Keatings loses appeal for diving

[HoboHarry]

I think the SFA have done well here...they have no authority to turn over the decision. I think they have explored the options to revisit the panel, and have found a way forward. People can hang them out for many things, but I sense on this one they have found a way for justice to be addressed...so credit where it is due...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Disagree, they are only bending to public pressure. A well run organization wouldn't have allowed this farce to happen or rumble on this long. Hopefully this episode spells the end for the current system.

[Northernhibee]

Disagree, they are only bending to public pressure. A well run organization wouldn't have allowed this farce to happen or rumble on this long. Hopefully this episode spells the end for the current system.

Yep, for a supposed professional organisation to say "soz, one of the people on the panel hadn't really thought about it properly" is really, really poor and lapse.

[bigwheel]

Yep, for a supposed professional organisation to say "soz, one of the people on the panel hadn't really thought about it properly" is really, really poor and lapse.

They have found a way to fix it....can understand why people want the system improved..but can’t understand why people are complaining about them fixing it...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Northernhibee]

They have found a way to fix it....can understand why people want the system improved..but can’t understand why people are complaining about them fixing it...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because it's not something that shouldn't need fixed.

The referee could understandably get it wrong first time even though it was an obvious foul.

There is no way in blue hell that a judging panel - at any stage - should be getting that wrong. Totally blatant that it's not simulation. They also can't fix how amateur hour and shoddily run they've made Scottish football look (well, more so than normal) to the eyes of the world.

[bigwheel]

Because it's not something that shouldn't need fixed.

The referee could understandably get it wrong first time even though it was an obvious foul.

There is no way in blue hell that a judging panel - at any stage - should be getting that wrong. Totally blatant that it's not simulation. They also can't fix how amateur hour and shoddily run they've made Scottish football look (well, more so than normal) to the eyes of the world.

We all agree that...but these panels are independent, and the SFA have reacted to that terrible decision. For me, they deserve credit for finding a way to fix it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

We all agree that...but these panels are independent, and the SFA have reacted to that terrible decision. For me, they deserve credit for finding a way to fix it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Eh, no, I'm sure there was someone defending the decision, saying that it was clearly a dive and there had been no contact. Maybe he was the one on the panel that didnae look at the video? :wink:

[bigwheel]

Eh, no, I'm sure there was someone defending the decision, saying that it was clearly a dive and there had been no contact. Maybe he was the one on the panel that didnae look at the video? :wink:

Was it the guide dog that made that call? [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

The timing of this is also clearly deliberate.

It'll get buried under all todays and tomorrow's games.

[Caversham Green]

Well at least this shows that they don't just let any old idiot onto these panels.

It takes a special kind of idiot to make a decision without looking at the evidence.

[HoboHarry]

Well at least this shows that they don't just let any old idiot onto these panels.

It takes a special kind of idiot to make a decision without looking at the evidence.
This calls into question the validity of every decision these panels have made.

[Moulin Yarns]

Well at least this shows that they don't just let any old idiot onto these panels.

It takes a special kind of idiot to make a decision without looking at the evidence.

It also takes a special kind of idiot to still come to the conclusion it was a dive when they have watched it multiple times. :wink:

[Oscar T Grouch]

must be him that's not allowed to sit on the panel again, what a plum, i just caught the tail-end of the robbo interview last night what did leeann dempster say about it ?something about if she heard something one more time,whatever ?

the ex-ref on the panel had said it should have been overturned

She said if she heard that it was a members lead organisation she would laugh her liver up :greengrin

Having had time to digest this, it was announced as I was leaving for the game. One member of the panel never looked at the evidence, that is inexcusable and they have been removed from the list, but remember this was a majority decision so one of the other panelists did see the evidence and decided it was a dive :confused:
Also, the SFA have not reversed this decision, they are sending back to a panel.
I think this shows the mess the SFA are in, they've tied themselves up in knots over the legal side of this without thinking of the practical side and the obvious backlash that was going to come from an announcement like the panel made. One of the other two 'competent' panelists thinks that JK dived smfh

[hibby rae]

The SFA statement also means at least one of the tribunal did look at all the evidence ie. watch the footage, and still thought Keatings had dived. Which is worrying.

[Deansy]

'One of the panel members has advised that, despite raising no concerns throughout the process, they did not undertake their obligations with respect to the consideration of all the available evidence'


'With that in mind, and only in extremis based on the information provided by the panel member, the determination cannot be considered valid'


Crystal-clear, eh - easy to understand ...……………………


Seriously, no-one talks like this so why ??

