The SFA's pathetic "Q&A" statement.

CalumHH

Well-known member
#1
The SFA have decided to release a Q&A style response to their ensuing criticism, in which they answer absolutely nothing we didn't already know, as well managing to ignore the fact that their answers leave them looking utterly imcompetent of following their own rulebook, to the surprise of nobody. Obviously they've released this as a way to avoid an open public discussion where follow-up questions would help expose them for what they are, corrupt.

Can the compliance officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents?

SFA: "The compliance officer can only raise a fast track notice of complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.

"When investigating a potential fast track case, the compliance officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the laws of the game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials. (although they broke this supposed rule to punish Scott McKenna but won't do it to bring Morelos to task.)

"When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the compliance officer seeks opinions from three independent experts. Those experts are drawn from a pool of former category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A fast track notice of complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence."

How does the claims process work?

SFA: "In certain circumstances a player or a club can raise a claim against a wrongful dismissal, mistaken identity, or wrongful caution for simulation. (or when Sevco disagree with a yellow card)

"A specially trained fast track tribunal determines whether there has been an obvious refereeing error based on the case put forward by the player/club, a factual report by the referee, and the relevant laws of the game. Every fast track tribunal includes an expert on the laws of the game. If it is determined that an obvious refereeing error has been made, the disciplinary action taken by the match referee can be rescinded by the fast track tribunal.

"It should be noted that the compliance officer is not involved in the claims process. In addition, the disciplinary department itself does not make any decision on whether a sanction should be imposed, or a red card rescinded."

Has the system changed this season?

SFA: "The rules relating to the claims procedure and fast track notices of complaint changed for season 2018/19 following extensive consultation across the Scottish footballing family.

"There was input on the proposed revisions to Section 13 of the judicial panel protocol (relating to fast track proceedings) from a range of different stakeholders. This included clubs, players’ representatives, the head of referee operations, and the Scottish Senior Football Referees Association. All parties agreed that the revisions were appropriate and necessary."

What information is published?

SFA: "A focussed effort has been made by to improve transparency and understanding of the disciplinary processes this season.

"The disciplinary section of the Scottish FA website makes available all of the recent determinations of the disciplinary tribunals. It also includes full written reasons for each of the cases determined by a fast track tribunal. Those reasons may include excerpts from the referee’s statement. Referees are advised as part of the process that the statements provided by them are evidence, to be considered by the tribunal."

In summary

"We are committed to enforcing the highest standards of behaviour and professionalism across the Scottish game.

"It is our responsibility to protect match officials (but nobody else it seems) and the integrity of the laws of the game and apply our disciplinary rules with fairness and consistency." (Consistency???)


Anyways, i thought this was worth sharing as, like i said above, this is them obviously trying to worm their way out of actually answering real questions, not ones they have asked of themselves ffs.
 
Last edited:
#3
The SFA have decided to release a Q&A style response to their ensuing criticism, in which they answer absolutely nothing we didn't already know, as well managing to ignore the fact that their answers leave them looking utterly imcompetent of following their own rulebook, to the surprise of nobody. Obviously they've released this as a way to avoid an open public discussion where follow-up questions would help expose them for what they are, corrupt.

Can the compliance officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents?

SFA: "The compliance officer can only raise a fast track notice of complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.

"When investigating a potential fast track case, the compliance officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the laws of the game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials. (although they broke this supposed rule to punish Scott McKenna but won't do it to bring Morelos to task.)

"When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the compliance officer seeks opinions from three independent experts. Those experts are drawn from a pool of former category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A fast track notice of complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence."

How does the claims process work?

SFA: "In certain circumstances a player or a club can raise a claim against a wrongful dismissal, mistaken identity, or wrongful caution for simulation. (or when Sevco disagree with a yellow card)

"A specially trained fast track tribunal determines whether there has been an obvious refereeing error based on the case put forward by the player/club, a factual report by the referee, and the relevant laws of the game. Every fast track tribunal includes an expert on the laws of the game. If it is determined that an obvious refereeing error has been made, the disciplinary action taken by the match referee can be rescinded by the fast track tribunal.

"It should be noted that the compliance officer is not involved in the claims process. In addition, the disciplinary department itself does not make any decision on whether a sanction should be imposed, or a red card rescinded."

Has the system changed this season?

SFA: "The rules relating to the claims procedure and fast track notices of complaint changed for season 2018/19 following extensive consultation across the Scottish footballing family.

