Jump to content

Compliance Officer / Justice for Meekings


RossP

Recommended Posts

If the outcome is in our favour, we should make Josh captain in the final. Imagine how many TV screens would be kicked in in the East end of Glasgow as TV shows him leading the boys out.

There'll be riots if he then goes on to lift the trophy!!

 

Or, make him captain in the last league game at Celtic Park.  That will really get them going!

 

Mind you, there will be precious few ICT fans there to watch the fun.  I can't imagine, after the way Celtic have acted, that many of us will darken their door again.

Edited by Caley Mad In Berks
  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am (naively) assuming that the compliance officer only gets involved if the incident does not appear in the ref's report and is therefore deemed to have been missed by the officials at the time. This is the only way the SFA/officials' stories can stack up. So, McLean and Muir will presumably say that their views were obscured and Muir will have to stick to his alleged story that he thought it hit Josh's face/head.

 

The case for the defence therfore has to centre on the deliberate nature of the action. The close proximity is one aspect; the other is  the head movement towards the ball, the eyes closed expecting impact, which clearly point to an attempt by Josh to head it. To deliberately handle it, he'd need to be looking at the ffffing thing! You could even argue that Muir's misconception that it hit Josh's head was driven by the player's movement with that intent.

 

The Mail's poll is 75% in favour of the charge being dropped.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Muir thinks it hit Josh's face, then he can't claim he didn't see it. He may not have seen it correctly, but if he told the ref it hit Josh's head then surely the incident should be considered dealt with, and therefore outwith the compliance officer's jurisdiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised by Yogi's comments that Celtic were right to complain 

 

Caley boss John Hughes refused to be drawn on the ban but admitted Celtic were RIGHT to complain.

He said: “I’m 100 per cent behind Celtic. Unfortunately it’s the referee that gets it.

“It was a penalty and a sending-off. It would have been 2-0 and game over but I’m 100 per cent convinced that it was an honest mistake by the official

post-25-0-75404000-1429698951.jpg

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Muir thinks it hit Josh's face, then he can't claim he didn't see it. He may not have seen it correctly, but if he told the ref it hit Josh's head then surely the incident should be considered dealt with, and therefore outwith the compliance officer's jurisdiction.

 

 

....you would think!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So John Collins states as a matter of fact that ICT would have lost being behind and down to ten men.

 

Will someone please send him a DVD of last season's League Cup semi. We are quite capable of winning semi finals whilst down to NINE men and behind and whilst playing in our opponents back yard.

 

What turned the match on Sunday was not one refereeing decision but the hard work, passion and skill of the ICT players especially in the second half and extra time.

  • Agree 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So John Collins states as a matter of fact that ICT would have lost being behind and down to ten men.

 

Will someone please send him a DVD of last season's League Cup semi. We are quite capable of winning semi finals whilst down to NINE men and behind and whilst playing in our opponents back yard.

 

What turned the match on Sunday was not one refereeing decision but the hard work, passion and skill of the ICT players especially in the second half and extra time.

 

....and a terrible decision by Gordon to race off his line and bring down Watkins, not to mention the tactical car-crash that was Ronnie Delilah taking off Forrest instead of Commons for Gordon! They need to look closer to home for reasons that they lost.

  • Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Muir thinks it hit Josh's face, then he can't claim he didn't see it. He may not have seen it correctly, but if he told the ref it hit Josh's head then surely the incident should be considered dealt with, and therefore outwith the compliance officer's jurisdiction.

 

I was thinking that was the case as well, but here is the response from one of the Terrace Podcast guys...

 

"I think that comes under the 'didn't see it' aspect. I think it extends to interpreted wrong."

 

"that's why Jason Talbot was cited for Nicholson (kicked in head) challenge. Ref booked him at the time, but didn't said he didn't realise severity"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 To deliberately handle it, he'd need to be looking at the ffffing thing!

