Compliance Officer / Justice for Meekings

[Macduffer]

What a clown Lunny is.  By his logic we should now refer Zaluska for violent conduct on Ofere, unless you consider a punch that Mayweather would be proud of not to be violent conduct.

ICT and the Board have shown the football world how to rise above all this crap, while Celtic has done their reputation no favours at all.

Grow up - and move on!

[Huisdean]

 

Now that this has been sorted out, correctly in my view, it is time to look at who are the real villians in this matter. For me it is the SFA. If, as reported, the officials did not see the handball incident clearly enough to be sure it struck a hand, they cannot give a penalty, end of story. As I have said before, there is no conclusive TV footage that gives the view from the referee or his assistant so to use TV footage to try and retrospectively ban a player is a very gig step to take and a wrong one in my opinion. People will say the referee made a mistake on this but again, in my view he has not as he cannot be sure it was handball from where he saw the incident. That really should have been the end of the matter but the SFA, who are the real villians in this wanted a scapegoat to appease the Celtic support.

 

How difficult would it have been for the SFA to say that "referee or assistants, from their viewpoint, did not see a handball and could not give a penalty". I do feel for the officials in this game now as they have been hung out to dry by a spineless SFA.

 

Finally, and this is really lazy journalism, if this citing could have happened since the rules were introduced, why did someone not ask Vincent Lunny why he had not raised a case before as don't for one minute think this has not happened previously. Lunny was constantly stating rules are the rules, clubs are aware of them and citing perfectly valid so why had this not happend before. Not wanting to start a conspiracy theory but you can draw your own conclusions.

 

It was reported on Monday or even Sunday night that the ref had consulted the goal-line assistant and linesman as to the incident with Josh. He did not see it clearly to award a foul, the goal-line assistant though it hit Josh's head, and the linesman didn't see it. That was as clear as day, they mis-interperated what happened, but did consider it could have been an offence but ruled it out as none of them knew for sure. The tv pictures show the incident clearly, but you cannot tell if he tries to save the header, you normally have your eyes open if you try to save a shot or header. It was certainly not intentional.

 

I do remember an 'incident' earlier this season, at Kilmarnock, but can't remember who the opposition were, but it wasn't Celtic, may have been the Dons or Well. Player unsighted from ref and linesman, raised his hand and saved a shot from 8-10 yards or so. No question about being accidental, or to close to avoid, he saved it like a keeper. No penalty, and it was near the end of the game. I can remember Sportscene making a feature about it. Conclusive tv showing the player raising his hand to his right and palming the ball off the line. No Complience Officer involved for what was an unquestionable deliberate handball. That would have set a precident for the after the incident retrospective handball, not to raise it when it was extremely questionable because it was against Celtic.

 

I do hope that the Celtic players and management after this are men, and do not lay out a Roy Keane, Graeme Souness or Scott Brown style of vengence in their last game of the domestic season.

 

And that is why the SFA could have totally diffused this situation by simply stating, from the view of the referee and assistant, they could not tell which part of the body the ball struck so could not award a penalty. The more I see of the incident, it would have been interesting to see, had the referee spotted this whether he would have sent off Josh as he deemed it be deliberate.

[Big G]

Ruling issued by SFA says club solicitors argued that as one or more officials had seen the incident the panel had no right to rule on the matter. This was accepted by the panel and the case dismissed.

Over to you SFA to find out why the compliance officer thought he had the right to give a red card.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Big G

[Yngwie]

Full text of the statement:

 

The chair of the Judicial Panel Tribunal convened to hear the Notice of Complaint against John Meekings has issued the following note of reasons:

 

“Further to the judicial panel hearing yesterday involving Josh Meekings, the panel considered initial submissions from Mr Meekings’ solicitor. In particular it was argued by him that under protocol 13.4.1.1 the judicial panel was not entitled to determine the matter. The panel considered that as the incident (but not the actual alleged sending-off offence of handball) had been seen by one or more of the officials it was not entitled to consider the matter further. It accordingly dismissed the complaint without any consideration of the merits of the incident or the decision arrived at by the referee.”

[+HawkeyeTheGnu]

So the incident was outwith the jurisdiction of the CO. Seems a pretty elementary thing to check before going down this route.

Looks like the SFA hoped we'd just suck it up and take their attempt to appease Celtic.

Makes the position of the Current CO untenable in my opinion, as he clearly doesn't understand the scope of his powers or the protocols to which he needs to adhere.

[cif73]

 

Now that this has been sorted out, correctly in my view, it is time to look at who are the real villians in this matter. For me it is the SFA. If, as reported, the officials did not see the handball incident clearly enough to be sure it struck a hand, they cannot give a penalty, end of story. As I have said before, there is no conclusive TV footage that gives the view from the referee or his assistant so to use TV footage to try and retrospectively ban a player is a very gig step to take and a wrong one in my opinion. People will say the referee made a mistake on this but again, in my view he has not as he cannot be sure it was handball from where he saw the incident. That really should have been the end of the matter but the SFA, who are the real villians in this wanted a scapegoat to appease the Celtic support.

 

How difficult would it have been for the SFA to say that "referee or assistants, from their viewpoint, did not see a handball and could not give a penalty". I do feel for the officials in this game now as they have been hung out to dry by a spineless SFA.

 

Finally, and this is really lazy journalism, if this citing could have happened since the rules were introduced, why did someone not ask Vincent Lunny why he had not raised a case before as don't for one minute think this has not happened previously. Lunny was constantly stating rules are the rules, clubs are aware of them and citing perfectly valid so why had this not happend before. Not wanting to start a conspiracy theory but you can draw your own conclusions.

 

It was reported on Monday or even Sunday night that the ref had consulted the goal-line assistant and linesman as to the incident with Josh. He did not see it clearly to award a foul, the goal-line assistant though it hit Josh's head, and the linesman didn't see it. That was as clear as day, they mis-interperated what happened, but did consider it could have been an offence but ruled it out as none of them knew for sure. The tv pictures show the incident clearly, but you cannot tell if he tries to save the header, you normally have your eyes open if you try to save a shot or header. It was certainly not intentional.

 

I do remember an 'incident' earlier this season, at Kilmarnock, but can't remember who the opposition were, but it wasn't Celtic, may have been the Dons or Well. Player unsighted from ref and linesman, raised his hand and saved a shot from 8-10 yards or so. No question about being accidental, or to close to avoid, he saved it like a keeper. No penalty, and it was near the end of the game. I can remember Sportscene making a feature about it. Conclusive tv showing the player raising his hand to his right and palming the ball off the line. No Complience Officer involved for what was an unquestionable deliberate handball. That would have set a precident for the after the incident retrospective handball, not to raise it when it was extremely questionable because it was against Celtic.

 

I do hope that the Celtic players and management after this are men, and do not lay out a Roy Keane, Graeme Souness or Scott Brown style of vengence in their last game of the domestic season.

 

 

It will be interesting to see if Josh plays against Celtic on the 24th ... weekend before the Scottish Cup Final ... at their place ... on Sky Sports live ... Hmm ... who says Scottish footie ain't entertaining. 

[cif73]

So the incident was outwith the jurisdiction of the CO. Seems a pretty elementary thing to check before going down this route.

Looks like the SFA hoped we'd just suck it up and take their attempt to appease Celtic.

Makes the position of the Current CO untenable in my opinion, as he clearly doesn't understand the scope of his powers or the protocols to which he needs to adhere.

 

Yup ... the CO has got to understand his remit ... this should be his "bread & butter" ... he is an experienced city lawyer for goodness sake and should know it inside out especially given this was a high profile matter with his reputation on the line if he dropped a clanger ... fundamental ... and frankly unbelievable 

[PerfICT]

Wow! A monumental ****-up by the SFA...who'd have thunk it?

[+DoofersDad]

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.

[Charles Bannerman]

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. 

So to a large extent it's all down to semantics - the meanings of the words "incident" and "offence". This all reminds me of a much earlier instance in ICT's history when the club was almost strangled at birth when Council officials tried to have a £900,000 grant cancelled on the strength of the word "payable".

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

It is a bit like the merger as well. That was a farce.

[Alex MacLeod]

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.

 

The key words 'not seen by match officials'. Obviously neither CO read those words. The match officials did see the offence and did discuss it but concluded that they were unsure what part of the anatomy the ball made contact with.