"There was input on the proposed revisions to Section 13 of the judicial panel protocol (relating to fast track proceedings) from a range of different stakeholders. This included clubs, players’ representatives, the head of referee operations, and the Scottish Senior Football Referees Association. All parties agreed that the revisions were appropriate and necessary."

What information is published?

SFA: "A focussed effort has been made by to improve transparency and understanding of the disciplinary processes this season.

"The disciplinary section of the Scottish FA website makes available all of the recent determinations of the disciplinary tribunals. It also includes full written reasons for each of the cases determined by a fast track tribunal. Those reasons may include excerpts from the referee’s statement. Referees are advised as part of the process that the statements provided by them are evidence, to be considered by the tribunal."

In summary

"We are committed to enforcing the highest standards of behaviour and professionalism across the Scottish game.

"It is our responsibility to protect match officials (but nobody else it seems) and the integrity of the laws of the game and apply our disciplinary rules with fairness and consistency." (Consistency???)


Anyways, i thought this was worth sharing as, like i said above, this is them obviously trying to worm their way out of actually answering real questions, not ones they have asked of themselves ffs.
You are of course correct in pointing out their duplicity in the S Mc case ,that is what has caught them out with their pathetic excuse regarding Beatons exuberance in the last show of sevco minded refereeing , a Q&A exercise that is an absolute crock of excrement .
Looks like the MIB and the SFA are trying desperately to throw each other under the bus and a convenient squirrel to distract from the story of Beaton jollying it up in a hun bar in Bellshill .
Surely that is a story worth some digging from the MSM ,they can't all be members of the LL ,can they ?
HH
 

boab1916

Well-known member
#4
You are of course correct in pointing out their duplicity in the S Mc case ,that is what has caught them out with their pathetic excuse regarding Beatons exuberance in the last show of sevco minded refereeing , a Q&A exercise that is an absolute crock of excrement .
Looks like the MIB and the SFA are trying desperately to throw each other under the bus and a convenient squirrel to distract from the story of Beaton jollying it up in a hun bar in Bellshill .
Surely that is a story worth some digging from the MSM ,they can't all be members of the LL ,can they ?
HH


In a dream it would seem
I went to those who close the open door
And turning the key
I sat and spoke to those inside of me

They answered my questions with questions
And they pointed me into the night
Where the moon was a star-painted dancer
And the world was just a spectrum of light

They reached to my center of reason
And pulled on the touchstone that's there
The shock of that light had me reeling
And I fell into the depths of despair

Turning the key
I sat and spoke to those inside of me

They answered my questions with questions
And they set me to stand on the brink
Where the sun and the moon were as brothers
And all that was left was to think

They answered my questions with questions
And they pointed me into the night
And the power that bore me had left me alone
To figure out which way was right
 

Digger

Well-known member
#7
The SFA have decided to release a Q&A style response to their ensuing criticism, in which they answer absolutely nothing we didn't already know, as well managing to ignore the fact that their answers leave them looking utterly imcompetent of following their own rulebook, to the surprise of nobody. Obviously they've released this as a way to avoid an open public discussion where follow-up questions would help expose them for what they are, corrupt.

Can the compliance officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents?

SFA: "The compliance officer can only raise a fast track notice of complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.

"When investigating a potential fast track case, the compliance officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the laws of the game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials. (although they broke this supposed rule to punish Scott McKenna but won't do it to bring Morelos to task.)

"When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the compliance officer seeks opinions from three independent experts. Those experts are drawn from a pool of former category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A fast track notice of complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence."

How does the claims process work?

SFA: "In certain circumstances a player or a club can raise a claim against a wrongful dismissal, mistaken identity, or wrongful caution for simulation. (or when Sevco disagree with a yellow card)

"A specially trained fast track tribunal determines whether there has been an obvious refereeing error based on the case put forward by the player/club, a factual report by the referee, and the relevant laws of the game. Every fast track tribunal includes an expert on the laws of the game. If it is determined that an obvious refereeing error has been made, the disciplinary action taken by the match referee can be rescinded by the fast track tribunal.

"It should be noted that the compliance officer is not involved in the claims process. In addition, the disciplinary department itself does not make any decision on whether a sanction should be imposed, or a red card rescinded."

Has the system changed this season?

SFA: "The rules relating to the claims procedure and fast track notices of complaint changed for season 2018/19 following extensive consultation across the Scottish footballing family.

"There was input on the proposed revisions to Section 13 of the judicial panel protocol (relating to fast track proceedings) from a range of different stakeholders. This included clubs, players’ representatives, the head of referee operations, and the Scottish Senior Football Referees Association. All parties agreed that the revisions were appropriate and necessary."

What information is published?

SFA: "A focussed effort has been made by to improve transparency and understanding of the disciplinary processes this season.

"The disciplinary section of the Scottish FA website makes available all of the recent determinations of the disciplinary tribunals. It also includes full written reasons for each of the cases determined by a fast track tribunal. Those reasons may include excerpts from the referee’s statement. Referees are advised as part of the process that the statements provided by them are evidence, to be considered by the tribunal."

In summary

"We are committed to enforcing the highest standards of behaviour and professionalism across the Scottish game.

"It is our responsibility to protect match officials (but nobody else it seems) and the integrity of the laws of the game and apply our disciplinary rules with fairness and consistency." (Consistency???)


Anyways, i thought this was worth sharing as, like i said above, this is them obviously trying to worm their way out of actually answering real questions, not ones they have asked of themselves ffs.
Just read it myself and left comment on another thread,just another delaying game,good post well done
 
Last edited:
#8


In a dream it would seem
I went to those who close the open door
And turning the key
I sat and spoke to those inside of me

They answered my questions with questions
And they pointed me into the night
Where the moon was a star-painted dancer
And the world was just a spectrum of light

They reached to my center of reason
And pulled on the touchstone that's there
The shock of that light had me reeling
And I fell into the depths of despair

Turning the key
I sat and spoke to those inside of me

They answered my questions with questions
And they set me to stand on the brink
Where the sun and the moon were as brothers
And all that was left was to think

They answered my questions with questions
And they pointed me into the night
And the power that bore me had left me alone
To figure out which way was right

HH
 

boab1916

Well-known member
#9
The SFA have decided to release a Q&A style response to their ensuing criticism, in which they answer absolutely nothing we didn't already know, as well managing to ignore the fact that their answers leave them looking utterly imcompetent of following their own rulebook, to the surprise of nobody. Obviously they've released this as a way to avoid an open public discussion where follow-up questions would help expose them for what they are, corrupt.

Can the compliance officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents?

SFA: "The compliance officer can only raise a fast track notice of complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.

"When investigating a potential fast track case, the compliance officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the laws of the game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials. (although they broke this supposed rule to punish Scott McKenna but won't do it to bring Morelos to task.)

"When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the compliance officer seeks opinions from three independent experts. Those experts are drawn from a pool of former category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A fast track notice of complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence."

How does the claims process work?

SFA: "In certain circumstances a player or a club can raise a claim against a wrongful dismissal, mistaken identity, or wrongful caution for simulation. (or when Sevco disagree with a yellow card)

"A specially trained fast track tribunal determines whether there has been an obvious refereeing error based on the case put forward by the player/club, a factual report by the referee, and the relevant laws of the game. Every fast track tribunal includes an expert on the laws of the game. If it is determined that an obvious refereeing error has been made, the disciplinary action taken by the match referee can be rescinded by the fast track tribunal.

"It should be noted that the compliance officer is not involved in the claims process. In addition, the disciplinary department itself does not make any decision on whether a sanction should be imposed, or a red card rescinded."

Has the system changed this season?

SFA: "The rules relating to the claims procedure and fast track notices of complaint changed for season 2018/19 following extensive consultation across the Scottish footballing family.

"There was input on the proposed revisions to Section 13 of the judicial panel protocol (relating to fast track proceedings) from a range of different stakeholders. This included clubs, players’ representatives, the head of referee operations, and the Scottish Senior Football Referees Association. All parties agreed that the revisions were appropriate and necessary."

What information is published?

SFA: "A focussed effort has been made by to improve transparency and understanding of the disciplinary processes this season.

"The disciplinary section of the Scottish FA website makes available all of the recent determinations of the disciplinary tribunals. It also includes full written reasons for each of the cases determined by a fast track tribunal. Those reasons may include excerpts from the referee’s statement. Referees are advised as part of the process that the statements provided by them are evidence, to be considered by the tribunal."

In summary

"We are committed to enforcing the highest standards of behaviour and professionalism across the Scottish game.

"It is our responsibility to protect match officials (but nobody else it seems) and the integrity of the laws of the game and apply our disciplinary rules with fairness and consistency." (Consistency???)


Anyways, i thought this was worth sharing as, like i said above, this is them obviously trying to worm their way out of actually answering real questions, not ones they have asked of themselves ffs.
What is this shite, they treat the fans like shite, who the fuck wrote this?
 
