand that the only people to see a dive were the referee and the three people who presided over the appeal which was unsurprisingly unsuccessful.

    Please add your comments which will give more power to the people over an archaic system which has more secrecy than the Freemasons.

    YOU DECIDE, NOT SOME FACELESS BEUROCRATS.......

    Sign in to follow this  


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    This is either incompetence, in which case the referee and the review panel should resign, or it is cheating and/or corruption and thats a lot more rotten. Either way, the simple fact is that the player will miss a cup final because of this. It may only be the Challenge Cup, but its still a national cup. He should not be penalised for some referees ego. Google this referee and you wont find much good about him in other games either ... seems he is crap wherever he blows his whistle. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Shocking. Action should be taken against this three man panel and the referee for sheer incompetence. As for Specsavers Sponsoring referees I would suggest giving them a miss.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Incidents happen in the blink of an eye and it is entirely understandable that referees will make incorrect decisions from time to time.  As a result, players who are innocent of wrong doing receive inappropriate sanctions.  It is these injustices which an appeals panel is there to set right.

    Unlike the referee, the appeal panel can view the incident in the knowledge that a contentious decision was made about it.  They can see the incident several times.  They can see the incident in slow-motion.  They can see the incident from different angles.  They can specifically look at different aspects of the incident on different viewings.  As a result, the appeal panel in the James Keatings appeal will have clearly seen that:-        a) the defender made no attempt to go for the ball,  b) the defender lent into Keatings and nudged him, and c) Keatings was put off balance by the contact.  

    It is inconceivable that anyone looking repeatedly at the footage can conclude that Keatings dived.  Yet this is the conclusion the panel apparently came to.  That a panel set up to correct obvious errors can themselves come to a decision which is so obviously wrong beggars belief and brings the SFA into disrepute. The SFA should now take the appropriate action both to reverse this injustice and to take steps to prevent them making a laughing stock of themselves again in the future.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    In a season that I have witnessed the continuing and repeated demise in the quality of our referees, the booking of Keatings was astoundingly inept.  The fact that the appeals panel of three "wise men", with the benefit of slow motion and replays fail to rectify this mistake is beyond belief. Unlike others I do not believe that this was bourne out of corruption or cheating, but simply incompetence on a wonderful/breath taking scale.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now