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.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sick to the back teeth of this. Penalty kicks decide games week in, week out and I would take it that the compliance officer will be required to review all such kicks from here on in. The sheer spinelessness of the SFA in this is breathtaking - to respond to an avalanche of criticism that has varied from the measured to the ridiculous by hanging out their officials and a player to dry because they are unable to stand up and follow the spirit of the rules that has always been in place is astounding. The referee is the "sole arbiter of fact" in the rules of the game. His decisions are final. it doesn't matter what you, me, Yogi or Deila think - the referee decides fact. That is the law of the game. This decision relegates referees to being no more than technical advisers to the compliance officer and his panel, who sit extrajudicially and in complete anonymity and therefore open to question. By reason of having this complaint referred to the panel, the compliance officers employers have shown themselves to be complicit in an unprecidented interference in the outcome of a game and for what? Because a big club from their powerbase in Glasgow was beaten by a team who played better on the day, scored more goals and were tactically better. And the best they could muster? wheedling and entitlement ridden complaints of masonic interference, religiously motivated chichanery and a psychotically delusional paranoia about some nebulous "establishment" You couldn't make it up, except that someone has.

My club has been in the senior leagues for 21 years and is third in the premiership and in a cup final. The SFA can't (despite continually trying) change that. By all means give us kick off times that our fans can't get to year after year. Give us as many fixtures as you can before major finals. Ignore our matches and don't attend them, and snub our players for international recognition. We will simply keep going.

There are implications, apart from the compliance officer ones. How can Josh Meekings be selected for games this weekend (he's in no fit state to play) or on the final day of the season at Parkhead? Is there a case for ICTFC to take legal action against the SFA for indirect discrimination by denying Meekings the right to work when he has breached no rules? Is there a case for ICTFC to decline any ticket allocation for the final game of the season? Is there a case for legitimate protest if or when ( we are fortunate enough) win the cup? Do we ignore the customary handshake of the governing body's representative?

Celtic fans are, and I get this completely, upset about the result that went against a team that they felt should have won but they have no idea how a young club with a small fan base feels on reaching their first Scottish Cup final. It's tanished, irrevocably - you couldn't even see us have one day in the sun. As it turns out, despite the tweets last night that wished me deid from celtic "fans" I'm still here. As will Caley Thistle be for a long time to come. Get used to it.

  • Agree 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Muir thinks it hit Josh's face, then he can't claim he didn't see it. He may not have seen it correctly, but if he told the ref it hit Josh's head then surely the incident should be considered dealt with, and therefore outwith the compliance officer's jurisdiction.

I was thinking that was the case as well, but here is the response from one of the Terrace Podcast guys...

"I think that comes under the 'didn't see it' aspect. I think it extends to interpreted wrong."

"that's why Jason Talbot was cited for Nicholson (kicked in head) challenge. Ref booked him at the time, but didn't said he didn't realise severity"

Then surely every games has to be re-refereed the following day to make sure the officials saw what actually happened.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From BBC interview with Vincent Lunny, the former compliance officer.

 

Lunny revealed that it is is the first time under the current disciplinary system that a notice of complaint has been issued for an allegedly deliberate handball.

"It is the very first one of the four years of protocol," he told BBC Radio Scotland's Sportsound programme.

"It's been discussed previously in theory at the various annual reviews."

 

".....but the SFA have only decided now to exercise their right to punish someone for handball because Celtic have made such a fuss" he might have added.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32409694

 

Ex-Compliance Officer's opinion ... not pleasant reading ... wonder if he's a Celt?

 

Particularly ironic his comment "... but the panel should be left to come to their decision on their own without any other external pressures." ... given he is professing his own technical, experienced opinion which is likely to carry weight in media circles on face value at least. 

 

On Yogi ... indiscrete naivety OR sarcasm OR (even, pardon the cold-hearted cynic) not making enemies of Celts fans in case a more lucrative job becomes available down the track? Discuss. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having had 24 hours to consider this now, I believe I am able to be cooler and rational about the whole matter.

