Jump to content

Caramel Wafer Cup Semi Final


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We didn't 'bottle' it. We overcame a very talented and rather highly paid development team of a club with close to twenty five times our income in horrendous weather conditions and in the face of two

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

Aitken should be dragged in to offer a personal apology to Keatings for that rotten decision.

Posted Images

21 minutes ago, Alan Simpson said:

that's why we love the game some go for you some go against u some of the comments on this 1 are insane hearing Trumps getting involved

Doubt he is TBH.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Scotty said:

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.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CaleyHedgehog said:

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.

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Alan Simpson said:

..... hearing Trumps getting involved

Could build a wall around SFA HQ to stop the idiots getting in...or out...as the case may be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CaleyHedgehog said:

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.

Indicating 'Did not go to Specsavers'

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RiG said:

Arrogance beyond belief

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by bughtmaster
as shown
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, bughtmaster said:

Someone must have the power and guts to speak up and do something about it......

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.

Edited by snorbens_caleyman
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

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.

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

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MorayJaggie said:

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

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.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.   

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by MorayJaggie
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • tm4tj unpinned this topic

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