PDA

View Full Version : Meekings offered 1 match ban - appeal won



CallumLaidlaw
21-04-2015, 04:16 PM
..for handball against Celtic. This would rule him out of the final. He has rejected it. I think this is absolutely crazy! Has it ever been done before for handball???

Well done Celtic, you could've just cost a player a cup final appearance

iwasthere1972
21-04-2015, 04:20 PM
..for handball against Celtic. This would rule him out of the final. He has rejected it. I think this is absolutely crazy! Has it ever been done before for handball???

Well done Celtic, you could've just cost a player a cup final appearance

Well if it had happened to us against Falkirk I would have wanted the player to do a hefty sentence in Saughton (nae make that Peterhead - further away so harder for his family to visit him).

The guy basically cheated so I think the one match ban is fair enough.

Keith_M
21-04-2015, 04:21 PM
It was a red card offence, so don't see the problem with this being dealt with by the Compliance Officer.

CallumLaidlaw
21-04-2015, 04:21 PM
Well if it had happened to us against Falkirk I would have wanted the player to do a hefty sentence in Saughton (nae make that Peterhead - further away so harder for his family to visit him).

The guy basically cheated so I think the one match ban is fair enough.

It sets one hell of a precedent. Would it have been done if any other club had complained?

Pete
21-04-2015, 04:22 PM
..for handball against Celtic. This would rule him out of the final. He has rejected it. I think this is absolutely crazy! Has it ever been done before for handball???

Well done Celtic, you could've just cost a player a cup final appearance

I think they would have twigged anyway. It was kind of obvious. :greengrin

Edit: if you're taking about setting a precedent I'm not actually sure. :hmmm:

Sir David Gray
21-04-2015, 04:24 PM
The compliance officer should really only be getting involved with nasty fouls or incidents of a violent nature and also diving.

I have never heard of a player being given a retrospective ban for a handball offence. Has that ever happened before?

truehibernian
21-04-2015, 04:25 PM
Devils advocate in me says good - not because Celtic are being utterly petulant, but because I think their actions (Celtic) will backfire and video technology will now be demanded by referees and football authorities - for far too long football has been in the dark ages and video technology needs to be brought in for decisions like this.

The Leigh Griffiths free kick ? The Suso 'penalty' ? The GMS 'penalty' at Tannadice ?......dare I go back to 1979 v Rangers in the final.....

It's sad it takes a 'toys oot the pram' approach but it could galvanise everyone else to demand fairness for everyone - and protect referees who after this undoubtedly will feel under extra pressure and scrutiny.

CallumLaidlaw
21-04-2015, 04:27 PM
Suppose Hibs better get their pens and papers ready for possible play off games against Rangers

hibee_girl
21-04-2015, 04:28 PM
It's ridiculous, as Yogi said we can all go get old videos now and say well what about this decision etc!

The ref missed it, it happens. Accept it!

Scottie
21-04-2015, 04:28 PM
The compliance officer should really only be getting involved with nasty fouls or incidents of a violent nature and also diving.

I have never heard of a player being given a retrospective ban for a handball offence. Has that ever happened before?
:agree: The only men that should have a games ban is the officials from Sunday as the 6 officials all missed it.

Real Emerald
21-04-2015, 04:29 PM
..for handball against Celtic. This would rule him out of the final. He has rejected it. I think this is absolutely crazy! Has it ever been done before for handball???

Well done Celtic, you could've just cost a player a cup final appearance

If you had offered him that at the time he would have chewed his arm off to get a retrospective ban and no penalty. But I'm sure the rule was introduced more to deal with sly punches, signs to the crowd, head-butts and awful tackles missed by the ref at the time, not this sort of thing. It really is a bit much IMO.

iwasthere1972
21-04-2015, 04:29 PM
It sets one hell of a precedent. Would it have been done if any other club had complained?

Aye. The Rangers.

If it had been seen at the time it would have been a red card,ICT down to 10 men and a penalty. I think they got off lightly. They'll just be happy they're in the final and will still fancy their chances of beating Falkirk.

blackpoolhibs
21-04-2015, 04:35 PM
This is just getting ridiculous, is every decision the ref misses from now on a decision that's going to be looked at?

S4uzee
21-04-2015, 04:36 PM
So if we'd managed to get to the final, ICT would have their two CBs out, it gets even more depressing

cabbageandribs1875
21-04-2015, 04:37 PM
i honestly think the only fair solution to all of this is just to play both SF's again :dunno:, remember our ref on saturday tried to kid on he was playing for Falkirk a few times by taking the ball of our players, it's only fair

Pete
21-04-2015, 04:38 PM
So if we'd managed to get to the final, ICT would have their two CBs out, it gets even more depressing

You know what, it takes a special kind of negativity to think like that.

snooky
21-04-2015, 04:39 PM
Why do I get the feeling that this type of decision, if it was against Rantic, would be postponed until a convenient time in the future?

HibsNutter
21-04-2015, 04:42 PM
It's fair, if he hadn't done this his team would have been 2-0 down, and probably would not have made the final. I was fuming enough at the weekend but if a decision like that put us out I'd have been speechless.

Billy Whizz
21-04-2015, 04:45 PM
Well done Celtic, games gone mad

JimBHibees
21-04-2015, 04:48 PM
Well done Celtic, games gone mad

The ref did see it though he had a clear view. Don't really get this decision.

Hibee_Craig7062
21-04-2015, 04:49 PM
Madness ...........guy should take the SFA all the way if he isn't playing in the final.

NAE NOOKIE
21-04-2015, 04:57 PM
Its not that long ago that Hibs lost a match at Tannadice after the ref gave a penalty for a foul clearly outside the box, where is a clubs recompense for that sort of thing? it was partly responsible for us missing out on the top 6 that year.

When Griffiths free kick against Hearts went 3 feet over the line at least 2 Hearts defenders clearly saw the ball was over the line, they didn't stop play and go 'hey ref that was a goal'........ What's the difference between that and Meekings hand ball, if he gets a ban for cheating why didn't they for ungentlemanly conduct?

Banning players for this sort of thing is opening a can of worms which should be left firmly closed and to ban a player from a cup final just to appease Celtic ( which is what it is ) is a bloody outrage ............. The SFA can add cowardice to the list of their faults just below incompetence.

PISTOL1875
21-04-2015, 05:01 PM
..for handball against Celtic. This would rule him out of the final. He has rejected it. I think this is absolutely crazy! Has it ever been done before for handball???

Well done Celtic, you could've just cost a player a cup final appearance


I wish Hibs would've made this much of a fuss when Craig Thomson shafted us in the Hertz cup final with the awarding of that penalty , this in-turn meaning he would never officiate any of our future matches..

Waxy
21-04-2015, 05:07 PM
The whole semi final thing has turned into a wreck of a mess. They should declare the results void and null and play them again but with real refs this time.

Spike Mandela
21-04-2015, 05:08 PM
If the officials had seen it he would have got a red card and missed the final anyway.

We are used to violent offences missed by officials being treated retrospectively but don't see anything wrong with extending this to other issues of cheating that would incur bans. Handballs stopping goal scoring oppurtunites and diving to win penalties the obvious ones.

It is always harsh when someone misses a final but he was cheating.

Does bring up an interesting conundrum on how to deal retrospectively with wrongly given penalties like the one Craig Thomson awarded in the 2012 final. Only person who cheated there was the ref.

silverhibee
21-04-2015, 05:10 PM
It sets one hell of a precedent. Would it have been done if any other club had complained?

Exactly.

This is a joke decision, but what do you expect from the SFA, they seem to just make it up as they go along, or only when The Rangers and Celtc are involved.

Kojock
21-04-2015, 05:10 PM
It's fair, if he hadn't done this his team would have been 2-0 down, and probably would not have made the final. I was fuming enough at the weekend but if a decision like that put us out I'd have been speechless.
How would they have been 2-0 down. Griffith's has a habit of missing pens in semis

silverhibee
21-04-2015, 05:11 PM
It's ridiculous, as Yogi said we can all go get old videos now and say well what about this decision etc!

The ref missed it, it happens. Accept it!

:agree:

Thegreenside
21-04-2015, 05:15 PM
The authorities in the Scottish game are a joke.

Real Emerald
21-04-2015, 05:15 PM
If the officials had seen it he would have got a red card and missed the final anyway.

We are used to violent offences missed by officials being treated retrospectively but don't see anything wrong with extending this to other issues of cheating that would incur bans. Handballs stopping goal scoring oppurtunites and diving to win penalties the obvious ones.

It is always harsh when someone misses a final but he was cheating.

It was hardly cheating. He spread his body to block the shot and the ball hit his hand, he didn't try to get away with a sneaky punch pretending it was his head like Maradona or anything like that. The ref chose not to give it despite having another 2 officials on the line and one behind each goal. Yes it should have been a pen and he should have been sent off for the technicality of "deliberate" hand ball but it was hardly cheating.

Jim44
21-04-2015, 05:21 PM
It was hardly cheating. He spread his body to block the shot and the ball hit his hand, he didn't try to get away with a sneaky punch pretending it was his head like Maradona or anything like that. The ref chose not to give it despite having another 2 officials on the line and one behind each goal. Yes it should have been a pen and he should have been sent off for the technicality of "deliberate" hand ball but it was hardly cheating.

I agree. I think the 'offence' was seen and a wrong decision made. Whether it was corruption or incompetence, the officials should be punished, not the player.

shetlandhibee
21-04-2015, 05:22 PM
thierry henry against ireland when he scooped the ball across goal for the winner? folk just said they couldnt blame him for doing it, and nothing happened, nothing was even spoken about happening to him. and france got to the world cup.unless he had his hands bye his side theres allways a chance a point blank header from two yards could hit an arm. i think he was happy it hit him and kept a goal out and even happier that it was missed bye the officials. think it would be pretty harsh to ban him from final tho.

