Hypothetical scenario (compliance officer)

[The Green Goblin]

I was wondering what would happen should the compliance officer "correct" a referee's mistake in a situation where something significant was at stake beyond 3 points. The penalty that never was against Aberdeen, for example, could turn out to be a massive error if we finish last by a single point and are relegated. And if something similar were to happen that affected one of the ugly sisters, where, for example, a decision later declared to be "incorrect" determines who wins the league, or that the team which won it, shouldn't have. You can see how that might happen, (or would the officer bottle it?)

Any thoughts?

GG

[Hibs Class]

I think the only thing you can be certain of is that they will make it up as they go along.

[Caversham Green]

I think the general concept of the compliance officer is a good idea, but the extent of his powers must be carefully limited. The problem with the Aberdeen penalty is that it was not the only reason that they won the game. If that penalty had not been given, who's to say that they would not have pressed harder for the remainder of the game and scored by some other means? Taking off the Hibee hat, awarding one or three points to Hibs would be grossly unfair and the only logical remedy would be to order a replay. That greatly undermines the referee's authority and that is not something the CO should be doing.

Something that the various football authorities seem to want to retain is that the referee is the sole and final arbitrator of a game within the game itself - I think that is as it should be. That's why they are resistant to the use of technology - because someone else will be taking the decision making process out of the hands of the referee. Likewise, a compliance officer changing the result after the event should be unthinkable. Both should be there to assist the referee, not to make his decisions for him - in the case of technology by telling him when the ball has crossed a line (and nothing else IMO) - and in the case of the compliance officer by providing a deterrent against players cheating. If the ref is conned within a game we just have to accept that it has happened but doesn't change the result - same as a simple mistake such as the one I noted in another thread. At least there is the prospect of the cheating player being punished, and the punishment should be sufficient to deter him from doing it in the future. In the case of continuous cheating the deduction of points might be considered, but not applying to specific game.

The compliance officer's remit should be to act only where the referee has been conned or missed an event rather than to supplement the referee's decisions. How that applies to Leigh Griffiths' transgressions is difficult to fathom. The gesture towards Rangers fans was undoubtedly inflammatory and so deserving of punishment but it's clear that the referee's assistant saw it and chose to take no action - in his judgement it was not serious enough to act. In the case of the gestures towards the Hibs fans, it's questionable how inflammatory they were (although some did seem mortally offended) and IMO the punishment should have been left to the club.

Generally, the referee's authority in a game is and should remain absolute and no-one should seek to alter the result after the event. All IMHO of course.

[Keith_M]

I can see the point of the complance officer but until he scrutinizes every minute of every game played, and not just incidents highlighted by TV programs, I fail to see how any of his decisions can be considered fair.