0
    0

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

    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.

    https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scottish-fa-statement-referees-and-disciplinary-system/?rid=13929

    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.

     

    Jimmy Bones Also Commented

    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 

    Agreed.


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    Re : Compliance Officer – naegreetin at 17:13

    "I notice Chris Sutton sounding off on twitter re the latest judgements made by the CO – I must admit I was astonished McGinn of St Mirren got off with what looked to me like a forearm smash on the DUFC player last weekend – if it had happened in the street an assault charge would have been looming."

    I don't disagree but the CO can only act if (a) the referee has not dealt with the incident and (b) the panel of 3 x ex-referees agree unanimously that it is a red card.  I believe the protocol & therefore the CO, is careful not to "re-referee" games in case it upsets FIFA.  As mentioned above, if the CO did look at this, it would be great if the SFA could indicate no citing because …., but perhaps there is a good reason why they cannot do that ?


    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 : 

    https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/

    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.

    https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/


    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?

    Please.