HibsNutter
21-04-2015, 05:22 PM
How would they have been 2-0 down. Griffith's has a habit of missing pens in semis

if he hadn't brought his hand up it was clearly going in, otherwise if the ref saw it then it would have possibly been 2-0 but with ICT down to ten men as well, obviously.

shetlandhibee
21-04-2015, 05:23 PM
:top marks
I agree. I think the 'offence' was seen and a wrong decision made. Whether it was corruption or incompetence, the officials should be punished, not the player.

weecounty hibby
21-04-2015, 05:26 PM
How far back are we allowed to go for this kind of thing. I'm sure we all have memories of games involving Celtic and rangers where they should have had players sent off or decisions that were wrongly given. Totally ludicrous decision and is setting a massive precedent. Why don't we do away with refs altogether and just have someone in a studio passing information on decisions over a headset to someone on the park.
Farce and only designed to appease the professional victims that are celtic. Collins saying that they owed it to the fans to question the decision is a joke as well. Who do they think they are????

Pete
21-04-2015, 05:27 PM
The authorities in the Scottish game are a joke.

:agree:

All they have done is give Celtic a bit of revenge because they were unhappy. They are so integrated with the big two they can't even see it any more.

HibernianJK
21-04-2015, 05:31 PM
i cant believe some people are agreeing with this. absolute ****ing disgrace brought to once agai by our absolute ****ing joke of a fotballing body

NAE NOOKIE
21-04-2015, 05:34 PM
If the officials had seen it he would have got a red card and missed the final anyway.

We are used to violent offences missed by officials being treated retrospectively but don't see anything wrong with extending this to other issues of cheating that would incur bans. Handballs stopping goal scoring oppurtunites and diving to win penalties the obvious ones.

It is always harsh when someone misses a final but he was cheating.

That's fine Spike, by all means change the policy .... but you don't bring in a policy like that after the fact and especially two minutes after a complaint by a club who are sore after losing a semi final, as far as I know no player anywhere in the world has been given a retrospective ban for a handball, deliberate or otherwise and that means Meekings didn't have the knowledge available to him that this could be the case when he took the chance. Its akin to parliament voting to bring back hanging and executing everybody already serving a sentence for murder.

If the SFA are accusing Meekings of cheating, then in effect so did ICT .. why don't they just go the whole hog and order a replay. Like I said, a bunch of cowards .... this has sod all to do with fair play and everything to do with appeasing Celtic. I hope Meekings takes them all the way to court.

Waxy
21-04-2015, 05:35 PM
IT'S TIME TO BRING VIDEO REPLAYS INTO FOOTBALL.Video guy up in the stand watching replays and helping with decisions like in rugby. Too much at stake and refs seem to be getting worse.

iwasthere1972
21-04-2015, 05:38 PM
It's ridiculous, as Yogi said we can all go get old videos now and say well what about this decision etc!

The ref missed it, it happens. Accept it!

Especially the old video that Yogi watched Dutch wonder boy Edwin De Graaf on before signing him.

Agnes Gordon
21-04-2015, 05:57 PM
..for handball against Celtic. This would rule him out of the final. He has rejected it. I think this is absolutely crazy! Has it ever been done before for handball???

Well done Celtic, you could've just cost a player a cup final appearance








If ref had done his job properly he would have been ruled out anyway after receiving a deserved red card

Andy74
21-04-2015, 05:59 PM
If ref had done his job properly he would have been ruled out anyway after receiving a deserved red card

Yes a lot of people who went mad about it being missed are now going mental about what woukd really be the same outcome. Minus Celtic probably going through of course.

greenpaper55
21-04-2015, 06:00 PM
This is a farce, if any other team other than one of the OF had brought this up if would have been thrown out. The SFA are trying to placate Celtic for the Refs crap decision, how can a player accept a ban for something that would have cost him no more than a yellow card ! it's the officials who should be accepting a ban instead of the player.

Spike Mandela
21-04-2015, 06:00 PM
That's fine Spike, by all means change the policy .... but you don't bring in a policy like that after the fact and especially two minutes after a complaint by a club who are sore after losing a semi final, as far as I know no player anywhere in the world has been given a retrospective ban for a handball, deliberate or otherwise and that means Meekings didn't have the knowledge available to him that this could be the case when he took the chance. Its akin to parliament voting to bring back hanging and executing everybody already serving a sentence for murder.

If the SFA are accusing Meekings of cheating, then in effect so did ICT .. why don't they just go the whole hog and order a replay. Like I said, a bunch of cowards .... this has sod all to do with fair play and everything to do with appeasing Celtic. I hope Meekings takes them all the way to court.

To be honest I don't know the complete remit of the compliance officer. It would sure as hell set a precedent.

ballengeich
21-04-2015, 06:01 PM
Meekings is contesting the ban. The only reason I can think of is that he is going to claim that the handling was accidental and that the decision not to award a penalty was correct.

I'd like to see the football law changed so that the if it's not certain whether a handball which blocks a shot is deliberate the referee could award a penalty without having to send the defender off. When the ball bounces up and hits an attacker's hand a free kick is always given even if it's obviously accidental so it would bring equality of treatment to forwards and defenders.

shetlandhibee
21-04-2015, 06:04 PM
if celtic had gone threw to the final we wouldnt even be talking about it! nobody would,
thats the most galling thing...

shetlandhibee
21-04-2015, 06:06 PM
Meekings is contesting the ban. The only reason I can think of is that he is going to claim that the handling was accidental and that the decision not to award a penalty was correct.

I'd like to see the football law changed so that the if it's not certain whether a handball which blocks a shot is deliberate the referee could award a penalty without having to send the defender off. When the ball bounces up and hits an attacker's hand a free kick is always given even if it's obviously accidental so it would bring equality of treatment to forwards and defenders.
not always given, sometimes not always

ballengeich
21-04-2015, 06:08 PM
not always given, sometimes not always

Can we agree on usually?:greengrin

shetlandhibee
21-04-2015, 06:09 PM
Can we agree on usually?:greengrin
ok:aok:

NAE NOOKIE
21-04-2015, 06:16 PM
If ref had done his job properly he would have been ruled out anyway after receiving a deserved red card

If the ref had done his job properly The Rangers 2nd goal at ER the other week would not have stood ..... any action? .... no.

If the ref had done his job properly on Saturday two Hibs attacks wouldn't have broken down.

If the ref screws up and misses an obvious decision like he did on Sunday the ref should be punished, not the player. If the SFA want to use video evidence to punish players for a hand ball then fine ....... but the players should be made aware of the policy before they take the field, not two days after the game. It is utterly against the definition of natural justice to make up a rule or expand the application of an existing rule or policy and then apply it retrospectively.

Meekings emotional distress must be off the scale at this ..... if he misses the final I hope his lawyers wipe the floor with the SFA.

Lago
21-04-2015, 06:18 PM
:top marks
:agree:

All they have done is give Celtic a bit of revenge because they were unhappy. They are so integrated with the big two they can't even see it any more.

emerald green
21-04-2015, 06:25 PM
Devils advocate in me says good - not because Celtic are being utterly petulant, but because I think their actions (Celtic) will backfire and video technology will now be demanded by referees and football authorities - for far too long football has been in the dark ages and video technology needs to be brought in for decisions like this.

The Leigh Griffiths free kick ? The Suso 'penalty' ? The GMS 'penalty' at Tannadice ?......dare I go back to 1979 v Rangers in the final.....

It's sad it takes a 'toys oot the pram' approach but it could galvanise everyone else to demand fairness for everyone - and protect referees who after this undoubtedly will feel under extra pressure and scrutiny.

I saw John Collins (Celtic assistant manager) being interviewed on TV earlier tonight, and he said he felt it was way past time for video technology to be introduced. Celtic are only asking for fairness too.

The number of Celtic haters on this forum are more paranoid than the Celtic supporters they hate so much. I've no time for them TBH, but if that had happened to Hibs would anyone who posts regularly on this forum think it was fair and castigate our CEO if she went public and asked for clarification?

PS: I don't think the ICT player should miss the final. There would be no fairness or sense in that either.

PPS: I've heard a wee whisper that Steve McLean (the referee) is or was a season ticket holder at Ibrox. Could this possibly be true? Just asking.

mjhibby
21-04-2015, 06:28 PM
It's ridiculous, as Yogi said we can all go get old videos now and say well what about this decision etc!

The ref missed it, it happens. Accept it!

What a complete load of Horlicks. Refs miss handballs all the time. I've reffed a few amateur games and they have a hard enough jobs believe me. Are we now to look at every incident or those involving the bigot sisters.im actually gobsmacked at this and it says everything that is rotten about the game in Scotland.

NAE NOOKIE
21-04-2015, 06:29 PM
Meekings is contesting the ban. The only reason I can think of is that he is going to claim that the handling was accidental and that the decision not to award a penalty was correct.

I'd like to see the football law changed so that the if it's not certain whether a handball which blocks a shot is deliberate the referee could award a penalty without having to send the defender off. When the ball bounces up and hits an attacker's hand a free kick is always given even if it's obviously accidental so it would bring equality of treatment to forwards and defenders.

Sorry to go on about this, but he has a right to question why he will be the first player in Scottish football ever to be banned after video evidence has been used to review a hand ball incident. Players who commit a serious foul or dive to win a penalty are fully aware that they could be punished later .... players handling the ball are not.

Apart from that, the referee clearly saw the handball and chose not to penalise the player ..... so what are we saying? That if the ref sees an incident and 'chooses' not to take action that the player should be punished later?

Green Fish
21-04-2015, 06:32 PM
If the ref had done his job properly The Rangers 2nd goal at ER the other week would not have stood ..... any action? .... no.

If the ref had done his job properly on Saturday two Hibs attacks wouldn't have broken down.

If the ref screws up and misses an obvious decision like he did on Sunday the ref should be punished, not the player. If the SFA want to use video evidence to punish players for a hand ball then fine ....... but the players should be made aware of the policy before they take the field, not two days after the game. It is utterly against the definition of natural justice to make up a rule or expand the application of an existing rule or policy and then apply it retrospectively.

Meekings emotional distress must be off the scale at this ..... if he misses the final I hope his lawyers wipe the floor with the SFA.

Apparently Stevie McLean is employed at hampden and has some sort of job share arrangement with Craig Thomson, thus, can't see much happening to him!

Spike Mandela
21-04-2015, 06:32 PM
Compliance officer remit a wide one.....

