Jump to content

Compliance Officer / Justice for Meekings


Recommended Posts

The charge must be thrown out 
 
1. How can anyone prove it was deliberate? His head is down and his eyes are closed likely in case he gets a sore one in his face. In his own words "...he is two yards away from me. I have just gone to throw my body in the way.". From that there is no way anyone can say without doubt it was deliberate (this was the basis of every successful appeal this season by Ciftci). The referee and the assistant ref behind the goal see it but decide to take no action. end of story. 
 
2. Does the compliance officer even have jurisdiction here? I am not sure of the official details of the CO role, but if as suggested earlier in the thread that the jurisdiction is for incidents missed by the referee then he cannot have a role as this was not missed, it was deemed either as non deliberate or inconclusive by the match official. Again ... end of story.  
 
3. FIFA seem to disagree that this is punishable as per the quote in their ruling would also seem to call the compliance officer's role into doubt. There can be no doubt that the ruling they made was even bigger as it denied Ireland entry into the World Cup so surely its valid here too.

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 411
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I've been a Celtic supporter for almost 60 years and was at Sunday's Game and of course I was disappointed that we got beat and it does hurt to get so close to a Treble and not get it. But that feelin

An interesting point I saw made on P&B, in that the Compliance Officer is there to pick up incidents that the refereeing team has not dealt with at the time. By the accounts I have read, the ref s

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 w

Posted Images

Before this thread goes too far I am going to merge it into the compliance officer thread as both are discussing the same thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the refereeing rules regarding handball, which we all know.

There's no law that says a player can be retrospectively punished for the offence, deliberate or not.

Hence the Henry example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The case should be thrown out and as a gesture of goodwill on behalf of the Compliance  Officer for his grave error of judgement in putting the case forward, Garry warren's card rescinded in time for the final.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Celtic football club have now driven Scottish football to a new all time low with there bad loser attitude.

I think if the outcome of this is not in our favour, there really is no point in having any officials for the games anymore. They can just sort out everything afterwards.

F**cking raging......

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of technicalities, assuming that Ciftci's appeal was indeed upheld on the basis of being unable to prove it was 'deliberate' (which, let's face it, shouldn't have been all that hard - it was an off the ball incident, so why else would his elbow be up there), the SFA must surely be aware that wording Josh's citation such is risky (although they have no other option to, as for a handball to occur, it has to be deliberate anyway)?

 

Any chance that they've made the citation to briefly appease Celtic, in the full knowledge that deliberate intent won't be proven, and Josh will get off? Unlikely, but I live in hope!

 

What rankles me most about the whole citation process in general is that players are immediately deemed to be guilty of the offence, and then have to prove otherwise - it's completely backwards.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there is a strong argument that it wasn't a penalty. Nobody could have guessed that the SFA would act in this outrageous manner but unfortunately with the benefit of hindsight it might have been better if both Josh and John Hughes had said less after the event.

Edited by cantankerousoldgit
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like everyone else I am disgusted at Celtic and the central belt media and hope the club are successful with their appeal..............if not its a conspiracy!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A truly shocking decision by the SFA.

 

 

The charge against Josh is for 'deliberate' handball, handball yes but deliberate? A case of ball to hand which we see every week in the SPFL and English Premier league. Not all are seen and not all are given - yet I don't recall a player being punished retrospectively. If Josh is banned then we are going to see players punished retrospectively every week.

 

 

What happens the next time a referee gives a penalty for handball in error - will he be retrospectively charged by his compliance officer! Will the team to which the decision was made against be allowed to appeal and request that the match is replayed.... Far-fetched I know but the SFA have put themselves in this position.

 

 

The SFA set a precedent with a not proven verdict when Nadir Ciftci was charged with violent conduct against Gary Warren. I sincerely hope that a not proven verdict is delivered for Josh.

 

 

If Josh is banned can we remind the SFA that we should have had a penalty in the final minute of the game against Ross County. The officials failed to notice that the keeper made contact, we should have had a penalty, a red card for their keeper and if scored we would have 'won'!!!!!

Edited by dave26
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a strong feeling if the tables were turned and it was a Celtic player that handballed there would be no letters sent and not nearly enough outrage. The compliance officer certainly wouldn't have gotten involved

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The compliance officer could easily have gotten involved on Monday. For whatever reason they decided not to do so. Now, after Celtic send a letter seeking an understanding or whatever their whining was dressed up as, suddenly the compliance officer springs into action and Meekings is charged. Quelle surprise.

 

Not that I'm cynical or anything...

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Grunching, but would this be the first time in football history that a player was retrospectively suspended for handball? If so, WTF?

If ever there was a case of placating the mob, this is it.

I don't know who is more spineless: Celtic FC for pandering to the most toxic segment of their support by writing that ridiculous letter, or the SFA for granting them their pound of flesh.

The media also deserves criticism for their coverage. Their entire focus has been upon Celtic and their victimhood narrative, rather than the real story - how a team with just a small fraction of Celtic's budget, only 20 years in existence, branded relegation favourites this season by the bookies, has just made history reaching their first ever Scottish Cup Final. A team consisting of homegrown youngsters and free signings from the Vauxhall conference, managed by a coach who most of Scottish football had written off - blew the Scottish Champions away with a display of Guardiola-esque passing football. The brilliant performances of Graeme Shinnie and Ryan Christie. These should have been the stories. They virtually write themselves. Not all this constant Old Firm p1sh.

