DoofersDad

Yes - particularly the capitol - Itshandball

"Ross Counters Ross County Rumour" might have been a better headline.

This is the relevant section. 13.4.1 The Compliance Officer may refer the following matters to Fast Track Proceedings: 13.4.1.1 Alleged Sending-Off offences at a match (as defined in clause 1.3 of Annex C hereto) not seen by match officials, which are brought to the attention of the Compliance Officer by whatever means. What Lunny (and presumably the new CO) was arguing was that whilst the officials saw the incident, they failed to spot the offence. Had they seen the handball, Josh would have been sent off and therefore it was appropriate to issue a Notice of Complaint. For all the rubbish Lunny has been speaking, I feel he may have this correct. I can't see any clarification for interpreting this section but there has to be a distinction between the general incident and a specific offence within that incident. For instance, the referee in Celtic's match with Dundee Utd would have seen the incident when Brown and Ciftci went to ground when challenging for a ball, but would not have seen Ciftci's wee kick out at Brown. It must be correct to recognise such a difference so that one can deal with violent and dangerous play if the match officials have not spotted it. It seems to me that amid all the nonsense, Josh's appeal has been successful as a result of successfully challenging the one thing the SFA got right. Perhaps the panel felt this was the most pragmatic thing to do. Whether the SFA protocols make such a prosecution appropriate or not is by the way. The point is that no such prosecution has ever been brought anywhere in the world and it was simply wrong to do so in this situation. Throwing it out on procedural grounds allows the panel to tactfully avoid participation in a vindictive precedent and also to avoid any controversial discussion on whether or not the handball was deliberate. Throwing it out on procedural grounds will also force the SFA to review it's protocols. In my view the process is an important one in that it allows dangerous and violent actions missed by the match officials to be appropriately dealt with. The process should not be used in situations where the Compliance Officer simply thinks the ref got it wrong. In another post I suggested that the process could also be used to retrospectively deal with the curse of holding and shirt pulling. Much of this is off the ball and exceptionally difficult for the officials to spot. Perhaps there should be some clarification of the protocol to focus on dangerous "on-the-ball" offences the referee may have missed, together with "off-the-ball" red card offences. What we don't want is retrospective analysis of referees' performances and hearings based on what they might have missed. Referees have a very tough job and they will always make mistakes. Clubs need to take the rough with the smooth and allow the SFA to deal with poor referee performance internally. If the SFA could use the protocols to clamp down on dangerous play and off-the-ball cheating instead of criticising their own officials, then they just might start to be of some use to the game in Scotland.

SFA have just announced allocations. Falkirk get 51,800 seats and we get 200. They get the stands and we get the toilets.

You don't need any internet trawl to know that Lunny is a complete t*sser. BBC article here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32442417 He thinks the most likely reason Josh was successful was because the panel felt sympathetic or were confused. (I'm sure that will go down well with the panel.) The confusion element stems from the fact that whilst the officials may have seen the incident, they did not see the offence and therefore the panel may have wrongly thrown the case out because they thought that as the officials had seen the incident, it was not actually a matter for the panel. On the radio he said a 3rd option was that they did not see the handball as deliberate but that having seen the footage he would think that was the least likely explanation. He then goes on to defend the new Compliance Officer for bringing the case on the grounds that failing to do so would have set a dangerous precedent. No footballer anywhere in the world has ever been retrospectively punished by their FA for handball and yet Lunny thinks that not punishing Josh would be a dangerous precedent! And was he therefore not setting dangerous precedents week after week himself by failing to bring a single similar case to a tribunal when he was Compliance Officer? What planet is the guy living on? Justice has been done and now there is an urgent need for some serious review of the shambolic state of the SFA

Could be a Colombian

No mix up. It is the SNP candidates which are honking. Indeed it would seem that even the SNP agree with that assessment as they keep having to rely on someone who isn't even a candidate in this election. Well it's either that or have one who is presuming to make up Labour's budget for them. Well someone has to. Labour couldn't find their arse with their hands tied behind their back. If your hands were tied behind your back you wouldn't be able to find your arse either. But I am quite sure Salmond will help Milliband with a budget which will ruin the country so that he can then turn to the Scottish electorate to claim Scotland would better off on its own.

It is the SFA's Compliance Officer who should be looking at alternative career options.

Great news. But I note that the outcome was described as the case having been dismissed whereas when Ciftci's appeal was successful the outcome was not proven. Does this mean that the club's legal team argued successfully that the Notice of Complaint was not valid and therefore it was not actually put to a panel? Either way, in line with the culture of openness that the SFA claim they operate in, I guess we will never know why the case was brought in the first case or why it was subsequently dismissed. I also note that Barry Robson was unsuccessful in his appeal. I am really quite surprised at that but at least it means he won't be playing against us on Saturday

I'll not comment on the rest of your post but just this little contradiction above. If it wasn't deliberate then it should not have been a penalty. The laws of the game require the handball to be deliberate for it to be a foul. There is widespread confusion about this and we are even hearing loads of folk who are very experienced in the game accepting it was not deliberate but at the same time saying it should have been a penalty. Perhaps one good thing which might come out of this sorry episode is some better guidance for the interpretation of the law. IMHO more than half of all penalties given for handball are not deliberate and so we see defenders get punished for a ball hitting them in the arm at point blank range but not for wrapping their arms around an opponent to prevent them going for the ball. For the good of the game that needs to change.