#11
Scott McKenna faces a potential two-game ban after being cited for "serious foul play" on Celtic's Odsonne Edouard, but Aberdeen have lodged an appeal.
McKenna's notice of complaint from the Scottish FA relates to a tackle during the Dons' Saturday loss at Celtic Park.
And a fast-track hearing will take place on Thursday.
Edouard went off injured shortly after the tackle in Celtic's 1-0 win and their manager Brendan Rodgers described the challenge as "very reckless".
An Aberdeen spokesperson said: "It came as a total shock to learn that Scott has been cited for an incident where the referee deemed there was no offence committed and we have subsequently lodged an appeal."

Remind me how this turned out
HH
 

_Neil_

Well-known member
#12
The SFA have decided to release a Q&A style response to their ensuing criticism, in which they answer absolutely nothing we didn't already know, as well managing to ignore the fact that their answers leave them looking utterly imcompetent of following their own rulebook, to the surprise of nobody. Obviously they've released this as a way to avoid an open public discussion where follow-up questions would help expose them for what they are, corrupt.

Can the compliance officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents?

SFA: "The compliance officer can only raise a fast track notice of complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.

"When investigating a potential fast track case, the compliance officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the laws of the game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials. (although they broke this supposed rule to punish Scott McKenna but won't do it to bring Morelos to task.)

"When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the compliance officer seeks opinions from three independent experts. Those experts are drawn from a pool of former category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A fast track notice of complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence."

How does the claims process work?

SFA: "In certain circumstances a player or a club can raise a claim against a wrongful dismissal, mistaken identity, or wrongful caution for simulation. (or when Sevco disagree with a yellow card)

"A specially trained fast track tribunal determines whether there has been an obvious refereeing error based on the case put forward by the player/club, a factual report by the referee, and the relevant laws of the game. Every fast track tribunal includes an expert on the laws of the game. If it is determined that an obvious refereeing error has been made, the disciplinary action taken by the match referee can be rescinded by the fast track tribunal.

"It should be noted that the compliance officer is not involved in the claims process. In addition, the disciplinary department itself does not make any decision on whether a sanction should be imposed, or a red card rescinded."

Has the system changed this season?

SFA: "The rules relating to the claims procedure and fast track notices of complaint changed for season 2018/19 following extensive consultation across the Scottish footballing family.

"There was input on the proposed revisions to Section 13 of the judicial panel protocol (relating to fast track proceedings) from a range of different stakeholders. This included clubs, players’ representatives, the head of referee operations, and the Scottish Senior Football Referees Association. All parties agreed that the revisions were appropriate and necessary."

What information is published?

SFA: "A focussed effort has been made by to improve transparency and understanding of the disciplinary processes this season.

"The disciplinary section of the Scottish FA website makes available all of the recent determinations of the disciplinary tribunals. It also includes full written reasons for each of the cases determined by a fast track tribunal. Those reasons may include excerpts from the referee’s statement. Referees are advised as part of the process that the statements provided by them are evidence, to be considered by the tribunal."

In summary

"We are committed to enforcing the highest standards of behaviour and professionalism across the Scottish game.

"It is our responsibility to protect match officials (but nobody else it seems) and the integrity of the laws of the game and apply our disciplinary rules with fairness and consistency." (Consistency???)


Anyways, i thought this was worth sharing as, like i said above, this is them obviously trying to worm their way out of actually answering real questions, not ones they have asked of themselves ffs.
The panel of former MIBs is up to date with and following current refereeing guidelines - stop Celtic. All the rest of this verbosity is window-dressing.
 

_Neil_

Well-known member
#13
I watched the derby match in my local and even though I had quenched my thirst I noticed Beaton being overly chatty with a few of their players with a few smiles thrown in ,I must admit to not remembering this side of Beaton in other games he has been in charge of .
I have to confess I have not checked but I will be paying particular attention from now on
HH
Aye, Cheatin' Beaton certainly wasn't sharing any smiles or laughs when he sent Boyata off for dissent.
 
Last edited:
#14
I know the Scottish Football Association has the initials S.F.A. but do they have to live up to them all the time ?
FFS everyone knows that they overturned Maddon's decision on McKenna even though he hadn't seen it as a foul ( Aye , right , Bobby ! ) so why do they come out with this crap on their Q and A saying the opposite ?
Can they not just get Jabba to write their press releases and be done with it ?
 