 

My considered, cool and rational view is that it is simply absurd and untenable.

 

The process, although not in court, is a quasi judicial one and is thus governed by basic legal principles.

 

The first of these is the matter of precedent. The system of review at the instance of the Compliance Officer has been in place now for four seasons and, in principle, covers all national league, Scottish Cup and League Cup matches. In practice it has related for four years to all matches where there is some TV coverage which is all top tier matches, a good number of second tier matches some lower league games, most League Cup ties and all Scottish Cup ties.

 

By my rough calculation that must be something in the region of two thousand matches so far. I suspect that at least one in twenty of them at some stage involves a contentious handball decision preventing a goal scoring opportunity. So there have probably, over the years, been a hundred or so such incidents caught on camera and the Compliance Officer has never before sought to review a single one of those.

 

Accordingly, there is no precedent for bringing this sort of prosecution. I would go further and suggest that, for very sound and pragmatic reasons, there is actually now a well established precedent for not reviewing these matters.

 

That being the case, in my view, before this gets off first base the Compliance Officer is obliged to show why, in this particular case, he should be departing from established precedent and practice. That has to be a sound and objective reason. The fact that this was very high profile and that the bad losers are making such a hue and cry will simply not suffice.

 

The second legal principal is even more fundamental and is a matter of proof and natural justice.

 

Josh has been charged with preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity by foul and illegal means namely deliberate handball. Firstly there is the question of whether it was a clear goal scoring opportunity. The onus is on the Compliance officer to prove that and there is a great deal of doubt as to whether the ball was heading into the net.

 

Thereafter, Did Josh prevent it ? Preventing a goal scoring opportunity is not an offence in itself. In fact, as a defender, it's Josh's job to prevent goal scoring opportunities and I for one would be pretty upset with him if he didn't.

 

Most crucially, however, is the need to prove that the handball was intentional. In live play proof is not an issue. If, in the opinion of the referee, it is intentional hand ball in these circumstances, a penalty is given and the player is sent to the dressing room. No proof is required it is merely a matter of the referee's discretion and opinion.

 

However, the matter is now in a quasi judicial forum and it has to go far beyond one man's opinion and there has to be proof not just of the handball but of the intent. The onus of proof lies squarely with the Compliance Officer. Josh does not have to prove that the act was unintentional. In fact, Josh has to prove nothing.

 

In all the circumstances, I cannot for the life of me see how Josh can be convicted and suspended on the basis of the evidence available to the tribunal.

 

That said, do I think Josh will be convicted and suspended for the final ? Sadly, yes I do. Not on the basis of objective fairness and application of the law but entirely due to the fact that the paranoid and unsporting hoards in the East End of Glasgow are baying for blood and I am afraid that Josh and ICT will be sacrificed on that alter.

 

Should that happen, as I fear it will, Scottish football will have contrived to hit a new low.

  • Agree 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If Muir thinks it hit Josh's face, then he can't claim he didn't see it. He may not have seen it correctly, but if he told the ref it hit Josh's head then surely the incident should be considered dealt with, and therefore outwith the compliance officer's jurisdiction.

 

I was thinking that was the case as well, but here is the response from one of the Terrace Podcast guys...

 

"I think that comes under the 'didn't see it' aspect. I think it extends to interpreted wrong."

 

"that's why Jason Talbot was cited for Nicholson (kicked in head) challenge. Ref booked him at the time, but didn't said he didn't realise severity"

 

Haven't you done enough? :laugh:

Edited by RiG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While FIFA have no jurisdition, I am not surprised that their senior referees supervisor takes a dim view.

 

Not only has this never been done in Scotland before but never anywhere in the World where there are almost 200 individual national associations.

 

In our efforts to bend over backwards to the dangerous, paranoid Leviathan that dominates our domestic game we are putting ourselves at odd with and out of step with the entire planet.

 

Beyond farce.....

  • Agree 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy