Comment on We’re Gonny Need Another Baw. by Jimmy Bones.

    Hello StevieBC from 08:39 this am.

    I don't disagree that the file is somewhat derisory, but I tip my hat to the new CO for taking them on.  She seems to have persisted and is trying to be consistent.  It is a small positive step that the New Club, which behaves almost as badly as the previous one, is being reined in a bit.

    Jimmy Bones Also Commented

    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    I would imagine the beleaguered Compliance Officer at the SFA will be delighted that Ian Maxwell has issued this statement which I assume is in response to the SMSM criticism of her role.


    I suppose the Scottish Referees Preservation Society will be quite tickled too.  Notwithstanding the above, I will be interested to see how much, if any, of this statement sees the light of day tomorrow in our beloved smsm.


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    I read somewhere that the extra game ban for More or Less was 'cos it was his 3rd or 4th red card of the season ?

    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    nawlite 18:16 on 12th 


    Recent Comments by Jimmy Bones

    Accountability via Transparency.
    JJ at 15:55

    On your first part, it was my understanding that the CO raises an issue which is assessed by 3 anonymous ex-referees who must unanimously agree her issue before a Notice of Complaint can be raised.  The CO has gained that unanimity and has raised the Notice.  I believe the club has contested – presumably so that Kent can play tonight !

    The JPP Section 13 seems to distinguish between "Fast Track Proceedings raised by the Compliance Officer" (13.2 to 13.8) and  "Fast Track Proceedings raised by or on behalf of a Player (“Claims”)"  (13.9 to 13.13); so your 13.13.6 refers to the latter. 

    The table at 13.16 gives a good summary of the timeline/differences.

    Who'd be a lawyer ??

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    JJ at 11:41 

    A bit negative ?  I see that Section 11.4 is headed Determination of Sanction.  BBC is pushing for 2 games, I'm hoping for more.

    Dear Mr Bankier
    These are serious charges on Rangers FC : 


    Charge 1 – criticising a referee.

    Charge 2 – bringing the game into disrepute.

    Charge 3 – using insulting words or behaviour.

    Charge 4 – lack of loyalty, integrity & sportsmanship, not to mention good faith.

    Charge 5 – breaking confidentiality rules.

    and there are pretty serious potential sanctions attached, according to the JPP.

    Dear Mr Bankier
    At last !  This was well overdue – quite a list of charges by the CO.


    Fantastic Voyage ..
    Re posting as my submission seems to have been lost ?


    To go back to the SFA decision today – 

    Auldheid – some time ago you wrote a short piece about “outsourcing” SPFL refereeing to reduce the (possibly) malign influence of the current refereeing fraternity.

    I have been utterly horrified by the McGregor/Ajer case where it is pretty evident that the panel who decide if a case has to be answered – I guess the football equivalent of a prosecuting authority or procurator fiscal – is made up of anonymous ex-referees who have a superb opportunity to apply whatever bias they wish – be that pro-Sevco or anti-Celtic or whatever – or merely not wishing to open an ex colleague up to criticism. Such a panel will NEVER come up with a just, unanimous decision.

    This is, unfortunately, part of the “process” which our new Compliance Officer has been landed with – I guess she is powerless in this circumstance – and until this process is changed, very radically changed, then the cesspit that is Scottish Football will continue to be a corrupt, laughing stock of a sport.

    When you have time, could you give some consideration as to how this process coud be applied fairly & consistently in your model of an outsourced refereeing service?