 

Had that couple of words been taken into account Josh would never have been cited. There is a lot of learning to be had from this incident and I really hope the SFA take a long hard look at themselves and use this incident as a positive step to improving referee coaching and the game in general

[Yngwie]

 The match officials did see the offence and did discuss it but concluded that they were unsure what part of the anatomy the ball made contact with.

 

No, they saw the "incident" but not the offence.

 

Anyway, the charge failed at the first hurdle, and we'll never know if it would also have failed at the 2nd and 3rd hurdles ie proving that it was deliberate and would have been a goal.

[dougiedanger]

A few sensible posters on here predicted this outcome, deflection and ineptitude by the authorities, big fecking surprise.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Thank you for the recognition - Hail, Hail.

[Charles Bannerman]

It is a bit like the merger as well. That was a farce.

I was not referring to the merger. I was referring to a completely separate series of events after that was all settled which related to the funding of the stadium.

[Tob]

Our lawyer has offered the SFA a way out of this mess and they've grabbed it with both hands.

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

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.

 

The key words 'not seen by match officials'. Obviously neither CO read those words. The match officials did see the offence and did discuss it but concluded that they were unsure what part of the anatomy the ball made contact with.

 

Had that couple of words been taken into account Josh would never have been cited. There is a lot of learning to be had from this incident and I really hope the SFA take a long hard look at themselves and use this incident as a positive step to improving referee coaching and the game in general

They should have consulted their referee's sponsors - Specsavers! Not a contract they want to lose. Plenty of material for 'Only an Excuse' but what a disgraceful way to treat ICT.

[The Mantis]

It is a bit like the merger as well. That was a farce.

I was not referring to the merger. I was referring to a completely separate series of events after that was all settled which related to the funding of the stadium. Whooosh!

[12th Man]

John Hughes might do Josh a wee favor by omitting him from the squad in the last game of the season. Just for the one game, as we will need to protect young Josh from Injury. As it would be just like Celtic to make a hero out of the player who does keep Josh out of the final, and for them having probably already won the league they might think playing the last game with ten men worthwhile for their conspiracy chipped shouldered fans to get their perceived revenge. Would not trust the likes of Scott Brown trying to break his legs, or give him a Durrant style knee.

As the final is the following week, all our players will need to be on high alert for the revenge tackle to injure our players and lessen our chances against Falkirk. We've already had a dislocated knee against them, and that was accidental. If we have beaten the Arabs to 3rd, I would give the under 20s a taste of Parkhead

You may even find a few outfield players get a game at Parkhead as a reward for their effort throughout the season but who knows. Your last paragraph didn't show on the phone. I would agree with you. Edited April 24, 2015 by 12th Man

[AlexJones]

[Macduffer]

If we are secure for third place when it comes to the last game with Celtic, I reckon Hughes should rest a few for the final and give others game time and a day in front of the cameras.

[IBM]

When delivering papers to my 90 year old neighbour this morning she greeted me with a big smile  and said "Meekings got off, they should never have tried to ban him from the final" 

[Row S]

Interesting to hear that the original letter of complaint included a rant from John Collins about a conspiracy against Septic. Then we get the SFA compliance officer with the name Tony (presumably Anthony) McGlennan asking for Josh to answer the charge. If that doesn't sound like an Irish name then the Pope is not a Catholic. Add to that the previous CO was called Lunny, another Irish name, who said that Josh was guilty. So who was is the conspiracy against then? 

 

I would also add that I was told by various friends who listened to the BBC Radio Scotland live commentary and the Sky TV live coverage of the game that both were heavily biased towards Septic. 

 

So in the face of such adversity all I can say is GIRUY to all these twats!

[cif73]

Interesting to hear that the original letter of complaint included a rant from John Collins about a conspiracy against Septic. Then we get the SFA compliance officer with the name Tony (presumably Anthony) McGlennan asking for Josh to answer the charge. If that doesn't sound like an Irish name then the Pope is not a Catholic. Add to that the previous CO was called Lunny, another Irish name, who said that Josh was guilty. So who was is the conspiracy against then? 

 

I would also add that I was told by various friends who listened to the BBC Radio Scotland live commentary and the Sky TV live coverage of the game that both were heavily biased towards Septic. 

 

So in the face of such adversity all I can say is GIRUY to all these twats!

Glad you brought up the apparently obvious Irish sound to these CO names ... I've been biting my tongue on that aspect so much over the last 48 hours that it's really quite tender lol!