Hopefully this ridiculous, vindictive charge is written off ASAP. I don't see how it can't be. You'd be opening a whole can of worms. How many players would you have to suspend in a season? If every handball in the box is fair game, then what else? Where do you draw the line? How can you get away with taking action against Meekings, but none of the other handballs that have occurred this season? It's completely untenable.

When it's all said and done, this might even work in our favour. It could galvanize and motivate the players. The old fashioned 'siege mentality'. I would absolutely love it if Yogi came out and absolutely lambasted Celtic and the powers that be. He'd have the whole (rest) of Scottish football behind him.

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been a long, long time since I have posted on here but today's events have encourage me to come back and add my voice to the dissent. An utterly spineless decision by the SFA in an attempt to punish Meekings for the officials mistake potentially preventing him from playing in probably the biggest game of his career so far. All of this to appease on of the two most disgusting, petty, vindictive and arrogant "football club" in the country. I usually make it to Parkhead for an ICT away game once a season this will no longer be continued, I will not give a single penny to that club again. They are the sorest losers ever. I am glad that the club has immediately taken the stance that they have and I support them in fighting this decision all the way.

 

The chances of the petition posted in previous pages being recognised or having any real impact is slim but it can't hurt to sign your name to it, here is the link again in case anybody missed it https://www.change.org/p/scottish-football-association-withdraw-the-notice-of-complaint-issued-against-josh-meekingshttps://www.change.org/p/scottish-football-association-withdraw-the-notice-of-complaint-issued-against-josh-meekings

 

Je suis Josh

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see that there's outrage across social media about this (apart from the irrelevant green-eyed monsters, of course). Even some Celtic fans acknowledge that Josh is the wrong target here and that he is a scapegoat. Michael Stewart has tweeted that this is nonsense. I hate that this has totally overshadowed the performance of our team and fans on the day.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

After all that out-pouring of rage and well made points there is not much I can say to add to it except the SFA and CFC can GTF for taking things this far !!!!!!
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is appeasement of the worst sort of conspiracy theorising bigots who have been flooding social media since Sunday. It is incredibly weak of the SFA to look for a scapegoat to throw to these people, while undermining their own officials without actually blaming them. It is the worst sort of fudging in order to satisfy the mob, and will only worsen their own reputation. But the worst aspect of it all is who thought they could justify this under the current rules, and what kind of precedent it sets. If this stands, then any game in the future, particularly those involving the largest supports, will be subject to media storms and campaigns to have decisions rescinded.

If there are some wiser heads at the SFA than these panicked functionaries, they will hope that this decision is overturned. Otherwise the future is hysterical media lynch mobs set to overturn any decisions they don't like. The SFA should back the referee, and point out that they can't change a decision made in good faith based on the evidence available to him at the time. Whether you like it or not is immaterial, if he felt that Josh didn't deliberately raise his hand to stop the ball, then that is his decision, and one the SFA should back, making clear the already established laws of the game, and the restriction of appeals and retrospective punishments to incidents not seen by the referee, and only serious ones which are unambiguous in their intent. None of the criteria apply to the Meekings case, and they should drop it before they do further damage to the game.

Edited by The Long Man
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all I hadn't realised Warren was banned for the final for a second yellow...seems grossly unfair, I thought the Scottish Cup fas the SFA's flagship competition, strange they are so keen to stop players from taking part, given that a) yellow cards can be given out for very minor misdemeanours and b) Scottish refs are worse than English for the confetti like way they dish them out

 

As for Josh Meekings, it would be gutting if he were also to miss the final, on the basis that the officials may have made a mistake,..... the SFA need to prove his actions were deliberate, as he can certainly be seen attempting to head the ball away.

 

As to Celtic and their whining, whinging response, and abuse tweets.....it's to be expected, they are on the whole, arrogant bigotted twats. I hope the SFA and the SPFL will be watching the next league meeting between us very closely for evidence of retribution.

 

Yogi....said on Sunday, he didn't like the idea of going to the final as favourites....the worse case scenario of both Warren and Meekings missing the final certainly evens things up a bit....but hopefully will spur the lads on as well

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes me wonder what Celtic are trying to do. This would possibly open a can of worms, as they are the football club in Scotland who receive the most favorable decisions from Refs making simple mistakes. 

Did Celtic not get a favorable decision in an earlier round, when its been agreed that one of there scorers on Sunday had dived to get a decision that influenced the result of the match against Hearts. That player should have been banned and therefore Celtic would have broken rules in playing a banned player. Or is it the result went there way so no need for the SFA complience officer.

Also did the ref not consult with the Assistant behind the goal, who responded saying he thought it hit Meekings head. Ref then made his decision on what they saw, discussed incident, waved play on as the could not say he deliberately handled the ball. 

John Collins quote re his hand ball on text 136 or near that also shows double standards, When he did it it was ok but its not if anyone does it against his team.

 

The one thing that reeks from this is how Celtic cannot take a defeat graciously. They congratulate ICT on our victory, but want us banned and replaced by themselves as it was destiny, Sorry Celtic, this was our day and its our destiny.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
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