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_football.cfm?page=2565

superfurryhibby
21-04-2015, 06:36 PM
What a complete load of Horlicks. Refs miss handballs all the time. I've reffed a few amateur games and they have a hard enough jobs believe me. Are we now to look at every incident or those involving the bigot sisters.im actually gobsmacked at this and it says everything that is rotten about the game in Scotland.

That's what he's saying dude.

I've just watched it. It wasn't like he did a Gordon Banksesque save. As a few have said, point blank range and the hand goes up, always. It's a protective reaction and instinctive. He may I may not have mean't it, who knows. What is bizarre is that there might be some kind of ban for the guy. The ref and his assistants are at least as guilty for their quite incredible oversight!

The evidence for technology is overwhelming. The Aquestion for me is, where do you draw a line?

Scouse Hibee
21-04-2015, 06:37 PM
Massive cock up by the officials on the day which changed the course of the game, one game ban doesn't even come near, the game should be replayed for certain.














































































And just to make it fair so should the other semi final :greengrin

Billy Whizz
21-04-2015, 06:46 PM
Massive cock up by the officials on the day which changed the course of the game, one game ban doesn't even come near, the game should be replayed for certain.

























And just to make it fair so should the other semi final :greengrin

And the FA cup semi as well, I presume

Aldo
21-04-2015, 06:49 PM
So does it mean that when EVERY club writes in then the CO will offer players who do this sort of thing and it's missed by the Ref a ban??

Precedence has now been set.

And BTW how childish are Smellic being.

Scouse Hibee
21-04-2015, 06:53 PM
And the FA cup semi as well, I presume


:agree: Yes for the offside decision :greengrin

hibbytam
21-04-2015, 06:57 PM
That's what he's saying dude.

I've just watched it. It wasn't like he did a Gordon Banksesque save. As a few have said, point blank range and the hand goes up, always. It's a protective reaction and instinctive. He may I may not have mean't it, who knows. What is bizarre is that there might be some kind of ban for the guy. The ref and his assistants are at least as guilty for their quite incredible oversight!

The evidence for technology is overwhelming. The Aquestion for me is, where do you draw a line?

I've said this before, but I don't understand why there can't be an official watching the footage live, able to advise the ref on decision like this. The ball wouldn't even have to go dead, he can just be watching the screens, and give the ref a shout if there's a decision to be made. It's really not that hard. If it's a contentious call, the final say is always with the ref, but it would do away with idiocy like this.

And I don't think he should be banned, because the decision was, or wasn't, made by the ref. It's not like it's something he's missed, or been tricked by. he's just made a bad call.

But it is funny it happened to celtic.

lord bunberry
21-04-2015, 07:00 PM
How many times has this sort of thing happened this season? Why is the compliance officer getting involved this time and not any of the previous times? The whole thing stinks.

Kojock
21-04-2015, 07:34 PM
Celtic involved in the controversy which resulted in the referee strike in 2010 and now this. Dry her ****** eyes Celtic. Never seen you writing to complain about all the wrong decisions that went FOR you. Always the victim boo******hoo

big gogs
21-04-2015, 07:40 PM
I fail to see the problem here,the player stopped the ball with his arm,he was not booked,no penalty given,Celtic went out,if a penalty was given would they have scored,we will never know.

NadeAteMyLunch!
21-04-2015, 07:40 PM
So if we'd managed to get to the final, ICT would have their two CBs out, it gets even more depressing

And their first choice keeper. I still can't believe the opportunity we've thrown away [emoji22]

Geo_1875
21-04-2015, 07:40 PM
IT'S TIME TO BRING VIDEO REPLAYS INTO FOOTBALL.Video guy up in the stand watching replays and helping with decisions like in rugby. Too much at stake and refs seem to be getting worse.

You'd need 2 guys watching the video in case either was incompetent or a cheat. Or maybe have a panel of video referees.

NadeAteMyLunch!
21-04-2015, 07:41 PM
You know what, it takes a special kind of negativity to think like that.

I must have that special kind of negativity as well then because it was my very first thought when my dad told me earlier. Then again, I've pretty much been on suicide watch since the weekend

Andy74
21-04-2015, 07:48 PM
So does it mean that when EVERY club writes in then the CO will offer players who do this sort of thing and it's missed by the Ref a ban??

Precedence has now been set.

And BTW how childish are Smellic being.

I'd doubt it's connected to Celtic writing in to be honest.

Tyler Durden
21-04-2015, 07:49 PM
My problem with this is that the SFA seem to make it up as they go. In England the retrospective punishments are relatively predictable. Here we have "not proven" verdicts for clear headbutts and now this. 2 game bans for dives but only 2/3 games for Jim Goodwin after repeated assaults. Why does the EPL seem to get most of this right and SFA are so badly wrong or so badly at odds with public opinion?

A few years back it seemed FIFA would allow no retrospective punishment - remember Eduardos dive against Celtic. Then it was possible for incidents the ref hadn't seen. Then few years back in EPL they decided that they could give additional punishment on exceptional cases where ref had seen - think it came after that Calum Mcmananan challenge on a Newcastle player.

But was it ever intended to be used in a case like this? Refs and assistants had clear view and didn't give it.

Madness

Prof. Shaggy
21-04-2015, 08:23 PM
A few years back it seemed FIFA would allow no retrospective punishment - remember Eduardos dive against Celtic.

Alleged dive...:wink:

Geo_1875
21-04-2015, 08:24 PM
My problem with this is that the SFA seem to make it up as they go. In England the retrospective punishments are relatively predictable. Here we have "not proven" verdicts for clear headbutts and now this. 2 game bans for dives but only 2/3 games for Jim Goodwin after repeated assaults. Why does the EPL seem to get most of this right and SFA are so badly wrong or so badly at odds with public opinion?

A few years back it seemed FIFA would allow no retrospective punishment - remember Eduardos dive against Celtic. Then it was possible for incidents the ref hadn't seen. Then few years back in EPL they decided that they could give additional punishment on exceptional cases where ref had seen - think it came after that Calum Mcmananan challenge on a Newcastle player.

But was it ever intended to be used in a case like this? Refs and assistants had clear view and didn't give it.

Madness

If that is the case then it's time Scottish football binned our referees and their assistants and brought them in from elsewhere.

If our referees are so incompetent or so biased then there is little point in entering any competition organised by the SFA/SFPL.

The_Sauz
21-04-2015, 08:47 PM
I wish Hibs would've made this much of a fuss when Craig Thomson shafted us in the Hertz cup final with the awarding of that penalty , this in-turn meaning he would never officiate any of our future matches..
That final was just a side show for the media and the SFA as the main topic was where will Rangers play next season :agree:

Roberts1875
21-04-2015, 08:52 PM
Don't really have an issue with the compliance officer dealing with it. Fair enough the guy is likely to get banned, but has taken one for the team. Had he not Celtic would have certainly scored and been out of sight

Bishop Hibee
21-04-2015, 08:58 PM
I can't believe this. If this goes through I expect Hibs to contest every refereeing error against us thoroughly including encouraging supporters to lobby the compliance officer.

What a Micky mouse set up the SFA is.

Real Emerald
21-04-2015, 09:00 PM
If that is the case then it's time Scottish football binned our referees and their assistants and brought them in from elsewhere.

If our referees are so incompetent or so biased then there is little point in entering any competition organised by the SFA/SFPL.

Trouble with that would be the SFA/SPFL giving them their briefing before they took up post. "We have the two big weegie teams who you give everything to and Hearts when they play Hibs, then the other ****** we diddy teams who get nought, got it. Anyone who breaks these easy to understand rules will be sacked."

The_Sauz
21-04-2015, 09:03 PM
I must have that special kind of negativity as well then because it was my very first thought when my dad told me earlier. Then again, I've pretty much been on suicide watch since the weekend

You really are a sad person even joking about it :bitchy:

Leithenhibby
21-04-2015, 09:05 PM
Don't really have an issue with the compliance officer dealing with it. Fair enough the guy is likely to get banned, but has taken one for the team. Had he not ]Celtic would have certainly scored and been out of sight

Do you have the lottery numbers for the morra? :greengrin

The_Sauz
21-04-2015, 09:05 PM
Don't really have an issue with the compliance officer dealing with it. Fair enough the guy is likely to get banned, but has taken one for the team. Had he not Celtic would have certainly scored and been out of sight
How do you know they would have scored the penalty :confused:

easty
21-04-2015, 09:10 PM
I've only just saw this, and cannae believe it. It's nonsense.

Will the compliance officer be intervening to hand out second yellow cards for players who've already been booked and get away with another foul now as well? Maybe he can sit in his office and time how long goalies take to kick the ball from thier hands, book a few of them for time wasting.

This is horse**** and never in a million years would it be happening if the roles were reversed, if it was Scott Brown who got away with the same hand ball and Celtc went on to win the game we'd no be hearing about him being suspended.

Mikey09
21-04-2015, 09:32 PM
..for handball against Celtic. This would rule him out of the final. He has rejected it. I think this is absolutely crazy! Has it ever been done before for handball???

Well done Celtic, you could've just cost a player a cup final appearance


I actually give up.... The games a bogie if players are being retrospectively punished for this. And the Scottish Cup Final?!! Boy will be devastated. As I said, if this is the road we're going down there will be a hell of a lot of players being punished.

bawheid
21-04-2015, 09:40 PM
PPS: I've heard a wee whisper that Steve McLean (the referee) is or was a season ticket holder at Ibrox. Could this possibly be true? Just asking.

lol... no dude. No, he definitely isn't and never has been a season ticket holder at Ibrox.

Thought I'd stumbled onto Kerrydale Street there.

McLean is one of our better referees and he's made a mistake. How many mistakes like these have been made in Celtic's favour over the years? They should wind their necks in.

Banning the player for the final is petty. I'm not even convinced it was a penalty. Were his arms really in an unnatural position for trying to block the ball with his body?

CallumLaidlaw
21-04-2015, 09:48 PM
Yet again Tho, trial by tv. Last week the RangersTV commentators said that Vuckic should have been sent off for a headbutt against livingston. No tv footage so no retrospective action.

Real Emerald
21-04-2015, 09:50 PM
lol... no dude. No, he definitely isn't and never has been a season ticket holder at Ibrox.

Thought I'd stumbled onto Kerrydale Street there.