Josh's culpability requires to be proved but not beyond reasonable doubt. He has not been charged with a criminal offence. Correct. If culpability is beyond resonable doubt then you get let off. This has been demonstrated by Ciftci's various appearences before the panels.

I think Celtic will have the title wrapped up before then which will take the edge off the game. I am sure that Deila would tell his players that any kind of retribution would be extremely bad both for the club and the player concerned. It will certainly be a very hostile reaction from the crowd which is one very good reason not to include inexperienced youngsters in the side. As for Josh himself, it may be that he picks up a slight niggle in training and is rested for the game. In any case, with Warren out of the final I am sure Yogi will want Devine getting some game time.

The SFA have succeeded in so far as they have turned this into a spat between the clubs, when really as a few have said, their whole objective has been to deflect anger and attention away from their own bungling referees and administrators. Deila has also said that he doesn't believe Josh handled the ball deliberately I hope that's the case, but it does beg the question of why Celtic wrote to the SFA to ask why a penalty was not awarded for deliberate handball when a much clearer penalty against Celtic was also not given.

No mix up. It is the SNP candidates which are honking. Indeed it would seem that even the SNP agree with that assessment as they keep having to rely on someone who isn't even a candidate in this election.

Looking at it again it is Warren who is best placed to stop it but it is also far from clear that the ball is goal bound. Both these factors sort of make whether it was deliberate handball or not irrelevant as the notice of complaint specifically refers to it being a deliberate handball denying a goal scoring opportunity. SFA therefore need to prove The handball was deliberate The ball was goal bound Warren was unlikely to have stopped it

Yup, I'm sure Shinnie could have stopped it with an outstretched arm

I think you can take Yogi's comments to mean that had the hand ball been given we would not have appealed a red card despite the fact that it was not deliberate. The fact is that handballs are routinely given in these sort of ball to hand situations and whether the decision was correct in terms of the letter of law it would have been accepted because we are reasonable people who accept the rough with the smooth.. But the SFA have moved the goals posts. They have now taken the unprecedented step of issuing a Notice of Complaint for handball. In these circumstances it is reasonable to insist that the case is judged against the letter of the law and not on the usually accepted and incorrect interpretation that referees often apply. I take it Yogi has not said anywhere that he thought Josh handled it deliberately?

That's not correct. The interpretation of the rule is not simply seeing the ball and putting your arm in the way, it is also placing your arm such that you widen your profile and make it more likely that the ball will hit your arm. There is no doubt that Josh is going for the ball with his head but the SFA could argue that he was also deliberately holding his hand in an unnatural position thereby increasing the chance of the ball hitting it. They would need to prove this and I don't think they can. Yes his hand was raised, but I would argue that is just a natural movement of the arm consistent with the rest of the body movement in trying to throw his body in front of the ball. I am not Dundee Utd's lawyer but I would have thought trying to prove intent was far more difficult in Josh's case than in that of Ciftci's off the ball assault on Garry Warren.

I've just had a wee trawl of the SFA website and have come across the Judicial Panel Protocol which is a 212 page document (I haven't read it all!). On page 9 section 9.4 it states "A Notice of Complaint may be initiated by the Compliance Officer in respect of an incident which would generally be the subject of a match official(s) report". There is nothing that I can see which restricts Notices to violent conduct and so the the alleged offence would appear to fall within the remit of the Compliance officer. However, the protocol then goes on to say on page 188 in an appendix section 2.1 on "Reporting of Offences by Match Officials" that "The referee shall administer cautions and sendings-off in accordance with the Laws of the Game and report them to the Scottish FA." Linking this with the section above would suggest that it is not just red card offences but also yellow card offences that the Compliance Officer is empowered to serve Notices of Complaint about. Appendix section 3 on page 191 then goes on to list cautionable offences and section B2 refers to "Dissent by words or action". Was it just me or did anyone else see a number of Celtic players demonstrate dissent at the referee's decision? So why have they not been issued with Notices of Complaint? Others have said that this opens up a can of worms and looking at this document makes clear just what an enormous can this could be. However, some good could come out of all of this. The extent of the powers to issue a Notice of Complaint clearly extends to issues which sully the reputation of the game - all this diving, shirt pulling and holding. These are all cautionable offences and if the SFA had any genuine wish to "protect the integrity and reputation of the game" then it is within their power to serve notice to clubs that the Compliance Officer will be looking for such incidents and will be serving Notices of Complaint when such offences are spotted. In the meantime, whilst it would appear that Josh's incident is an appropriate one to refer to a judicial panel, the fact that there is no precedent for referring such incidents is indicative of poor judgement and vindictiveness. The sensible course of action would be for the SFA to withdraw the Notice but give clubs due warning that next season they will use their powers more extensively. Until they do that it would be fair game for clubs to write to the SFA reporting every incident involving a Celtic player for which a caution should have been given within the laws of the game and request they apply their rules and issue a notice of complaint against the players concerned. If they can't exercise their powers fairly and consistently for the good of the game then others need to disrupt their activities until they get the message that they are ruining the game whose integrity and reputation they have a duty to uphold.