Maestro

Well-known member
#15
The SFA have decided to release a Q&A style response to their ensuing criticism, in which they answer absolutely nothing we didn't already know, as well managing to ignore the fact that their answers leave them looking utterly imcompetent of following their own rulebook, to the surprise of nobody. Obviously they've released this as a way to avoid an open public discussion where follow-up questions would help expose them for what they are, corrupt.

Can the compliance officer take retrospective action for on-field incidents?

SFA: "The compliance officer can only raise a fast track notice of complaint and take retrospective action when an on field incident, or an exceptional part of an on field incident, has been unseen by the match officials.

"When investigating a potential fast track case, the compliance officer does not seek any opinion on the incident from the match officials, or ask them to reconsider any decision made. This has not changed. The decision of the referee regarding facts connected with play will always be respected in line with the laws of the game. It is for this reason that the disciplinary rules relating to retrospective action only come into effect when an incident, or part of an incident, is unseen by the match officials. (although they broke this supposed rule to punish Scott McKenna but won't do it to bring Morelos to task.)

"When the match officials confirm an on field incident is unseen, the compliance officer seeks opinions from three independent experts. Those experts are drawn from a pool of former category 1 referees, who are up to date with current refereeing guidelines. A fast track notice of complaint can only competently be raised when all three experts provide written evidence that the incident constituted a sending off offence."

How does the claims process work?

SFA: "In certain circumstances a player or a club can raise a claim against a wrongful dismissal, mistaken identity, or wrongful caution for simulation. (or when Sevco disagree with a yellow card)

"A specially trained fast track tribunal determines whether there has been an obvious refereeing error based on the case put forward by the player/club, a factual report by the referee, and the relevant laws of the game. Every fast track tribunal includes an expert on the laws of the game. If it is determined that an obvious refereeing error has been made, the disciplinary action taken by the match referee can be rescinded by the fast track tribunal.

"It should be noted that the compliance officer is not involved in the claims process. In addition, the disciplinary department itself does not make any decision on whether a sanction should be imposed, or a red card rescinded."

Has the system changed this season?

SFA: "The rules relating to the claims procedure and fast track notices of complaint changed for season 2018/19 following extensive consultation across the Scottish footballing family.

"There was input on the proposed revisions to Section 13 of the judicial panel protocol (relating to fast track proceedings) from a range of different stakeholders. This included clubs, players’ representatives, the head of referee operations, and the Scottish Senior Football Referees Association. All parties agreed that the revisions were appropriate and necessary."

What information is published?

SFA: "A focussed effort has been made by to improve transparency and understanding of the disciplinary processes this season.

"The disciplinary section of the Scottish FA website makes available all of the recent determinations of the disciplinary tribunals. It also includes full written reasons for each of the cases determined by a fast track tribunal. Those reasons may include excerpts from the referee’s statement. Referees are advised as part of the process that the statements provided by them are evidence, to be considered by the tribunal."

In summary

"We are committed to enforcing the highest standards of behaviour and professionalism across the Scottish game.

"It is our responsibility to protect match officials (but nobody else it seems) and the integrity of the laws of the game and apply our disciplinary rules with fairness and consistency." (Consistency???)


Anyways, i thought this was worth sharing as, like i said above, this is them obviously trying to worm their way out of actually answering real questions, not ones they have asked of themselves ffs.
JESUS!!!

Have never read so much legalese in me puff!!!

Positive even a legal aid 20year old could work that amount oswiss cheese loopholes!

Bastirts!
 
#16
Scott McKenna faces a potential two-game ban after being cited for "serious foul play" on Celtic's Odsonne Edouard, but Aberdeen have lodged an appeal.
McKenna's notice of complaint from the Scottish FA relates to a tackle during the Dons' Saturday loss at Celtic Park.
And a fast-track hearing will take place on Thursday.
Edouard went off injured shortly after the tackle in Celtic's 1-0 win and their manager Brendan Rodgers described the challenge as "very reckless".
An Aberdeen spokesperson said: "It came as a total shock to learn that Scott has been cited for an incident where the referee deemed there was no offence committed and we have subsequently lodged an appeal."

Remind me how this turned out
HH
Take Rory oot Mount Florida way and get him to bite the arse oot anything wearing a blazer, Fergus.
 

Digger

Well-known member
#18
I see that master of sports writing C Boyd has joined the debate about the criticism that poor J Beaton has received for his performance during the last Celtic game,he goes on to say it a cover up and a excuse for the manger to blame the ref for his team defeat, is this man for real is so blind that he could not see the abuse that Morelos was handing out,or is this just another show of support for a kindred spirit ????
 
Top