Leaderboard

He was only a few yards away, level with the players. If he didn't see contact then his guide dog should have barked.

Unlucky lads. We were well worth a draw, or even a win there. What a great game in atrocious conditions, and a good advert for Scottish football. I had a couple of calls at half time, from friends down here who were also watching it, and they were impressed. Normally my English friends here are pretty damning about the quality of Scottish football. Despite the defeat which might see us lose 2nd spot when Ayr next play, I am really encouraged with what I saw tonight. Once we settled down we had the measure of Utd for large portions of the game. If we can continue to play with that intensity, and skill, we should have no problem regaining, and holding on to 2nd.

Are we not sponsored by a law firm? Surely this would be good PR for them seeing to be fighting an injustice.

Apologies if someone has already suggested this but if Keatings does not get to play couldn't we all take big (like the size of cards we were given for the Scottish cup) red cards stating "show SFA the red card - Justice for Keatings" to the final. Name them and shame them. I'd be happy to chip in towards the costs.

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

For my mind, common sense needs to prevail. They need to reverse this farcical decision. Everyone can see it was wrong but the referee and these anonymous appeal 'judges' persist with the charade. Thats all about ego and having the strength to admit your mistakes! They need to make these tribunals transparent. If you are going to make a decision on someone's career, even if only for a game or two then they should have the stones to be visible and defend or explain their decision. IT should not be some anonymous conference call as has been alluded to. They need to be consistent and unbiased and apply the same logic to each case regardless of the teams involved. If there is a conflict of interest, or a pre-existing knowledge of a panel member's personal leanings they need to be excluded from the panel for that case to preserve their own, and the system's integrity.

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

Arrogance - yes beyond belief- sadly not

Indicating 'Did not go to Specsavers'

A lot is being made of the Rangers kid applauding the decision ... I see it a little differently (although I could be wrong). Look at the kid's face when the whistle is blown. He is thinking 'oh f***' and probably wondering if he is getting a card or if the ref maybe thinks its in the box and is going to give a penalty. The applause is a little self-serving i think and based on relief not on bad sportsmanship. However, knowing the player was going to get a red it may have been more sportsmanlike to say to the ref - 'i did catch him, but it was an accident' but lets face it, no player is going to do that these days. none. regardless of the strip they are wearing. Would be nice if Rangers could say something through the club to side with Keatings but again, cant see that happening. At best the ref is incompetent - something backed up if you search google for his name - but for the panel to uphold the original decision is not incompetent it is something far worse. Who is on these panels? Why cant we know who is on it? If you are going to make a decision that will deprive a player of appearing in a cup final at least have the f***ing balls to stand up and be counted and say why you came to that decision.

Normally our club statements leave me utterly mortified but tonights is outstanding. Utterly magnificent take down of the SFA.

To those thinking of boycotting please please think of the other players here! Boycotting wont make one scrap of a difference to the SFA. We dont get to many cup finals so lets get behind the boys and cheer them to a cup win. Leave the politics to the club who appear to be doing just fine re that.

Not at the game but going by the stats and TV evidence we ran them close

Nice to hear a very vocal support, outsinging the United support for most of the game.

Will this be on? Anyone going? I see Welsh is out injured (again). I wonder if Robbo will stick with his three man midfield. Ridgers Rooney Toshney McHattie Tremarco Carson Vincent Trafford Doran Storey Walsh

Long thread so forgive me if this has been mentioned already and I've missed it - does James Keatings not have a strong personal case to sue the disciplinary panel and referee for libel and slander seeing that they have publicly labelled him a cheat (simulator) by documented statement and spoken word?

What we really need is a big banner that reads "THIS IS NOT AN SFA COMPETITION - BOYCOTTING IT WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO THEM WHATSOEVER"

Cup final confirmed to be at McDiarmid. But as I've said on all my other social media, I don't plan on putting another penny in the pocket of a corrupt association that can't even realise what a foul is, until they admit they're wrong and overturn the ruling.

A bit in the Courier today said the club aren't planning on going to CAS just yet, leaving it as a last ditch effort if they can't get anything done about it, however, it would be preferable if we do, cos we're not the only team who's been screwed over by dodgy refereeing, but we're the ones who've made the most noise about it...

I think they Should sue to SFA for defamation as they have implied he's cheated to gain an advantage. If you are accused of simulating a foul then that can be construed to mean you tried to gain an advantage by deception and or cheating and that is not what keatings has done. It would be easy to get a physio or specialist in bio mechanics to analyse the video and prove from an expert medical point of view how the body reacts when it's hit at speed. Then go after them for the character assassination. The SFA really have opened up a can of worms over this and surely tunnocks are not liking the bad PR as it's their name in most of the stories.

Innocent question - I'm not in Scotland and I don't know the answer, so don't have a go at me for asking. But what does PFA Scotland do? Assuming that Keatings is a member, shouldn't they be offering advice and assistance? Or perhaps Keatings should be asking them for assistance.

It will be interesting to see what line the club takes after legal advice from a key sponsor. James has in effect been called a simulator by the referee and endorsed by the SFA (I await seeing the definition of simulation used by the Tribunal for judgement). So potentially there is a right to a legal remedy given no further right of appeal within the SFA 'rules' which are of course, not statute. Imagine the referee putting his case to a judge 'From where I stood in the gales and pouring rain, James dived into the penalty box without any contact from an opposing player which the SFA define as simulation and for which they require me to issue a yellow card. ' Judge 'Can I see the definition please?' SFA we use the word 8 times in our disciplinary protocol. We do not have a definition because everyone knows what it means. Imagine the counter case - Rangers player cited as a witness 'I attempted to obstruct James but in so doing in effect body checked him.' James then shows the judge the videos. Who in their right mind would accept the argument of the SFA ? Technically James might have a case for damages to his reputation. So far no one has brought such a case to my knowledge, but then none of us had heard of Jean Marc Bosman until his amazing legal breakthrough. I will leave that to the legal advisers.

Quality piece. A few bits that would be laugh out loud sarcasm if it wasn't so sad e.g. "The reaction from across Scottish football when the farcical ruling then landed said it all. It takes a lot to unite the polarised factions of our game, but hats off to the SFA. At times, they can bring the country together as a homogenous, scornful brotherhood." https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/18251477.graeme-mcgarry-dogs-street-can-see-sfa-reform-needed-james-keatings-farce/

If money was not a problem and the club's standing with the SFA was not at stake, then I am sure that there would be an interesting legal case about an anonymous disciplinary panel denying a professional the opportunity to practise his profession, especially in a national final. I don't see how it would be permitted under current good practice for employment, or even law. In fact, there could even be a human rights case there. It won't happen, though. Too much for ICT to lose, moneywise and in terms of relations with the SFA. The SFA would fight it with everything that they have, which is more than ICT has, sadly, because if they lost, then it would be open season on them - it would be anarchy.

I still cant believe that the ban hasn't been overturned by now, surely the Panel and the ref are the only people in the Scottish football heirarchy who believe the ban was justified. Someone must have the power and guts to speak up and do something about it............or are they all to ashamed they have let this happen. EDIT that should be too ashamed, ............ sorry I admit my mistakes

Yeah banners for the tv cameras and a pre match display a card on every seat.

Brechin @ 10

The majority of news stories now seem to be based on a few tweets. Not belittling the petition but the other day the P & J ran a story online about ICT fans fuming about the Scottish Cup Q/F kick off time and the article was just a couple of embedded tweets. Anything for clicks these days. ETA: 1.1 million views of the clip on the ICT Twitter feed now. Certainly get a load of exposure and making the SFA look like utter arses

I don't think the decision was a case of protecting the referee. I was interested to note that at the same appeals session, Hamilton's appeal against Jamie Hamilton's red card against Hearts was upheld. In that case I think the panel applied a bit of common sense, but it was a far less straightforward one than Keatings'. In Hamilton's case the ball clearly did hit his arm but it did not appear to be deliberate and the contact resulted in Hamilton having less control of the ball. Nevertheless, you can understand why the referee gave Hamilton a red card. One might argue the panel should not have upheld that appeal because it is perhaps not obvious that the referee made an error. That to me makes that decision to be a sensible common sense one. In the Keatings' case there surely is an obvious error. Dickson clearly makes no attempt to play the ball. He doesn't even have his eyes on the ball; he has his eyes on Keatings. You can see him lean into Keatings and give Keatings a nudge and you can see the impact of that nudge on Keatings. It is a clear and obvious foul. I also think it was clearly an intentional foul both because Dickson made no attempt to go for the ball and because he applauded the referee's decision. Had he realised he had been beaten to the ball and was genuinely trying to avoid the collision, he would not have done that knowing there actually was contact. Not only should the appeal panel have upheld the appeal, they should have referred Dickson to the Compliance Officer. This seems to me a clear case of the SFA punishing a player for the remarks the manager made. Yet again the SFA have demonstrated that their disciplinary processes are not fit for purpose.

I’ve watched the video clip dozens of times now, while it’s difficult to believe that the referee didn’t see any contact given his position, I have no way of knowing what he did see, so I won’t take issue with that. The review panel however - there is clear contact. Keatings doesn’t do anything to increase the likelihood of contact (i.e. doesn’t appear to change his line of running). The contact is sufficient to move Keatings sideways, and the Rangers player then staggers, like someone who has clattered into a moving object. He then holds his hands up the way defenders do when they foul someone but hope to get away with it. The applause at the the red card is just taking the pish. If that’s a dive, there are going to be a lot of yellows for simulation between now and the end of the season. At best (and I use the word loosely) the panel are backing the ref, at worst it’s because of what Robbo said. Either way, it stinks!

I have watched the clip about a hundred times just to see if there is anything I’m missing. But no. It’s just a totally baffling decision by ref, never mind the review panel. Even if the ‘panel’ had also thought it wasn’t a free kick (which it clearly was) was James Keatings’ actions really worthy of a yellow card? A yellow card!! Utterly shambolic decision. Fine And ban Robbo for his comments afterwards if you must. But Christ almighty, let a guy who has been fouled and wronged play in a cup final.

Even this long lapsed former contributor feels motivated to return briefly to respond, having belatedly watched the video after learning of the decision and reading Scott Gardiner’s excellent statement. A more obvious instance of a push than by the Rangers player is difficult to imagine, and how anyone outwith the Orange Lodge and capable of regarding that as a dive is allowed to referee at any level at all is one of life’s great mysteries. Then you have to start worrying very seriously about the competence of any governing body which can find not just one but three individuals gormless enough to agreewith this enormous howler. The next part of the narrative is more difficult to make stand up because it is easy to deny. However it is abundantly clear that the overwhelming presence of decisions of all kinds made by Scottish football’s governing bodies and favouring the Old Firm place that allegation well beyond doubt. Add in the frequency of complaints about referees and even take a chunk off to allow for managerial paranoia and the competence of Scottish officiating must be added to these charges of institutionalised Old Firm bias and governing body ineptitude. However I have a feeling that even something as outrageous as this will still be ignored by the Scottish football establishment which will carry on regardless as the game it is ruining continues to spiral into the ground.

I agree with all that's been said and sadly nothing will change What we now have to do is get right behind the team that plays in the final where ever it may be and help them bring the cup back to Inverness

Supporters Trust is right behind the club on this one. Well done to the Chairman and CEO for their courageous statement today!

Incredible to see the number of high profile (ex) players, pundits etc coming out to criticise this decision. The SFA have made themselves to be a total laughing stock with this decision but, as others have said, this has clearly been done to stick two fingers up at Robbo after what he said post match.

Tremendous statement from our Chairman and Chief Exec. Night and day when compared with the drivel spouted by our previous regime. Hardly worth commenting on the decision. Par for the course from the SFA but hats off to them for reaching a whole new level of incompetence and corruption.

Who ever drafted that official club statement spoke for us all and did so very eloquently. Very well said indeed.

Seek a Crowd fund for an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. How can a body check on a player be defined as a dive? SFA would say you have no right of appeal even if SFA ignored clear evidence. We need to see what the club say on the matter regarding an appeal to a higher court of appeal. Specsavers could suffer reputational damage if their sponsored referees actually see bodychecks as dives. If fact, Specsaver adverts are very funny and they might like to use the incident for their next advert to prevent reputational damage to themselves.