From the BBC website "Celtic - who later had goalkeeper Craig Gordon sent off by referee Steven McLean - wrote to the SFA to ask why Meekings was not dismissed and a penalty awarded. BBC Scotland understands that Celtic will receive a reply acknowledging that the match officials made a mistake." Does this mean they have already decided on the outcome of Thursday's hearing? Just when you think the SFA can't get any more incompetent they somehow manage to plumb even greater depths of ineptitude. This is actually also an unwarranted slur on their own officials. Even if a penalty offence was committed, if the positioning of the officials was such that they could not be certain that the offence was committed then they were quite correct not to award the penalty. There is a difference between not being in position to make the right decision and making a mistake.

If Nicola Sturgeon will pledge to nationalise the SFA I'll promise to vote SNP

Now that I have managed to stop the steam coming out of my ears I can actually write something. Yesterday on the match day thread (post 132) I argued that not to award a penalty was the correct decision for these reasons. "In the incident yesterday what is absolutely as clear as the fact that the ball struck Josh's hand, is the fact that Josh tried to get his head to the ball. Imagine yourself in the position that Josh was standing and imagine trying to head a ball going just below your right shoulder. Try the move yourself! As your head goes down your right arm naturally comes up. I think the ref got it spot on when you consider three crucial factors. 1. Josh was attempting to make contact with the ball with his head. 2. He was not holding his arm deliberately in a position which would make it more likely to block the ball. Instead, the position of his arm was a natural consequence of his genuine attempt to head the ball. 3. The closeness between Griffiths and Josh was such that Josh would have had no time to react to consciously withdraw his arm when he realised he would not make head contact with the ball. Indeed he probably wouldn't have realised that the ball was going to hit his hand until it actually struck. The only conclusion you can draw from these factors is that Josh did not deliberately handle the ball and therefore it was not a penalty." Apart from giving the referee credit for a good decision when he didn't actually see what happened, I think my points are valid. Others have made the good point that Josh couldn't possibly have reacted in time in response to Griffiths' header and pictures posted provide compelling evidence. However, if the case is heard the SFA will probably argue that Josh had moved his arm into an unnatural position and that the action of moving his arm started before the ball was struck in a deliberate attempt to increase the chance of the ball hitting him. That would be consistent with the concept of "unnatural position that McLean talks about in the clip Alex has posted above. This is why my 2nd point above is important. It seems to me absolutely beyond doubt that Josh was, as he says, just trying to get his body in the way. You can see how he lunges across with his right leg and dips his head towards where he expects the ball to go and as I say above, when you do that your right arm naturally comes up and in the circumstances it would be almost impossible to deliberately hold it down to minimise any chance of the ball striking it. The pictures seem to tell a story of a brave young man preparing to take a sore one in the face for his team. Instead, the SFA at Celtic's bidding are branding him a cheat and threatening a punishment in a completely unprecedented way. Yet again, the body that has responsibility for upholding the dignity of the game in Scotland drags the reputation of the game into the gutter. Credit to the club for a prompt and very strongly worded statement in support of Josh.

...but were they all on the same night?

I would hope there is a future for Nick at ICT. I have been one who has been a bit critical of him in the past but I think there has been a very significant improvement in his play in the last year. He has always been a player who has a great touch and rarely gives the ball away but in the past he has been rather weak in the challenge. That is the element to his game that has changed and he is now much more effective in putting pressure on opponents with the ball and nicking the ball off them. As a result, I think he is featuring more and more in Yogi's plans. We have depth in midfield players and whilst he may not be a first choice at the moment, he is improving all the time. He was the one sub used on Sunday and played very well. He certainly gave Scott Brown a run for his money. There is no reason why he shouldn't be able to feature more regularly in the first team next season and he would need to consider where he might fit in with other teams. If he wants to have more regular first team football then he would need a backward move to a team that is either in a lower division or perhaps the wrong end of the SPFL. If he were to stay here, continue to improve and establish a regular first team place, then he would be in a much better place to market himself to broaden his horizons if that's what he wants. If he was able to get regular first team football in Inverness I wonder if that would make him want to stay. I hope it would.

Probably just a reflection of the media central belt bias refering to a Falkirk v Inverness final. Just checked on the SFA site and as always there is SFA there to enlighten us.