McLean is one of our better referees and he's made a mistake. How many mistakes like these have been made in Celtic's favour over the years? They should wind their necks in.

Banning the player for the final is petty. I'm not even convinced it was a penalty. Were his arms really in an unnatural position for trying to block the ball with his body?I kind of agree with you here. I think these days when the ball plays the man and he has an outstretched arm, especially when it stops the ball going into the net a pen would normally always be given. However, I don't think he deliberately handled the ball and that's where a penalty plus booking should be given. If he had dived across the goal and tipped it over the bar then yes it's a red card. The punishment of the penalty in most of the cases where the ball plays the man coupled with a yellow card should be enough.

Edit: After reading what I wrote I'm now of the mind that a player should not even get a booking if it's not deliberate but the penalty should be given if his hand ball stops a goal.

The_Sauz
21-04-2015, 09:55 PM
Yet again Tho, trial by tv. Last week the RangersTV commentators said that Vuckic should have been sent off for a headbutt against livingston. No tv footage so no retrospective action.

Kenny Miller's hit on Paul Hanlon face at Ibrox after the ball was away (caught on camera)

Swedish hibee
21-04-2015, 09:57 PM
SFA are scared of Celtic. Nothing more to say.

Hibeesmad
21-04-2015, 10:00 PM
The past week has been a disaster for the SFA, they need to come up with some solutions on the way they are run sharply

Roberts1875
21-04-2015, 10:04 PM
I don't, but had he not stuck out an arm the ball would have ben in the net....forget the penalty, there wouldn't have been one

HibernianJK
21-04-2015, 10:29 PM
I'd doubt it's connected to Celtic writing in to be honest.


You have to be joking? There is no way on gods green earth that the SFA make this decision without a complaint for that vile lot.

silverhibee
21-04-2015, 10:33 PM
Don't really have an issue with the compliance officer dealing with it. Fair enough the guy is likely to get banned, but has taken one for the team. Had he not Celtic would have certainly scored and been out of sight

Aye whatever Broonie.

silverhibee
21-04-2015, 10:41 PM
I've only just saw this, and cannae believe it. It's nonsense.

Will the compliance officer be intervening to hand out second yellow cards for players who've already been booked and get away with another foul now as well? Maybe he can sit in his office and time how long goalies take to kick the ball from thier hands, book a few of them for time wasting.

This is horse**** and never in a million years would it be happening if the roles were reversed, if it was Scott Brown who got away with the same hand ball and Celtc went on to win the game we'd no be hearing about him being suspended.

Broonie should have seen red for his wreckless challenge in the first 15 minutes of the game, and what is the compliance officer doing about the celtc goalie subs assault on the ICT player.

Eyrie
21-04-2015, 10:43 PM
I have no problem with retrospective action where, if the incident had been seen at the time, it would have been a straight red.

Supposing that had been a Falkirk player and we'd gone out as a result? We still justifiably complain about Black's forearm smash on Griffiths and that should have been dealt with by the compliance officer given that Thomson cheated by not even booking the player.

Real Emerald
21-04-2015, 10:49 PM
I have no problem with retrospective action where, if the incident had been seen at the time, it would have been a straight red.

Supposing that had been a Falkirk player and we'd gone out as a result? We still justifiably complain about Black's forearm smash on Griffiths and that should have been dealt with by the compliance officer given that Thomson cheated by not even booking the player.

Yes but that was violent conduct that was missed by the ref at the time. This is an alleged deliberate hand ball seen by all the officials and wrongly not given. In my view, there's no point in giving a retrospective red card for that incident if you can't give a retrospective penalty kick. A missed assault is something completely different where the player should quite rightly get retrospective punishment where the incident is missed.

Eyrie
21-04-2015, 10:50 PM
Yes but that was violent conduct that was missed by the ref at the time. This is an alleged deliberate hand ball seen by all the officials and wrongly not given. In my view, there's no point in giving a retrospective red card for that incident if you can't give a retrospective penalty kick. A missed assault is something completely different where the player should quite rightly get retrospective punishment where the incident is missed.

And what about retrospective action being taken against divers like Pawlett?

Mikey09
21-04-2015, 10:50 PM
Broonie should have seen red for his wreckless challenge in the first 15 minutes of the game, and what is the compliance officer doing about the celtc goalie subs assault on the ICT player.


That was my point in my earlier post. There could be a dozen incidents per game if we go down this road... But as long as the SFA are keeping Celtic happy, which they still won't be as it's changed nowt apart from a lad will miss the biggest game of his career.

Real Emerald
21-04-2015, 10:56 PM
And what about retrospective action being taken against divers like Pawlett?

It's difficult to prove if a dive was a deliberate although if it was Pawlett it probably is. I don't believe the rule should be used in this (Inverness) case, it has no place in football for incidents like this. The guy didn't cheat deliberately in my view.

silverhibee
21-04-2015, 11:03 PM
It has been happening for years and they just keep getting away with it.

http://www.goal.com/en/news/3194/video/2010/08/25/2086714/video-cheating-rangers-keeper-allan-mcgregor-blown-over-by-a

And for some reason the video of this incident can no longer be found, searched everywhere but can't find it.

California-Hibs
22-04-2015, 03:43 AM
.....So that would of been us playing them in the final with them missing Warren AND Meekings?!Their 2 main defenders!! Bloody hell our result just keeps getting harder and harder to take.

lucky
22-04-2015, 05:04 AM
If this hand ball had happened against Hibs we would be going mental. When Thierry Henry hand balled against Ireland in the play offs there was a demand from all quarters for action. But the role of the compliance officer is complicated. You only get done if tv cameras are there and if the officials have totally missed it. For me going down this route of retrospective action for these types of incidents is just plain stupid. I'm not sure what is being gained by this action. As has been said Scottish football administrators seem to fined new ways to embarrass our game with their lack of common sense.

s.a.m
22-04-2015, 07:57 AM
I have no problem with retrospective action where, if the incident had been seen at the time, it would have been a straight red.

Supposing that had been a Falkirk player and we'd gone out as a result? We still justifiably complain about Black's forearm smash on Griffiths and that should have been dealt with by the compliance officer given that Thomson cheated by not even booking the player.

I have no problem with the compliance officer taking retrospective action in cases of violent conduct. I can remember (possibly around the time of the Duncan Ferguson incident) the police told the SFA that if they didn't want them getting involved in football, then they had to start taking action on thuggery on the pitch.

Other than that, though, I think that retrospective refereeing of games is wrong. It can't be done consistently, because TV coverage is heavily weighted in favour of a relatively small number of teams whose games would be unequally affected. If it was to be done fairly - i.e. not just high profile, outrage-inducing incidents against high-profile teams - the compliance officer would have to go through each game, and pick out each game-changing incident (which happened to be covered by the camera(s)). If the football authorities are happy with the principal of over-ruling the authority of the referee, then they should introduce video evidence during the game, with cameras at all games in a competition. If not, then they have to let the referee manage the game.

lyonhibs
22-04-2015, 08:20 AM
Meekings is contesting the ban. The only reason I can think of is that he is going to claim that the handling was accidental and that the decision not to award a penalty was correct.

I'd like to see the football law changed so that the if it's not certain whether a handball which blocks a shot is deliberate the referee could award a penalty without having to send the defender off. When the ball bounces up and hits an attacker's hand a free kick is always given even if it's obviously accidental so it would bring equality of treatment to forwards and defenders.

If that's his main argument then his appeal is up the pole. His hand is up above his shoulder, in a totally unnatural position for an outfield player. What's it doing there if not to make the "space" his body blocks bigger than it would otherwise be if it was down by his side?

It's not like he's gone the full John Terry diving mega-block with limbs flying all over the place. And the ball is going in. It's not a handball 12 yards out blocking a long range shot that "might" have been going in or anything.

And I'm not sure what the "well, how long can we go back then?" crowd are talking about. I'm fairly sure there's a time limit after a game in which the compliance officer has to offer his bans for whatever has been missed by the referee during the game. It's not like it's now September 2015 and Meekings is being offered a 1 match ban, it's a couple of days after the match.

Harsh perhaps, but if the compliance officer's remit is to analyse the match and act upon red card-worthy incidents (be they fouls, spitting, hand balls, whatever) that were missed in real time, then Meekings hasn't got a leg to stand on.

In saying that, nobody seems especially clear on exactly what the compliance officer should/should not act on.

Andy74
22-04-2015, 08:26 AM
If that's his main argument then his appeal is up the pole. His hand is up above his shoulder, in a totally unnatural position for an outfield player. What's it doing there if not to make the "space" his body blocks bigger than it would otherwise be if it was down by his side?

It's not like he's gone the full John Terry diving mega-block with limbs flying all over the place. And the ball is going in. It's not a handball 12 yards out blocking a long range shot that "might" have been going in or anything.

And I'm not sure what the "well, how long can we go back then?" crowd are talking about. I'm fairly sure there's a time limit after a game in which the compliance officer has to offer his bans for whatever has been missed by the referee during the game. It's not like it's now September 2015 and Meekings is being offered a 1 match ban, it's a couple of days after the match.

Harsh perhaps, but if the compliance officer's remit is to analyse the match and act upon red card-worthy incidents (be they fouls, spitting, hand balls, whatever) that were missed in real time, then Meekings hasn't got a leg to stand on.

In saying that, nobody seems especially clear on exactly what the compliance officer should/should not act on.

Agree and don't really see the fuss about the player - he was a lucky man to be on the park at all and if it wasn't for the mistake he would have been off and banned anyway and his team mates would probably not have had a cup final to play in.

The action for a handball is the unusual thing but that's not to say it is wrong, if the officer is reviewing incidents where players should have received reds but it was missed then this is one of them. Would it have been different in the public view if he had a sly trip when a player was shooting and that was missed?

Handballs are not without some previous public outcry though. When Suarez saved on the line a while back there was a big clamour for him to get an even bigger ban for cheating. When Henry scored after it hitting his hand v Ireland there were calls for the game to be replayed and for him to be banned.

The law has caught up with him on this one and I don't quite get the sympathy for him - he is lucky there is a final for them to play in at all.