[cabbageandribs1875]

She said if she heard that it was a members lead organisation she would laugh her liver up :greengrin

Having had time to digest this, it was announced as I was leaving for the game. One member of the panel never looked at the evidence, that is inexcusable and they have been removed from the list, but remember this was a majority decision so one of the other panelists did see the evidence and decided it was a dive :confused:


now you mention it that's quite worrying that the one that DID watch it actually thinks it was indeed a dive, he's a bigger spanker than the one that's been sine died

[Rumble de Thump]

Aren't three people on the panel? The SFA claims one person supposedly didn't look at the eveidence. What did the other panel members do?

[BoomtownHibees]

Aren't three people on the panel? The SFA claims one person supposedly didn't look at the eveidence. What did the other panel members do?

1 voted to reverse the decision, leaving the other who did see all of the evidence but still thought it was a dive

[Keith_M]

Shirley that will be enough to convince the many sceptics here that corruption does actually exist? :dunno:


I'm sure it does but there's no evidence that corruption was the reason in this instance.

It's more likely that these people are too lazy to make an effort but are happy to be paid.

[PaulSmith]

I don’t believe for one second that the panel member didn’t watch the evidence.

An anonymous panel member takes the hit and the SFA save as much face as they possibly can from a horrendous situation.

[Michael]

The statement doesn't add up at all and was deliberately confusing.

"One of the panel members has advised that, despite raising no concerns throughout the process, they did not undertake their obligations with respect to the consideration of all the available evidence."

So, one member of the panel did not consider "all of the available evidence", but still came to a decision.

The panel requires a majority verdict to overturn a decision:

"Where three Panel Members preside on a Tribunal, a Decision or Determination of said Tribunal may be made by a majority or unanimous verdict of the Panel Members."

This still calls into question the competence of at least one further member of the panel. There's a complete lack of transparency here.

[bigwheel]

The statement doesn't add up at all and was deliberately confusing.

"One of the panel members has advised that, despite raising no concerns throughout the process, they did not undertake their obligations with respect to the consideration of all the available evidence."

So, one member of the panel did not consider "all of the available evidence", but still came to a decision.

The panel requires a majority verdict to overturn a decision:

"Where three Panel Members preside on a Tribunal, a Decision or Determination of said Tribunal may be made by a majority or unanimous verdict of the Panel Members."

This still calls into question the competence of at least one further member of the panel. There's a complete lack of transparency here.

They are just finding a way, within their rules, to revisit the decision ...I wouldn’t read too much into it ..at least they are looking to fix the injustice

[JimBHibees]

The statement doesn't add up at all and was deliberately confusing.

"One of the panel members has advised that, despite raising no concerns throughout the process, they did not undertake their obligations with respect to the consideration of all the available evidence."

So, one member of the panel did not consider "all of the available evidence", but still came to a decision.

The panel requires a majority verdict to overturn a decision:

"Where three Panel Members preside on a Tribunal, a Decision or Determination of said Tribunal may be made by a majority or unanimous verdict of the Panel Members."

This still calls into question the competence of at least one further member of the panel. There's a complete lack of transparency here.

Totally agree as Ally McCoist famously said we need to know the names of these people. No way imo in this day and age of transparency should the identity of these peoples be kept secret.

[JimBHibees]

Makes it messier for me as I read it that the ‘panel’ didn’t look at all the evidence and one member was punished for whistleblowing.
So if only one member didn’t view all of the evidence then that person admits it, he gets removed from all future panels while the two that got the decision spectacularly wrong having viewed the evidence, remain.

Seems the wrong people are untouchable.

Totally agree. The release of this information during game time on a Saturday is hugely cynical imo and should quite incredibly lead to more criticism of the organisation than there was during the initial shambles.

[bigwheel]

Totally agree as Ally McCoist famously said we need to know the names of these people. No way imo in this day and age of transparency should the identity of these peoples be kept secret.

Why? So we have someone to blame ?

It’s being fixed....I’m sure they will be less likely to be asked on a panel again...if we publish names, they simply get abuse. What’s the point of that ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BoomtownHibees]

Why? So we have someone to blame ?

It’s being fixed....I’m sure they will be less likely to be asked on a panel again...if we publish names, they simply get abuse. What’s the point of that ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What about the other one on the panel that ‘did’ review the evidence but still thought the refs decision was correct?

[bigwheel]

What about the other one on the panel that ‘did’ review the evidence but still thought the refs decision was correct?

What is the purpose of making any of their names public ? So they can be targeted on social media ? Abused as they go about their every day business ?

Why not simply never ask them to be on a panel again.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BoomtownHibees]

What is the purpose of making any of their names public ? So they can be targeted on social media ? Abused as they go about their every day business ?

Why not simply never ask them to be on a panel again.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They should be transparent. We already know the name of the referee who got it so wrong, has he been targeted with abuse, unable to walk down his local high street?

[JimBHibees]

Why? So we have someone to blame ?