21.05.2016
22-04-2015, 08:26 AM
Celtic need to get over themselves. Yes, it was a very bad decision but unfortunately that happens (especially in Scotland where the referees are utter garbage), look at how many big decisions in derbies that have cost us over the years for example!

I do find that their "the referee cost us the treble" moaning is highly disrespectful though. 1) they are basically telling ICT that they only won because of a bad ref decision and 2) they are writing Falkirk off as well as they would still have had to play and beat them in the final to get the cup.

And as for this whole "conspiracy against celtic" bollocks that they've been sprouting about (tbf even some of the more decent celtic fans are cringing at such claims), thats absolutely ridiculous. The OF have been helped out and gotten away with murder by officials more times than i can even care to remember. This whole nonsense just proves exactly why referees and officials are usually so frightened to give decisions against them as their name is dragged through the headlines of the media for weeks on end afterwards. If it had been a bad decision against anyone else, it would have been talked about the day after but then the media would quickly sweep it under the carpet and say no more. Its only because, god forbid someone has dared to upset one of the OF that this is still dragging out.

Typical celtic, sore sore losers who can't accept a defeat - its always someone else's fault, someone cheating them etc. Their sheer arrogance and contempt for everyone else never fails to amaze me.

Carheenlea
22-04-2015, 08:39 AM
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1028407390521861&set=a.207820252580583.56967.100000578281659&type=1&fref=nf&pnref=story

lord bunberry
22-04-2015, 08:50 AM
Agree and don't really see the fuss about the player - he was a lucky man to be on the park at all and if it wasn't for the mistake he would have been off and banned anyway and his team mates would probably not have had a cup final to play in.

The action for a handball is the unusual thing but that's not to say it is wrong, if the officer is reviewing incidents where players should have received reds but it was missed then this is one of them. Would it have been different in the public view if he had a sly trip when a player was shooting and that was missed?

Handballs are not without some previous public outcry though. When Suarez saved on the line a while back there was a big clamour for him to get an even bigger ban for cheating. When Henry scored after it hitting his hand v Ireland there were calls for the game to be replayed and for him to be banned.

The law has up with him on this one and I don't quite get the sympathy for him - he is lucky there is a final for them to play in at all.
The point is why has the law caught up with him at this late stage of the season? I'm sure we could go back and find loads of instances were this has happened this season. If things like this are going to happen it should've happened from the start of the season.

Thecat23
22-04-2015, 08:57 AM
6 officials on the park on Sunday. They all missed it, if anyone should be punished it's them! Celtic writing letters to the SFA and folk saying he should be banned need to get a grip. It happens it football every week.

Funny how when Celtic player dived against Hearts Celtic's manager says he won't condemn his player as "These things even themselves up over the course of the season." Yep they sure do Ronnie so deal with it and man up!!

s.a.m
22-04-2015, 08:58 AM
If that's his main argument then his appeal is up the pole. His hand is up above his shoulder, in a totally unnatural position for an outfield player. What's it doing there if not to make the "space" his body blocks bigger than it would otherwise be if it was down by his side?

It's not like he's gone the full John Terry diving mega-block with limbs flying all over the place. And the ball is going in. It's not a handball 12 yards out blocking a long range shot that "might" have been going in or anything.

And I'm not sure what the "well, how long can we go back then?" crowd are talking about. I'm fairly sure there's a time limit after a game in which the compliance officer has to offer his bans for whatever has been missed by the referee during the game. It's not like it's now September 2015 and Meekings is being offered a 1 match ban, it's a couple of days after the match.

Harsh perhaps, but if the compliance officer's remit is to analyse the match and act upon red card-worthy incidents (be they fouls, spitting, hand balls, whatever) that were missed in real time, then Meekings hasn't got a leg to stand on.

In saying that, nobody seems especially clear on exactly what the compliance officer should/should not act on.

The problem is that until now, the compliance officer has limited himself to post-match punishment of violence. Sporting misdemeanours, outrageous cheating, professional fouls etc...don't seem to have crossed his radar up until now. If we want the game to go in that direction, then we're going to have to find a large team of whatever-the-new-Mr-Lunny-is-calleds, because they're going to have to be watching and dissecting a whole lot of football. What's more, if his remit is to be expanded, the time to do it is at the start of a season when the process can at least be seen to be fair, and equally available to all clubs.

Andy74
22-04-2015, 09:10 AM
The problem is that until now, the compliance officer has limited himself to post-match punishment of violence. Sporting misdemeanours, outrageous cheating, professional fouls etc...don't seem to have crossed his radar up until now. If we want the game to go in that direction, then we're going to have to find a large team of whatever-the-new-Mr-Lunny-is-calleds, because they're going to have to be watching and dissecting a whole lot of football. What's more, if his remit is to be expanded, the time to do it is at the start of a season when the process can at least be seen to be fair, and equally available to all clubs.

We don't know if its a change in practice or not, I would doubt it, it will come under the remit he has always had.

Maybe there haven't been any handling offences that he has seen that have been missed by all officials and was also serious enough to have resulted in a red card if it had been seen? There are some rules arund what type of footage and so on can be used for this I think so naturally that is going to cut down the number of elgigble incidents too. Do we hear or care about them all? Not sure how much coverage all the cases he looks at gets.

Anyway, I'm not getting some of the 'no way should he be punished' chat. Quite clearly he should have been off and banned in the first place.

lobster
22-04-2015, 09:19 AM
A matter of fairness eh Celtic? Fairness in football would mean each team having the same budget. Don't hear them call for that. The ref made a crap decision, it happens all the time. Move on. Far be it for them to behave with any dignity in the matter.

Oh for the day when all Scottish football fans really got together and boycotted every fixture involving the old firm. That would send a message. Unfortunately money talks.

Spike Mandela
22-04-2015, 09:26 AM
Really don't see what all the fuss is about other than the poor guy is missing a final.

Ignoring all the Celtic/Rangers/SFA paranoia and conspiracy theories the fact is the player should have got a red and now he's getting it retrospectively.

The player himself has admitted he was lucky to get away with handball on the day so can't really see the basis for an appeal.

Moulin Yarns
22-04-2015, 09:33 AM
Here is an interesting perspective on hanball. Written with no knowledge of Sunday's events.

http://flawsofthegame.blogspot.co.uk/p/deliberate-handball.html

I have watxhed it freeze frame from all angles and I am not convinced it is deliberate, Meekins is going to try and head the ball, and his arm is up to help his momentum. The distance between Griffiths and Meekins makes it impossible to get his arm out of the way. Is the ball netbound? Not convinced, as it looks like it is going across goal.

The Gorf
22-04-2015, 09:54 AM
Celtic need to get over themselves. Yes, it was a very bad decision but unfortunately that happens (especially in Scotland where the referees are utter garbage), look at how many big decisions in derbies that have cost us over the years for example!

I do find that their "the referee cost us the treble" moaning is highly disrespectful though. 1) they are basically telling ICT that they only won because of a bad ref decision and 2) they are writing Falkirk off as well as they would still have had to play and beat them in the final to get the cup.

And as for this whole "conspiracy against celtic" bollocks that they've been sprouting about (tbf even some of the more decent celtic fans are cringing at such claims), thats absolutely ridiculous. The OF have been helped out and gotten away with murder by officials more times than i can even care to remember. This whole nonsense just proves exactly why referees and officials are usually so frightened to give decisions against them as their name is dragged through the headlines of the media for weeks on end afterwards. If it had been a bad decision against anyone else, it would have been talked about the day after but then the media would quickly sweep it under the carpet and say no more. Its only because, god forbid someone has dared to upset one of the OF that this is still dragging out.

Typical celtic, sore sore losers who can't accept a defeat - its always someone else's fault, someone cheating them etc. Their sheer arrogance and contempt for everyone else never fails to amaze me.
Next thing will be when a team scores against them it'll be " A big boy did it and ran away".

Thecat23
22-04-2015, 09:58 AM
Here is an interesting perspective on hanball. Written with no knowledge of Sunday's events.

http://flawsofthegame.blogspot.co.uk/p/deliberate-handball.html

I have watxhed it freeze frame from all angles and I am not convinced it is deliberate, Meekins is going to try and head the ball, and his arm is up to help his momentum. The distance between Griffiths and Meekins makes it impossible to get his arm out of the way. Is the ball netbound? Not convinced, as it looks like it is going across goal.

I'm not convinced it's deliberate either. When you throw your body in the way of a shot your arms are all over the place. Some of the best keepers in the world would be prob of that save if it's meant as it was point blank pretty much! He hasn't elbowed anyone or broke a leg so for me folk wanting him out the final are a bit sad. That's just football, if he'd dived across the line and saved it and the ref had missed that then you would say ban him.

Geo_1875
22-04-2015, 09:58 AM
Here is an interesting perspective on hanball. Written with no knowledge of Sunday's events.

http://flawsofthegame.blogspot.co.uk/p/deliberate-handball.html

I have watxhed it freeze frame from all angles and I am not convinced it is deliberate, Meekins is going to try and head the ball, and his arm is up to help his momentum. The distance between Griffiths and Meekins makes it impossible to get his arm out of the way. Is the ball netbound? Not convinced, as it looks like it is going across goal.

Rubbish. His head didn't move towards the ball and he made no attempt to get his hand out of the way. The only credit he gets is that he didn't hold his face in an attempt to con the officials.

I don't believe he should be punished retrospectively but don't make out he's the innocent party.

Only if the authorities finally understand how poor our officials are and take steps to rectify this will anything good come out of this farce.

Thecat23
22-04-2015, 10:00 AM
I hope every dodgy decision that goes in Celtics favour the team then write a letter to the SFA and make a complaint. They really have opened a can of worms with this.

O'Rourke3
22-04-2015, 10:14 AM
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1028407390521861&set=a.207820252580583.56967.100000578281659&type=1&fref=nf&pnref=story

Possibly the first decent point that poster has made - I don't remember Celtic offering to replay the match either.....

Scottie
22-04-2015, 10:25 AM
I hope every dodgy decision that goes in Celtics favour the team then write a letter to the SFA and make a complaint. They really have opened a can of worms with this.
I hope they do.

Im more disgusted in the way the SFA have handled this. Let's see if further appeals by other clubs are handled in the same way.

GIRUY Sellick :na na:

Spike Mandela
22-04-2015, 10:52 AM
Here is the explanation. Take a step back from Celtic/Lawell/SFA/Corruption paranoia for a moment and it really is a quites a simple decision for the compliance officer under his remit.....

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/inverness/318059-explained-why-the-scottish-fa-had-to-act-on-josh-meekings-handball/

Titch
22-04-2015, 10:54 AM
I hate them as much as the next man however they WERE robbed and its about time something is done with the "officials" in our game.
ICT down to ten and a penalty. Lets just say for arguments sake celtic missed the penalty down to ten and a goal down ICT are NOT beating Celtc

Sammy7nil
22-04-2015, 10:59 AM
I hate them as much as the next man however they WERE robbed and its about time something is done with the "officials" in our game.
ICT down to ten and a penalty. Lets just say for arguments sake celtic missed the penalty down to ten and a goal down ICT are NOT beating Celtc

Totally agree, forget that it is Celtic making the complaint, imagine it ICT that were one up and a Celtic player had got away with this we would all be screaming OF bias and demanding action.

The decision was wrong and must be looked at, if that means Meekings misses the final so be it. There will be 14 Celtic players missing the final.

Andy74
22-04-2015, 11:03 AM
I hope every dodgy decision that goes in Celtics favour the team then write a letter to the SFA and make a complaint. They really have opened a can of worms with this.

It's not linked to the complaint though.

NAE NOOKIE
22-04-2015, 11:25 AM
It used to be the case that Celtic had a wee bit of class, but in the modern era that seems to have been set aside. Lets look at the evidence.

They complain about a lack of competition and then weaken their opponents .... all clubs do that, but don't moan about the result.

They were well beaten by Legia Warsaw, but used a technicality to go through ... would Celtic of the past have done that?

They never stop moaning about getting a raw deal from the SFA / SPFL ..... they think everybody else owes them deference IMO

Their mangers seem to buy into their persecution complex ... The previously witty and likeable Strachan turned into an utter tool after putting pen to paper and Deila seems to have gone the same way.

And the biggest failing ......... The embarrassing way they publicly make no secret of the fact they want to play in England, its derogatory to our game and IMO is nothing less than bringing the game into disrepute.

That's my opinion on Sellik.

Thecat23
22-04-2015, 11:26 AM
It's not linked to the complaint though.

I never said it was, but they did write to the SFA!! I hope all other teams do the same now.

Thecat23
22-04-2015, 11:28 AM
It used to be the case that Celtic had a wee bit of class, but in the modern era that seems to have been set aside. Lets look at the evidence.

They complain about a lack of competition and then weaken their opponents .... all clubs do that, but don't moan about the result.

They were well beaten by Legia Warsaw, but used a technicality to go through ... would Celtic of the past have done that?

They never stop moaning about getting a raw deal from the SFA / SPFL ..... they think everybody else owes them deference IMO

Their mangers seem to buy into their persecution complex ... The previously witty and likeable Strachan turned into an utter tool after putting pen to paper and Deila seems to have gone the same way.

And the biggest failing ......... The embarrassing way they publicly make no secret of the fact they want to play in England, its derogatory to our game and IMO is nothing less than bringing the game into disrepute.

That's my opinion on Sellik.

That is exactly my feelings on them. Well put!

Andy74
22-04-2015, 11:37 AM
I never said it was, but they did write to the SFA!! I hope all other teams do the same now.

I believe we have several times but not publically.

snooky
22-04-2015, 11:42 AM
I believe we have several times but not publically.

What was the outcome of our several complaints?
Just wondered.

Steve20
22-04-2015, 11:48 AM
I hate them as much as the next man however they WERE robbed and its about time something is done with the "officials" in our game.
ICT down to ten and a penalty. Lets just say for arguments sake celtic missed the penalty down to ten and a goal down ICT are NOT beating Celtc

If the Celtic defence isn't missing when the ICT player goes through on goal, if Craig Gordon doesn't foul him and get sent off, if the Celtic defence don't fall asleep at the winner, they would probably have won the match. Celtic and their fans fail to mention these things.

Celtic weren't robbed. They were beat 3-2. If they want to open up a can of worms and look at every dodgy decision in games, I'm pretty sure they'd be out in front of teams who have benefited from these decisions.

lyonhibs
22-04-2015, 12:15 PM
6 officials on the park on Sunday. They all missed it, if anyone should be punished it's them! Celtic writing letters to the SFA and folk saying he should be banned need to get a grip. It happens it football every week.

Funny how when Celtic player dived against Hearts Celtic's manager says he won't condemn his player as "These things even themselves up over the course of the season." Yep they sure do Ronnie so deal with it and man up!!

Could you direct me to the league in which handballs on the line with the ball definitely on its way into the back of the net are not properly punished at the time "every week"??

I'd love to watch it, would be a right hoot :greengrin

Have there been any other such comparable incidents (by that I don't mean any old outrageous wrong decisions, specifically a blatant case of a player playing basketball on the goal line) this season (or indeed since the compliance officer role came into existence 2-3 years ago) in Scottish football, never mind at a televised game? None spring to mind, put it that way.

Anyway, it looks like the right of the compliance officer to investigate a missed deliberate handball has been confirmed by the link posted earlier on this thread.

patlowe
22-04-2015, 12:32 PM
Here is the explanation. Take a step back from Celtic/Lawell/SFA/Corruption paranoia for a moment and it really is a quites a simple decision for the compliance officer under his remit.....

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/inverness/318059-explained-why-the-scottish-fa-had-to-act-on-josh-meekings-handball/

I now take back the expletives I threw at the news last night having read that! :greengrin

I notice some people are suggesting the handball wasn't deliberate but to me it really depends on how you perceive the rules. Meekings was deliberately trying to use his body to block the ball and subsequently got an advantage from the ball hitting his hand. So while he may or may not have tried to actually handle the ball, you could still argue that the handball was deliberate...I think.

Beyond all that, I still hate the fact that Celtic have done all this in public. It's utterly lacking in class and I hope our club would act differently in similar circumstances.

Nazz
22-04-2015, 12:53 PM
I haven't seen a video of the handball, but where was the ref when all this was happening? How could he and all his assistants not see it?

lyonhibs
22-04-2015, 12:59 PM
I haven't seen a video of the handball, but where was the ref when all this was happening? How could he and all his assistants not see it?

Because they all had an absolute mare. This daft 6th referee (or whatever) bodge that stands behind the goals specifically for goal-line incidents was looking right at it and somehow - somehow - missed it (or saw it and decided it didn't merit anything, which would be, if anything, even more incompetent than not seeing it)

Re: the comment about Celtc going about this complaint the wrong way, when did they ever do anything in the quiet, classy way when there was a "shout, wave your hands and screech like a stuck pig" alternative? They are a odious club from top to bottom and in the stands but it doesn't de facto make this decision wrong.

Also, even if Celtc had kept their initial complaint under the radar, ICT wouldn't have meekly kept it quiet so it's all a bit swings and roundabouts when it comes to who made it public and exactly how.

CallumLaidlaw
22-04-2015, 01:15 PM
Because they all had an absolute mare. This daft 6th referee (or whatever) bodge that stands behind the goals specifically for goal-line incidents was looking right at it and somehow - somehow - missed it (or saw it and decided it didn't merit anything, which would be, if anything, even more incompetent than not seeing it)

Re: the comment about Celtc going about this complaint the wrong way, when did they ever do anything in the quiet, classy way when there was a "shout, wave your hands and screech like a stuck pig" alternative? They are a odious club from top to bottom and in the stands but it doesn't de facto make this decision wrong.

Also, even if Celtc had kept their initial complaint under the radar, ICT wouldn't have meekly kept it quiet so it's all a bit swings and roundabouts when it comes to who made it public and exactly how.

I think the ref had a clearer view than the behind the goal official. yes he was a few yards away but the angle I've seen from his point of view, Meekings' arm is directly in line with his head, so I can see how he couldnt be sure that it had hit his face or arm.

Keith_M
22-04-2015, 01:33 PM
I just love the fact that it's described as being 'offered' a one match ban. I can just imagine the conversation.


Compliance Officer: "Hi Josh, how's it gaun the day pal"

Meekings: "Aye, no bad Vince. an yirsel?"

Compliance Officer: "Ye see it all Josh, ye see it all. Anyway, while yir here, dae ye fancy a one match ban?"

Meekings: "Depends, whit fur?"

Compliance Officer: "Well, it'll shut Sellik up for a couple O' days"

Meekings: "Ehm, fair enough, but Ah think Ah'll pass this time Pal"

Compliance Officer: "Nae bother Josh, lit me know if ye change yir mind"

Meekings: "Okeydokey. Fancy a Pint?"

Compliance Officer: "Aye, why no. Jist a hauf, tho, cause Ahm drivin."

Thecat23
22-04-2015, 01:33 PM
I believe we have several times but not publically.

Really? I never knew that, if it's true well done to Hibs! What was the outcome of it do you know?

Haymaker
22-04-2015, 01:38 PM
I think the ref had a clearer view than the behind the goal official. yes he was a few yards away but the angle I've seen from his point of view, Meekings' arm is directly in line with his head, so I can see how he couldnt be sure that it had hit his face or arm.

IIRC the goal line official is only there for goal line incidents. They aren't there to signal anything other than a goal. I remember a game Fulham played in the europa league where a player was sent off but both should have been for incidents in front of the goal line referee who didn't/couldn't tell the ref.

PPZPOL
22-04-2015, 02:22 PM
IIRC the goal line official is only there for goal line incidents. They aren't there to signal anything other than a goal. I remember a game Fulham played in the europa league where a player was sent off but both should have been for incidents in front of the goal line referee who didn't/couldn't tell the ref.

I'm not suggesting you are wrong but that makes no sense whatsoever - why have two guys there to just to say whether the ball was over the line or not but not allow them to make decisions like corners, penalty's etc if they have a better view than the linesman (old money) or the Ref?

Again, I'm not saying your wrong - it's just bizarre that this is all they are there for.

Titch
22-04-2015, 02:47 PM
If the Celtic defence isn't missing when the ICT player goes through on goal, if Craig Gordon doesn't foul him and get sent off, if the Celtic defence don't fall asleep at the winner, they would probably have won the match. Celtic and their fans fail to mention these things.

Celtic weren't robbed. They were beat 3-2. If they want to open up a can of worms and look at every dodgy decision in games, I'm pretty sure they'd be out in front of teams who have benefited from these decisions.

none of this happens IF the penalty / red card are given = ROBBED
If this was Hibs we would be seething.

CallumLaidlaw
22-04-2015, 02:50 PM
none of this happens IF the penalty / red card are given = ROBBED
If this was Hibs we would be seething.

Yes we would be seething. But everyone would be expected to deal with it after 24 hours and the media & the SFA would very quickly move on.

overdrive
22-04-2015, 04:07 PM
FIFA's Head of Referees is saying the SFA have cocked up here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32416795

Haymaker
22-04-2015, 04:43 PM
I'm not suggesting you are wrong but that makes no sense whatsoever - why have two guys there to just to say whether the ball was over the line or not but not allow them to make decisions like corners, penalty's etc if they have a better view than the linesman (old money) or the Ref?

Again, I'm not saying your wrong - it's just bizarre that this is all they are there for.

It is bizarre. I remember that was the defence given when issues like this started happening.

CallumLaidlaw
22-04-2015, 04:47 PM
FIFA's Head of Referees is saying the SFA have cocked up here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32416795

Just what most of us have been saying and absolute proof that it's purely to try and placate Celtic

iwasthere1972
22-04-2015, 05:19 PM
Just what most of us have been saying and absolute proof that it's purely to try and placate Celtic

I've had a U turn and agree that it's not on. Six officials at the match getting well paid to officiate. It should be throw out and Celtic fined for being greeting face torags.

Andy74
23-04-2015, 07:57 AM
Neil Lennon comments show the confused thinking on this.

He said it was a clear handball, penalty and red card but doesn't think he should be banned because he didn't think he meant it.

Eh? If it was accepted that it was a red he is just getting the ban he would have got for the red.

I think a lot of people are looking at this as some sort of extra ban. It's not.

CallumLaidlaw
23-04-2015, 08:08 AM
Neil Lennon comments show the confused thinking on this.

He said it was a clear handball, penalty and red card but doesn't think he should be banned because he didn't think he meant it.

Eh? If it was accepted that it was a red he is just getting the ban he would have got for the red.

I think a lot of people are looking at this as some sort of extra ban. It's not.

I know what you mean. If the ref doesnt think he meant it, then he made the correct decision.

But I think Lennon's point is the same as the head of referees. Giving a retrospective ban for this opens up a whole can of worms. It may be technically the correct decision, but its sets a huge precedent as this kind of decision has never been given before.

Also, the SFA are kind of contradicting themselves. They say that if a referee MISSES an offense, they can go back and punish it retrospectively. They have to actually miss the offense. Yet Talbot of Livingston got his yellow card upgraded to a 2 match ban against Hearts even although the referee dealt with it as he felt right at the time.
By the way, if Meekings did mean to do it, then I think he and Talbot deserved retrospective bans, but the SFA's explanations and decisions based on their rules are all over the place. No consistency. And thats the biggest issue for me.

Geo_1875
23-04-2015, 09:26 AM
I know what you mean. If the ref doesnt think he meant it, then he made the correct decision.

But I think Lennon's point is the same as the head of referees. Giving a retrospective ban for this opens up a whole can of worms. It may be technically the correct decision, but its sets a huge precedent as this kind of decision has never been given before.

Also, the SFA are kind of contradicting themselves. They say that if a referee MISSES an offense, they can go back and punish it retrospectively. They have to actually miss the offense. Yet Talbot of Livingston got his yellow card upgraded to a 2 match ban against Hearts even although the referee dealt with it as he felt right at the time.
By the way, if Meekings did mean to do it, then I think he and Talbot deserved retrospective bans, but the SFA's explanations and decisions based on their rules are all over the place. No consistency. And thats the biggest issue for me.

I don't follow your logic.

Surely the fact that his hand is up beside his head makes it a penalty every day of the week. Possibly not deliberate or deserving of a red card, but a penalty every time.

CallumLaidlaw
23-04-2015, 09:42 AM
I don't follow your logic.

Surely the fact that his hand is up beside his head makes it a penalty every day of the week. Possibly not deliberate or deserving of a red card, but a penalty every time.


If a player handles the ball accidently this is not an infringement. It clearly states in law 12 that a handball must be deliberate. However, the common interpretation is that if a player has his arm in an unnatural position and the ball strikes it, this is considered deliberate. Or if his arm is in any position but the player has time to get it out of the way of the course of the ball and does not, then this is also considered deliberate. This is not a well understood rule. The only time a handball is not an infringement is if he is too close to the ball to move his arm (factoring in the speed that the ball is travelling at) and his arm is resting normally by his side. Of course, when a man jumps or goes to ground he nearly always moves his arms from his side and it is possible that his arm could be in a natural position but not by his side.

So depends if the ref thought he had his arm in an unnatural position. I'm not saying the Ref is right (it was clearly a penalty) but I'm just saying that if he didn't think he meant it, then he made the correct decision. My issue is more with the chopping and changing of rules when it suits them

Geo_1875
23-04-2015, 10:28 AM
If a player handles the ball accidently this is not an infringement. It clearly states in law 12 that a handball must be deliberate. However, the common interpretation is that if a player has his arm in an unnatural position and the ball strikes it, this is considered deliberate. Or if his arm is in any position but the player has time to get it out of the way of the course of the ball and does not, then this is also considered deliberate. This is not a well understood rule. The only time a handball is not an infringement is if he is too close to the ball to move his arm (factoring in the speed that the ball is travelling at) and his arm is resting normally by his side. Of course, when a man jumps or goes to ground he nearly always moves his arms from his side and it is possible that his arm could be in a natural position but not by his side.

So depends if the ref thought he had his arm in an unnatural position. I'm not saying the Ref is right (it was clearly a penalty) but I'm just saying that if he didn't think he meant it, then he made the correct decision. My issue is more with the chopping and changing of rules when it suits them

And there is the problem in a nutshell.

Laws of the game should be clear and should be applied consistently by referees.

Vague "guidance" which can be open to a referee's interpretation causes nothing but problems.

Danderhall Hibs
23-04-2015, 10:40 AM
The officials (all 6 of them) have confirmed they never saw it. That's the only way the tv ref can get involved in this.

The 3 steps are: was it a handball? Was it a goal scoring opportunity? Did the officials see it?

I don't believe for a second they all missed it - they're now covering their own ***** IMO.

JimBHibees
23-04-2015, 10:46 AM
The officials (all 6 of them) have confirmed they never saw it. That's the only way the tv ref can get involved in this.

The 3 steps are: was it a handball? Was it a goal scoring opportunity? Did the officials see it?

I don't believe for a second they all missed it - they're now covering their own ***** IMO.

Have they confirmed that? That seems incredible if so. The ref, the linesman and the statue behind the goal all had a clear view IMO.

Danderhall Hibs
23-04-2015, 11:37 AM
Have they confirmed that? That seems incredible if so. The ref, the linesman and the statue behind the goal all had a clear view IMO.

The old referee supervisor/TV ref guy confirmed the process on the radio the otehr night.

Moulin Yarns
23-04-2015, 12:32 PM
The officials (all 6 of them) have confirmed they never saw it. That's the only way the tv ref can get involved in this.

The 3 steps are: was it a handball? Was it a goal scoring opportunity? Did the officials see it?

I don't believe for a second they all missed it - they're now covering their own ***** IMO.


Have they confirmed that? That seems incredible if so. The ref, the linesman and the statue behind the goal all had a clear view IMO.

The ref has a clear view across goal, maybe 16m away

14729

Billy Whizz
23-04-2015, 04:29 PM
He's won his appeal, and available to play in the final

Tynie01011973
23-04-2015, 04:31 PM
He's won his appeal, and available to play in the final

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/1527-case-dismissed

:aok:

NadeAteMyLunch!
23-04-2015, 04:54 PM
Think it was inevitable that he would win his appeal. A lot of pressure on the SFA from social media and of course the FIFA statement last night.

iwasthere1972
23-04-2015, 04:57 PM
Common sense has won.

Lucius Apuleius
23-04-2015, 05:01 PM
Bottled it.

CallumLaidlaw
23-04-2015, 05:08 PM
Correct decision unless they were prepared to receive hundreds of emails a week disputing every decision going forward

FranckSuzy
23-04-2015, 05:11 PM
He's won his appeal, and available to play in the final

I'm delighted for the player :aok: The politics of the ref's performance can wait, IMHO.

ian cruise
23-04-2015, 05:38 PM
The boy Meekings has certainly had a hard week but fair play to him, he's handled it well :wink:

Tyler Durden
23-04-2015, 05:41 PM
Much like Doncaster last week, the compliance officer has made a fool of himself for no reason.

This guys position should also be in question now. This is the latest of cases he raised which weren't approved. We had Boyds not proven which was a farce, then Cummings being offered a ban and now this. I'm sure there are other examples if someone cared to look back.

Granted the "independent" panel aspect is part of the process but if he keeps raising cases which are non starters he isn't doing his job right.

emerald green
23-04-2015, 05:49 PM
The people running the game in this country are not doing their jobs properly, and neither are the referees and their assistants. The evidence is overwhelming.

As far as dodgy refereeing decisions are concerned, it's way past time for video technology to be introduced, at least for high profile fixtures like cup semi-finals etc. It's time for all this nonsense and the talking to stop.

I wish they were already in use for the play-offs in case Hibs get screwed over by an inexplicable refereeing decision yet again. Who would bet against that happening? Still, if that happens, Hibs and their supporters can just "move on" and possibly suck up another year at least in the Championship.

emerald green
23-04-2015, 06:47 PM
lol... no dude. No, he definitely isn't and never has been a season ticket holder at Ibrox.

Thought I'd stumbled onto Kerrydale Street there.

McLean is one of our better referees and he's made a mistake. How many mistakes like these have been made in Celtic's favour over the years? They should wind their necks in.

Banning the player for the final is petty. I'm not even convinced it was a penalty. Were his arms really in an unnatural position for trying to block the ball with his body?

The bit in bold. You sound so definite I presume you must know Steve McLean? So that clears that up then. I have no evidence either way. That's why I was asking in my earlier post.

The thing is, it wasn't just McLean (one of our better referees, as you claim) who "made a mistake". All six officials making "a mistake" is just unacceptable, especially as there seems to be no accountability.

Every club has been on the receiving end of nonsense like this over the years, some more than others. Like Hibs, I happen to believe. Removes green tinted glasses. :greengrin I simply believe that it's time this nonsense was challenged, not covered up and hidden away. If the referee (and the other five) have made a mistake, give him/them the chance to speak publicly to explain themselves, even if it's to say I'm sorry I got that wrong. I'm not looking for them to be lynched.

IMHO, as I've said repeatedly, why not introduce video technology to help referees in these high profile fixtures. Surely it could only help avoid all this nonsense. Maybe not eliminate controversial incidents completely, but help to at least cut them down?

I'm glad the player has not been banned for the final. At least they have seen sense there, for once.

lyonhibs
23-04-2015, 07:33 PM
Correct decision unless they were prepared to receive hundreds of emails a week disputing every decision going forward

I would have expected them to have received e-mails if comparable hand balls were missed every week.

What was missed is not an "every decision" type of thing IMO.

That said, delighted for him that he won't miss perhaps his only career. SC final

Bishop Hibee
23-04-2015, 07:47 PM
Common sense prevails. Crazy paying any attention to Celtcs moans without realising it was opening the door to every team contesting every decision.

Scouse Hibee
23-04-2015, 07:54 PM
Agree and don't really see the fuss about the player - he was a lucky man to be on the park at all and if it wasn't for the mistake he would have been off and banned anyway and his team mates would probably not have had a cup final to play in.

The action for a handball is the unusual thing but that's not to say it is wrong, if the officer is reviewing incidents where players should have received reds but it was missed then this is one of them. Would it have been different in the public view if he had a sly trip when a player was shooting and that was missed?

Handballs are not without some previous public outcry though. When Suarez saved on the line a while back there was a big clamour for him to get an even bigger ban for cheating. When Henry scored after it hitting his hand v Ireland there were calls for the game to be replayed and for him to be banned.

The law has caught up with him on this one and I don't quite get the sympathy for him - he is lucky there is a final for them to play in at all.

Thankfully common sense has prevailed and the law has realised how ridiculous the charge was and how it could never hope to deal with such incidents retrospectively for the good of the game.

Danderhall Hibs
23-04-2015, 08:35 PM
The ref has a clear view across goal, maybe 16m away

14729

I know he does. Why do you think he didn't give it though?

Jonnyboy
23-04-2015, 09:17 PM
Is it not about time this guy shut up? He chose to leave the post so he should keep out of these things IMO

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32442417

RyeSloan
23-04-2015, 09:24 PM
Is it not about time this guy shut up? He chose to leave the post so he should keep out of these things IMO http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32442417

He sounds quite bitter about it all...strange really.

NadeAteMyLunch!
23-04-2015, 09:31 PM
Is it not about time this guy shut up? He chose to leave the post so he should keep out of these things IMO

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32442417

A nice mention of Ryan Stevenson's disgusting tackle on McPake at the end of the article. Mentions how the ref and assistant both admitted seeing the cowardly lunge but decided it wasn't dangerous! Wtf?! How that never broke McPake's leg I will never know. Sums up what's been going on in derbies for years now. Happened right in front of the ref and lino.
With regards to Meekings, I'm glad he can play but I can see both sides of this argument. The rule is that if a red card offence is missed then it should be given retrospectively. That's simple. That was 100% a red card offence. If he had deliberately dived to win a last minute penalty then there would be zero sympathy for him. Just because no one has been done retrospectively for hand ball before doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. No one had been done retrospectively for diving until O Connor a few seasons ago. Now we fully expect a ban if you dive and get away with it during the game. There will always be a 'first time' for things when new rules are put in place

Sir David Gray
23-04-2015, 10:24 PM
A nice mention of Ryan Stevenson's disgusting tackle on McPake at the end of the article. Mentions how the ref and assistant both admitted seeing the cowardly lunge but decided it wasn't dangerous! Wtf?! How that never broke McPake's leg I will never know. Sums up what's been going on in derbies for years now. Happened right in front of the ref and lino.
With regards to Meekings, I'm glad he can play but I can see both sides of this argument. The rule is that if a red card offence is missed then it should be given retrospectively. That's simple. That was 100% a red card offence. If he had deliberately dived to win a last minute penalty then there would be zero sympathy for him. Just because no one has been done retrospectively for hand ball before doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. No one had been done retrospectively for diving until O Connor a few seasons ago. Now we fully expect a ban if you dive and get away with it during the game. There will always be a 'first time' for things when new rules are put in place

How many retrospective bans is that now?

I make it;

Ryan Stevenson
Jamie Walker
Ryan McGowan
Adam Eckersley

And that's just from the top of my head, without really even thinking too much about it!

NadeAteMyLunch!
23-04-2015, 10:26 PM
How many retrospective bans is that now?

I make it;

Ryan Stevenson
Jamie Walker
Ryan McGowan
Adam Eckersley

And that's just from the top of my head, without really even thinking too much about it!

That wee gerbil Templeton for kicking McPake as well. The 1-1 Derby after the 5-1 final. Was after about 20 mins so would have been very significant if the ref hadnt bottled that as well. Right in front of him again and as clear as day

NadeAteMyLunch!
23-04-2015, 10:28 PM
Black would have got one after the final as well if it wasn't for the fact that the season was finished, he had left Hearts and the SFA were up to their neck in trying to keep Rangers in the spl

Sir David Gray
23-04-2015, 10:45 PM
Black would have got one after the final as well if it wasn't for the fact that the season was finished, he had left Hearts and the SFA were up to their neck in trying to keep Rangers in the spl

What about that obnoxious little *****, Skacel?

He's bound to have done something against us that was worthy of a red card, surely!?

I know I would have found something.

Argylehibby
23-04-2015, 10:55 PM
The ref has a clear view across goal, maybe 16m away

14729

This is a first BUT I'm going to defend the ref on the basis of that photo. The ref is (IMHO) looking down the line of the players arm. so to him it would have been difficult to say whather it was arm or chest that the ball hit. If he's not 100% sure he can't give it.

Been watching footy for 50+ years and that's probably the 1st time I have given the ref the benefit of the doubt, sorry guys, I must be going soft.

NadeAteMyLunch!
23-04-2015, 11:00 PM
What about that obnoxious little *****, Skacel?

He's bound to have done something against us that was worthy of a red card, surely!?

I know I would have found something.

Well the little scrote celebrated both his goals in front of the Hibs fans, so technically could have been two yellows. Craig Thompson just about slid on his knees with him at the 5th one though so no chance of that

TRC
24-04-2015, 02:08 AM
Ive said it once and i'll say it again why are refs not banned and fined for poor calls

Beefster
24-04-2015, 05:02 AM
Ive said it once and i'll say it again why are refs not banned and fined for poor calls

I've no problem with referees who have terrible games being 'dropped' for a week or two. You can't start fining them for errors any more than you can fine a striker for missing a sitter or a street sweeper for missing a bit of litter though.

patlowe
24-04-2015, 06:42 AM
I feel pretty sorry for McLean in all this. I've always thought he comes across as a decent ref that is unusual in being able to speak to players in a respectful manner. He's made a mistake but the response from Celtic was a joke.

As for the Meekings case, the big question it raises is what incidents should the compliance officer raise after the event. In my view a handball is taking the system too far but I don't see anything corrupt or incompetent about the process, it just might need refined.

Re the person questioning who McLean supports, I think I'm right in saying it's a west coast team that plays in blue and white...but not Rangers.

Caversham Green
24-04-2015, 07:14 AM
A nice mention of Ryan Stevenson's disgusting tackle on McPake at the end of the article. Mentions how the ref and assistant both admitted seeing the cowardly lunge but decided it wasn't dangerous! Wtf?! How that never broke McPake's leg I will never know. Sums up what's been going on in derbies for years now. Happened right in front of the ref and lino.
With regards to Meekings, I'm glad he can play but I can see both sides of this argument. The rule is that if a red card offence is missed then it should be given retrospectively. That's simple. That was 100% a red card offence. If he had deliberately dived to win a last minute penalty then there would be zero sympathy for him. Just because no one has been done retrospectively for hand ball before doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. No one had been done retrospectively for diving until O Connor a few seasons ago. Now we fully expect a ban if you dive and get away with it during the game. There will always be a 'first time' for things when new rules are put in place

Something that's niggling me here. O'Connor was offered a two match suspension for diving, but diving is not a red card offence. Meekings was offered one match, presumably for preventing a goal-scoring opportunity which is a red card - why was there a greater penalty for a lesser offence? Indeed, if the STV article posted earlier is to be believed, O'Connor (and any others accused of diving) should never have been cited in the first place.

Scouse Hibee
24-04-2015, 07:21 AM
Ive said it once and i'll say it again why are refs not banned and fined for poor calls

Because there are so many mistakes made, banning them would mean the postponement of games due to insufficient numbers of officials available :-)

Caversham Green
24-04-2015, 07:22 AM
The ref has a clear view across goal, maybe 16m away

14729

That's a split-second after the contact, but it seems likely that the ref's view was obscured by the two ICT defenders and the other official's view was blocked by Griffiths. Three of the other four officials were too far away to make a call, can't see where the linesman is.

blackpoolhibs
24-04-2015, 07:25 AM
Something that's niggling me here. O'Connor was offered a two match suspension for diving, but diving is not a red card offence. Meekings was offered one match, presumably for preventing a goal-scoring opportunity which is a red card - why was there a greater penalty for a lesser offence? Indeed, if the STV article posted earlier is to be believed, O'Connor (and any others accused of diving) should never have been cited in the first place.


:agree: It does not make any sense at all, and only make the ordinary fan think they are just making it up as they go along?

Spike Mandela
24-04-2015, 10:13 AM
:agree: It does not make any sense at all, and only make the ordinary fan think they are just making it up as they go along?

They are making it up as they go along and bending in the wind to whichever way public opinion is swaying.

As Norman Lamont once said " they give the impression of being in office but not in power".