It’s being fixed....I’m sure they will be less likely to be asked on a panel again...if we publish names, they simply get abuse. What’s the point of that ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is called accountability for their decisions rather than being able to have the anonymous shambles of this week. Maybe they would consider the evidence properly and do a more diligent job if their identity was likely to be known

[bigwheel]

It is called accountability for their decisions rather than being able to have the anonymous shambles of this week. Maybe they would consider the evidence properly and do a more diligent job if their identity was likely to be known

They are accountable to the SFA...not to joe public

I can see no good coming of “outing” their identity...other than to idiots on the street and social media


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

They are accountable to the SFA...not to joe public

I can see no good coming of “outing” their identity...other than to idiots on the street and social media


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

:agree:

There's nothing to be gained from the wider public knowing their names.

It's happened, it sounds like it's been rectified, and I don't imagine they'll be on a panel again.

[Rumble de Thump]

Trust and integrity would be gained. There's very little of it in Scottish football. The panel members could be asked to participate in the next panel, but we won't know because we don't know who they are.

[Eyrie]

They are accountable to the SFA...not to joe public

I can see no good coming of “outing” their identity...other than to idiots on the street and social media


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

With the inevitable result that one of the panel members then tells the SPFL that he didn't do his job properly, which will mean that a further appeal will be heard with the Keatings case having set a precedent.

Of course, only two clubs will actually benefit from the above.

[lord bunberry]

I don’t believe for one second that the panel member didn’t watch the evidence.

An anonymous panel member takes the hit and the SFA save as much face as they possibly can from a horrendous situation.
That’s exactly how I see it. This is a made up story to try and take the heat out of the situation. They didn’t expect the huge backlash that’s resulted from the original decision and have reacted with this nonsense of a statement to try and save face. Yet another shambles of their own making.

[JimBHibees]

They are accountable to the SFA...not to joe public

I can see no good coming of “outing” their identity...other than to idiots on the street and social media


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Definitely should be accountable to joe public imo.

[JimBHibees]

Trust and integrity would be gained. There's very little of it in Scottish football. The panel members could be asked to participate in the next panel, but we won't know because we don't know who they are.

Agree

[CockneyRebel]

:agree:

There's nothing to be gained from the wider public knowing their names.

It's happened, it sounds like it's been rectified, and I don't imagine they'll be on a panel again.



IMO it will only have been rectified when Keatings is cleared of simulation. The football community as one voice should let these charlatans know that they are not the untouchables.

I won't hold my breath.

[lapsedhibee]

I'm sure it does but there's no evidence that corruption was the reason in this instance.

It's more likely that these people are too lazy to make an effort but are happy to be paid.

I'd count taking money for work you haven't done to be fraud, and I'd count fraud as corrupt.

[greenlex]

Totally agree. The release of this information during game time on a Saturday is hugely cynical imo and should quite incredibly lead to more criticism of the organisation than there was during the initial shambles.
I’m not certain but I’m sure it was released pre game time.

[oldbutdim]

They are accountable to the SFA...not to joe public

I can see no good coming of “outing” their identity...other than to idiots on the street and social media


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

One of these guys is an old colleague of mine.
He told me that the vast majority of listees have vowed to quit should there be any suggestion of making their names public.

[brog]

One of these guys is an old colleague of mine.
He told me that the vast majority of listees have vowed to quit should there be any suggestion of making their names public.

I can understand that but all it means is thuggery & intimidation win again.

[bigwheel]

One of these guys is an old colleague of mine.
He told me that the vast majority of listees have vowed to quit should there be any suggestion of making their names public.

Quite right too...it would be hanging them out to dry ...

[skyhibs]

One of these guys is an old colleague of mine.
He told me that the vast majority of listees have vowed to quit should there be any suggestion of making their names public.

Let them quit then cos they are not very good at their job anyway

[Peevemor]

Let them quit then cos they are not very good at their job anywayWhat makes you say that? From what I've seen most appeals seem to have the correct outcome.

[Ozyhibby]

Why? So we have someone to blame ?

It’s being fixed....I’m sure they will be less likely to be asked on a panel again...if we publish names, they simply get abuse. What’s the point of that ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is it being fixed or is it being covered up? What has changed? It’s still the same system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

One of these guys is an old colleague of mine.
He told me that the vast majority of listees have vowed to quit should there be any suggestion of making their names public.

Any idea how big the pool of panellists is? :dunno:

[Ozyhibby]

In Australia they have had a system for years in rugby league where there was a disciplinary panel convened every Tuesday night to review all the major incidents from all the games that weekend. There would be three people and it was made up of ex players or ex referees, didn’t matter which. Everyone knew who was sitting on the panel that week and their decision was final. It was a pretty respected set up and I can’t remember them ever getting anything that badly wrong. They would always be available to the media to explain their decision as well.
There is nothing wrong with such a set up being in place here. And the panel members don’t need to be from Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk