Keatings loses appeal for diving

[lord bunberry]

Surely one of the worst decisions in a long time. How a panel of so called experts can say this was a dive is beyond me.
https://twitter.com/mcbookie/status/1230121838161940482?s=21

[Hibbyradge]

That's unbelievable.

[Since452]

Wow. Who makes these decisions?

[Sudds_1]

Jeezo..that is just ridiculous. Incompenent refs are one thing...but .... from every angle thats a foul!!

[Michael]

Who sits on the panel?

[Onceinawhile]

Who sits on the panel?

Stevie Wonder

[Diclonius]

What a disgrace, that's an absolutely ridiculous decision, why on earth did they dec- (sees who opposition team are) ah, ok.

[Deansy]

Surely one of the worst decisions in a long time. How a panel of so called experts can say this was a dive is beyond me.
https://twitter.com/mcbookie/status/1230121838161940482?s=21

Just the 'Establishment' reminding us mere mortals that it's mightier than the actual evidence !

[green with envy]

Wow! Heard about it on the radio coming back from Kilmarnock on Sunday and have just seen if for the first time. Again - WOW.

[Peevemor]

Given that the Hamilton player had his red card overturned, they probably didn't want to admit to 2 major, incorrect decisions.

[lord bunberry]

He misses the final for being fouled, ridiculous decision.

[Scottie]

And that ladies and gentlemen is why VAR wouldn't work up here. Plain incompetence or blatant cheating you work it out. :crazy:

[c31]

I wish Inverness would release a statement suggesting that if James Keatings can’t play, then they would refuse to take up their invitation to contest the final.

[green with envy]

Stevie Wonder

Stevie Wonder would have called it correct.

[Carheenlea]

Astonishing.

[Since452]

They must have beaten Rangers or something

[truehibernian]

The Scottish football media have to investigate this and ask who was on the panel and ask for their justification - it's a beyond ludicrous decision and makes you understand why people outside Scotland 1) think the game is corrupt and 2) don't invest in the game up here.

All that's missing is a statement from The Rangers wholeheartedly supporting the appeal decision process :cb

[Off the bar]

Just watched it again on Twitter, absolutely baffling to call that a dive, I’ve no idea how you can watch that and conclude he’s dived.

[truehibernian]

Just watched it again on Twitter, absolutely baffling to call that a dive, I’ve no idea how you can watch that and conclude he’s dived.

Sportsound should ask The Rangers for any comment :cb:greengrin

[sleeping giant]

I am lost for words as to why that decision has been made.

Can't for the life of me understand how they can see that as a dive.

[staunchhibby]

Thats a shocking decision.Just watched it and no way was that a dive.The committee need to visit referees sponsors SPECSAVERS

[Hibeesmad]

Compliance officer must have been a hun absolutely raging that they lost.

[The Harp Awakes]

Just more evidence that officiating in Scottish football is corrupt. That decision is too blatant to go down as incompetence by the review panel.

[The 90+2]

Stevie Wonder would have called it correct.

Keats is obviously superstitious then.

[steelendhibs]

Any footage?

[Moulin Yarns]

Any footage?

the original post!!


Surely one of the worst decisions in a long time. How a panel of so called experts can say this was a dive is beyond me.
https://twitter.com/mcbookie/status/1230121838161940482?s=21

[SouthMoroccoStu]

And that ladies and gentlemen is why VAR wouldn't work up here. Plain incompetence or blatant cheating you work it out. :crazy:

Absolutely correct

“And tonight’s VAR officials are Jim Traynor, Donald Findlay and Broxi Bear”

[The 90+2]

Absolutely correct

“And tonight’s VAR officials are Jim Traynor, Donald Findlay and Broxi Bear”

Impartial panel say the bbc.

[truehibernian]

Impartial panel say the bbc.

It won't get any coverage on BBC Sportsound that's for sure. It's the sort of decision that should go viral on social media and asking officials in other leagues their opinion :aok:

[The 90+2]

It won't get any coverage on BBC Sportsound that's for sure. It's the sort of decision that should go viral on social media and asking officials in other leagues their opinion :aok:

Yep. They will gloss over it at best then concentrate all show on the European matches coming up, commentary from Killie and then back to talking about the European matches. Anyone who calls it out to be a shambles won’t be allowed back, in fact nobody will anyway. Chick Young and Willie Miller won’t give a ****.

[HoboHarry]

They aren't even hiding it any more, they are cheating in plain sight.

[danhibees1875]

I thought you could only appeal a yellow card for mistaken identity? Is that no longer a thing?

If it is still the case, and ICT were just chancing their luck with an appeal hoping common sense would prevail, then I can understand why it's not been overturned.

A poor decision at the time, and a shame that he'll miss the final.

[truehibernian]

Yep. They will gloss over it at best then concentrate all show on the European matches coming up, commentary from Killie and then back to talking about the European matches. Anyone who calls it out to be a shambles won’t be allowed back, in fact nobody will anyway. Chick Young and Willie Miller won’t give a ****.

To be fair, Chick and Willie would call it how it is - a disgraceful decision. But it won't get the airtime, guaranteed bud :aok:

[The 90+2]

I thought you could only appeal a yellow card for mistaken identity? Is that no longer a thing?

If it is still the case, and ICT were just chancing their luck with an appeal hoping common sense would prevail, then I can understand why it's not been overturned.

A poor decision at the time, and a shame that he'll miss the final.

You can challenge it for diving. I’m sure Cosgrove won his appeal last season.

[The 90+2]

To be fair, Chick and Willie would call it how it is - a disgraceful decision. But it won't get the airtime, guaranteed bud :aok:

👍

[Oscar T Grouch]

I thought you could only appeal a yellow card for mistaken identity? Is that no longer a thing?

If it is still the case, and ICT were just chancing their luck with an appeal hoping common sense would prevail, then I can understand why it's not been overturned.

A poor decision at the time, and a shame that he'll miss the final.

No you can challenge for mistaken identity and simulation, ICT appealed on the fact they thought JK didn't dive

[matty_f]

Hope anyone can watch that and come to the conclusion that Keatings dived is beyond me. Utterly bizarre.

[Sudds_1]

Is there no further action they can take? That devision borders on corrupt!!!!

[truehibernian]

Is there no further action they can take? That devision borders on corrupt!!!!

Think Keatsy may need to resort to making a cut throat gesture to the Arbroath fans (defined as 'game over' in Angus speak), find a small midget under his Mondeo 'checking his exhaust' and leak to the Dundee Courier, and claim he's been roundly victimised by other Scottish Championship fans before he'll get a fair hearing in the press :greengrin

[blackpoolhibs]

Think Keatsy may need to resort to making a cut throat gesture to the Arbroath fans (defined as 'game over' in Angus speak), find a small midget under his Mondeo 'checking his exhaust' and leak to the Dundee Courier, and claim he's been roundly victimised by other Scottish Championship fans before he'll get a fair hearing in the press :greengrin

Do you know any tall midgets?:wink:

[wookie70]

Is there no further action they can take? That devision borders on corrupt!!!!

Well over the borderline for corrupt in my opinion. I agree with a previous poster. ICT to should refuse to play the final.

[truehibernian]

Do you know any tall midgets?:wink:

:faf: spit coffee momento BH :aok:

I'll ask a The Rangers spokesman if he knows anyone fitting the bill :greengrin

[Vault Boy]

I'd like to say unbelievable but, well, you know.

[Groathillgrump]

First time I've seen the footage. How the hell can anyone say that was a dive? :confused:

Shocker of a decision.

[NadeAteMyLunch!]

Who’s the final against? They should refuse to play it and try and call the authorities out for blatant cheating. Problem might be that nobody cares enough about the challenge cup

[Onceinawhile]

Who’s the final against? They should refuse to play it and try and call the authorities out for blatant cheating. Problem might be that nobody cares enough about the challenge cup

Raith rovers.

[Moulin Yarns]

Who’s the final against? They should refuse to play it and try and call the authorities out for blatant cheating. Problem might be that nobody cares enough about the challenge cup

Play it, win it, then refuse to accept it unless there is an apology.

[blackpoolhibs]

:faf: spit coffee momento BH :aok:

I'll ask a The Rangers spokesman if he knows anyone fitting the bill :greengrin

Couldn't let that one go. :greengrin

[Andy74]

I agree that it looked a very poor decision.

The only thing I would say from having watched it a few times is that even though he got clattered, it does look like he was maybe just on his way down as he took the hit.

That's the only thing I can think of because he obviously got hit but that's the ref and the appeals both seen something else and if they've maybe been able to slow it and isolate it enough that they can see he was going down first.

[CockneyRebel]

First time I've seen the footage. How the hell can anyone say that was a dive? :confused:

Shocker of a decision.+++Where did you see the footage m8

[hibeerealist]

I
Is there no further action they can take? That devision borders on corrupt!!!!


Borders on corrupt!!!! You are being very kind to the “panel” it is disgraceful and therefore IS corrupt as even a bunch incompetent adults could not call that a dive.

Once again the corruption in our game embarrasses us and we will be looked upon as second rate as a direct result.

Beyond words!! Feel for JK

[DaveF]

Whoever was on that panel should be named and then banned from football for life.

In a life of terrible decisions that is up there with the worst of them.

ICT should refuse to play in the final.

[Kato]

I agree that it looked a very poor decision.

The only thing I would say from having watched it a few times is that even though he got clattered, it does look like he was maybe just on his way down as he took the hit.

That's the only thing I can think of because he obviously got hit but that's the ref and the appeals both seen something else and if they've maybe been able to slow it and isolate it enough that they can see he was going down first.Nup. Cant see any leeway at all to uphold the decision.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[truehibernian]

I agree that it looked a very poor decision.

The only thing I would say from having watched it a few times is that even though he got clattered, it does look like he was maybe just on his way down as he took the hit.

That's the only thing I can think of because he obviously got hit but that's the ref and the appeals both seen something else and if they've maybe been able to slow it and isolate it enough that they can see he was going down first.

The boy clatters him side on Andy - no matter how much you slow it down, it's an incredible decision (on the day, real time) - and a corrupt one in the real light of day when the beaks see it from various angles. No one, and I mean no one, could even suggest that this is a rational decision (upon viewing after the event). Corrupt, wrong, and beyond incredible. No debate required bud.

[007]

Sportsound should ask The Rangers for any comment :cb:greengrin

I'd like to hear Michael Stewart's opinion on it.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Does this close out the appeal now or is there a way to now appeal on this decision? Keatings was cleaned out.

[truehibernian]

I'd like to hear Michael Stewart's opinion on it.

To be honest, I support the BBC (in part) with the MS debate - MS went too far naming JT without having evidence and without allowing the fat mess come back..........I think MS knows he went too far (publicly) and the Beeb are (rightly) defending their position and waiting for any fall out (which has clearly happened). The Rangers are a powerful enterprise (as are others) and MS should have been more savvy, more canny, and more cute with his comments on air - he simply got carried away and said what we all thought. Which has to be backed up if you are on such an open forum.

[DaveF]

Does this close out the appeal now or is there a way to now appeal on this decision? Keatings was cleaned out.

ICT making a further statement later so will be interesting to see what they say.

[Pretty Boy]

Total arrogance. No surprise from the refereeing mafia.

Hundreds of really sounds refs in Scotland but the handful that make the top level are like the kid who hands out the milk in school. Officious jobsworths.

[neil7908]

Wow. Just wow.

That is crazy. We must have one of the most corrupt games in the world.

Can you imagine a decision like that being made against an Old Firm player?

[Kato]

Total arrogance. No surprise from the refereeing mafia.

Hundreds of really sounds refs in Scotland but the handful that make the top level are like the kid who hands out the milk in school. Officious jobsworths....in school which is in a very particular catchment area.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[blackpoolhibs]

Corrupt or incompetent, no idea which one?

How anyone can come to this decision is just wrong.:confused:

[BILLYHIBS]

Oh dear!

[Keyser Sauzee]

Do they accompany these decisions with a statement to justify their decision?

[Onion]

Just seen the footage.

The only explanation is that they've been sent the wrong video. Some journalist or sympathetic to this committee of incompetents needs to ask them if they've actually seen the real footage and give them and OUT from this ridiculous situation.

Even TRUMP wouldn't be brazen enough to claim that's a dive.

The alternative is this is corruption in plain sight.

Note : There is no middle ground.

[LongJohnBanger]

The way I see it, Keatings has taken a reasonable touch which leaves a couple of options for a crack at goal.

Keatings doesn't appear to leave a leg out or run towards the Rangers player - the Rangers player, quite clumsily in my opinion, runs through Keatings.

I don't see how Keatings can stay on his feet after the impact from the Rangers player's hip on his own. It's a definite foul.

[hibee-boys]

Looking after their own, horrendous decision.

[Oscar T Grouch]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51563277

[Carheenlea]

I’ve watched the clip again and tried to look for anything that might suggest he dived.

Was he on his way down before being caught?

Did he fall into the player to make it look like he was caught?

Did he throw himself to the floor too easily?

Didn’t see anything to suggest any of the above and the more you watch it the more a foul it looks, even while trying your very hardest to find just a hint of something to back up the appeal judicators decision. It’s an extraordinary episode.

[hibbytam]

It's bad enough given that at the time, but for someone to watch it back and think that he's dived is unbelievable.

Gutted for Keatings.

[Aldo]

I have watched it numerous times and each time I look at its even more of a foul! Absolutely shocking decision and could only happen in Scotland!

Hang your head in shame CO.

Wonder if ICT might look at taking this further with legal action??




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

Anyone can make a mistake during a game (most mistakes during rangers games tend to favour rangers though) but to have watched that video and uphold the decision is beyond belief. I think that the panel is made up of ex pros and ex refs and if that is right then the three in that panel should never be asked to adjudicate again. Ever

[Hiber-nation]

It won't get any coverage on BBC Sportsound that's for sure. It's the sort of decision that should go viral on social media and asking officials in other leagues their opinion :aok:

It was actually discussed in depth on tonight's Sportsound (but not a great level of debate without MS) and they were as baffled as us.

[HoboHarry]

If the panel submit a written judgement, the club should release it so we can all see it.....

[truehibernian]

It was actually discussed in depth on tonight's Sportsound (but not a great level of debate without MS) and they were as baffled as us.

As a result of a statement from ICT - would never have been mentioned otherwise. Good on Holt and Miller for saying what we all think mind :aok:

[truehibernian]

As a result of a statement from ICT - would never have been mentioned otherwise. Good on Holt and Miller for saying what we all think mind :aok:

And did Sportsound ask The Rangers for comment :cb they had time to :agree:

[Feed McGraw]

No statement from The Rangers ??

[McSwanky]

Weird decision from the panel, bizarre. But I don't get what they have to gain from it, are they all Raith Rovers fans or something?

Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalk

[Andy74]

I’ve watched the clip again and tried to look for anything that might suggest he dived.

Was he on his way down before being caught?

Did he fall into the player to make it look like he was caught?

Did he throw himself to the floor too easily?

Didn’t see anything to suggest any of the above and the more you watch it the more a foul it looks, even while trying your very hardest to find just a hint of something to back up the appeal judicators decision. It’s an extraordinary episode.

I'm the other way - the more I see it the more I think there's a little bit of all 3 of the above.

He does start going across and down before he's caught and he does end up throwing himself further over.

I thought it was really harsh first viewings but I can see why it could be upheld. Harsh but I can see why to some extent.

[Jones28]

HUNbelievable.

[DaveF]

I'm the other way - the more I see it the more I think there's a little bit of all 3 of the above.

He does start going across and down before he's caught and he does end up throwing himself further over.

I thought it was really harsh first viewings but I can see why it could be upheld. Harsh but I can see why to some extent.

I can't see any of what you apparently are. He takes a touch, moves forward (not diving or going down but simply forward) and is wiped out.

If you think he's going down then it looks like we have found one of the three on the review panel 😁

[Kato]

.

He does start going across and down before he's caught .

Hes following his touch of the ball while trying to evade the guy running at him.


.
he does end up throwing himself further over. .


That's just a very easy thing to say. As far as it looks to me the momentum from the collision doesn't leave him room or time to throw himself "further over". Even typing that myself, it sounds like nonsense given the speed of the fall.





Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Andy74]

I can't see any of what you apparently are. He takes a touch, moves forward (not diving or going down but simply forward) and is wiped out.

If you think he's going down then it looks like we have found one of the three on the review panel 😁

I should add I'm just trying to deliberately look at why they would find it that way.

As an appeal panel they also have to figure out if it is clearly wrong as the ref sees it clearly enough.

If I watch enough times looking for a reason to agree with the original decision then I can do so.

[The Green Sea]

Just utterly wrong

[Kato]

I should add I'm just trying to deliberately look at why they would find it that way.

As an appeal panel they also have to figure out if it is clearly wrong as the ref sees it clearly enough.

If I watch enough times looking for a reason to agree with the original decision then I can do so.The decision is nonsense and your perceived reasoning as to how they might be looking at the incident would show they know nothing about physics and gravity, never mind football.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

Aitken is another in a long line of utterly appalling referees. Evan Anderson is another. Simply don't understand the game.

[hibbysam]

I should add I'm just trying to deliberately look at why they would find it that way.

As an appeal panel they also have to figure out if it is clearly wrong as the ref sees it clearly enough.

If I watch enough times looking for a reason to agree with the original decision then I can do so.

If you can genuinely watch that over and over and over, slow it down, stop it, the lot, you’re at the ham if you think you can find some form of a dive. Left hip on right hip, makes the wee jolting motion, and by the time his foot lands he’s so far off balance he hits the deck, simple.

[DaveF]

If I watch enough times looking for a reason to agree with the original decision then I can do so.

No idea how you come to that conclusion. I can only think you are being contrary for the sake of it.

[hibeerealist]

No idea how you come to that conclusion. I can only think you are being contrary for the sake of it.

Second that, this is a foul all day long regardless of how you look at it or how many times you look at it!

[CentreLine]

Contrast that with the second Morelos dive last week and subsequent non action by the referee.

But our referees are just incompetent not corrupt

[Alex Trager]

ICT statement


Following the decision by the 3 man Fast Track Tribunal Panel to dismiss the club appeal against the yellow card awarded to James Keatings by referee Greg Aitken during Sunday’s Tunnock’s Caramel Wafer Cup Semi-Final, the club has no option but to speak out publicly on behalf of our player and on behalf of the growing number of Scottish football clubs who believe that the SFA disciplinary process is not fit for purpose.

In relation to the inexplicable decision to dismiss our appeal this morning, one which will see James miss the Cup Final, we would like to communicate with our support and to the many people who have contacted James and the club since Sunday.

Our appeal was submitted on Monday morning with our payment for the right to appeal and video evidence of 3 different angles of the incident, with the most enlightening angle shown at full speed and also in slow motion. The referee also submitted his reply to the appeal and within that, he states that from his angle, he believed there had been no contact made by the defender on James and this led him to believe that James had thrown himself to the ground in an attempt to deceive him, therefore he deemed it to be an act of simulation, hence the decision.

We do not want to question anyone’s integrity in this statement and therefore if we set what we do or do not believe aside, it could certainly be argued that this position is plausible. The video evidence however removes all doubt from the situation and it was this evidence with which we confidently based our case on. As far as we were concerned, once the 3 man panel viewed the video evidence, coupled with the fact that the referee himself was stating that he only made the decision based on his personal view, albeit that he was only a few yards away and not the vastly superior and different video angles, justice and sporting integrity would surely prevail.

James Keatings has never been booked for simulation in his entire career and Sunday’s red card was also the first in his career. The player himself was devastated by the decision on Sunday and has been contacted by many players, ex-players, the PFA and multiple journalists and friends, all of whom believed that justice would be done by the panel. This scenario represented the exact situation that these protocols were set up to address.

When the club was given the news this morning that the appeal had not only be dismissed but that James had in fact been adjudged to have committed simulation, we were both incredulous and furious in equal measure. We would once again re-iterate that we do not want to call into question anyone’s integrity with this statement but we must call into question the actual football knowledge of those sitting in judgement on all Scottish football players under this current system. If the individuals involved in this morning’s Tribunal can watch the footage we supplied, footage which the whole of Scottish football has now seen and call this simulation, then there can be no other conclusion other than they do not understand football or the rules of the game. As harsh as this sounds, there can be no other conclusion. Fans and officials of all clubs are mystified by this decision.

This decision has cost our player the chance to play in a national Cup Final, not something that comes along every week, to the detriment of the player, his team mates, the club and our fans. We believe it also damages the credibility of our governing body and brings the game into disrepute. The decision is plainly wrong and the dogs in the street know this. We have no right to appeal this final decision and it is painful to accept.

As a club we have been contacted by Chairmen, Chief Executives, Directors and fans of other clubs today in a completely unique show of support and solidarity with James Keatings and ICTFC. As appreciated as this has been undoubtedly been, it does not change the fact that there is clearly something wrong with the system, if it is not addressed, we are all responsible for the continuing denigration of our standards, our supporters view of the national game and sporting integrity in Scottish football.

Scot Gardiner – Chief Executive Officer

Ross Morrison – Chairman

[Fratelli]

Excellent statement from ITC, calling it as they see it and not hiding behind politically correct language.

“If the individuals involved in the tribunal can watch the footage and call this simulation, there can be no other conclusion other than they do not understand football," read a club statement.

It’s a poor call by the referee, but how can a panel (of 3 ex refs?) with the benefit of slow-mo and various angles call that simulation beggars belief.

I would love to see this judgement being analysed by Sky on their ‘Ref Watch’ programme.

[Eyrie]

I should add I'm just trying to deliberately look at why they would find it that way.

As an appeal panel they also have to figure out if it is clearly wrong as the ref sees it clearly enough.

If I watch enough times looking for a reason to agree with the original decision then I can do so.
Only if you keep your eyes closed every time that you watch.

[JimBHibees]

If the ICT statement is correct and there is no reason to doubt it why would the referee not watch the tv evidence and then indicate he made a mistake. That makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds bent.

[Fratelli]

Excellent statement from ITC, calling it as they see it and not hiding behind politically correct language.

“If the individuals involved in the tribunal can watch the footage and call this simulation, there can be no other conclusion other than they do not understand football," read a club statement.

It’s a poor call by the referee, but how can a panel (of 3 ex refs?) with the benefit of slow-mo and various angles call that simulation beggars belief.

I would love to see this judgement being analysed by Sky on their ‘Ref Watch’ programme.

[HoboHarry]

Ooooft, Caley didn't miss with that statement. Kudos to them .....

[The Green Sea]

Brilliant statement from ICT. Can’t fathom how they upheld that decision. Ignorance or Ineptitude?

[Is It On....]

Is there no further action they can take? That devision borders on corrupt!!!!

Pretty much what the ICT statement says..my favourite bits are below ..

"Fans and officials of all clubs are mystified by this. It has cost our player the chance to play in a cup final and it also damages the credibility of our governing body and brings the game into disrepute."...

"The decision is plainly wrong and the dogs in the street know this. There is clearly something wrong with the system"..

"growing number of Scottish clubs who believe the SFA disciplinary process is not fit for purpose".

Good on them!!

[wookie70]

"Dogs in the street" is my favourite bit. I really think they should consider not playing and try to get other clubs to support their decision. The worst thing about this is Keating was called a cheat by the ref and he is then called a cheat by 3 "experts" and it isn't even close to a dive. Hopefully this goes further and Keats gets to plays. The 3 in the panel should never have any part in Scottish Football again.

[Sir David Gray]

Incredible decision to throw out this appeal. However I can't agree that anyone is cheating, corrupt etc.

I just think the SFA is an incompetent organisation from top to bottom.

[HoboHarry]

I'd love to know if there were any"expert" ex-players on the panel. They won't release the names I suspect for fear of the ridicule they would face.

[neil7908]

This one shouldn't be allowed to go quietly away. A proper insane decision that must lead to serious changes and heads rolling.

Good on ICT. This would never have happened if it was a Rangers or Celtic player.

[neil7908]

Incredible decision to throw out this appeal. However I can't agree that anyone is cheating, corrupt etc.

I just think the SFA is an incompetent organisation from top to bottom.

I don't see how incompetence is a factor here.

The footage is obvious. Clear as day and those on the panel will likely be people who have played or refereed so it's not like they won't have a basic football knowledge. My gran would see that's not a dive and she's been dead 10 years.

This decision defies logic so blatantly that I can't see anything other than an agenda being at play.

The ref making the original call is incompetence. The panel decision is so outrageous it goes beyond that.

[lord bunberry]

I don't see how incompetence is a factor here.

The footage is obvious. Clear as day and those on the panel will likely be people who have played or refereed so it's not like they won't have a basic football knowledge. My gran would see that's not a dive and she's been dead 10 years.

This decision defies logic so blatantly that I can't see anything other than an agenda being at play.

The ref making the original call is incompetence. The panel decision is so outrageous it goes beyond that.
I agree, there’s no way that anyone could watch that video and say it’s a dive. Some are suggesting the decision was made because of the comments made by wee Robbo after the game. As you say it looks like there’s an agenda at play here.

[Onion]

If the ICT statement is correct and there is no reason to doubt it why would the referee not watch the tv evidence and then indicate he made a mistake. That makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds bent.

Whole thing stinks to high hHeaven.

Agreed, the ref should be given another opportunity to comment to the appeals board having reviewed the footage.

Why doesn't the Rangers player who fouled James Keatings not come forward and admit that there was contact and that it was a foul ? A little sporting integrity - even after the event - would be right and refreshing.

There is only ONE explanation for the appeals board decision. They've reviewed the WONG footage.

[Since452]

It's about time the SFA came out and explained descisions. Paying fans are being short changed. That nonsense decision could very well be the difference between ICT winning a trophy or not. At the moment nobody knows the rationale of why it was rejected. How does that help anyone?

[JimBHibees]

Incredible decision to throw out this appeal. However I can't agree that anyone is cheating, corrupt etc.

I just think the SFA is an incompetent organisation from top to bottom.

why not? Scottish football has shown itself to be corrupt from an Sfa president being allowed to agree a non disclosure agreement to cover up obvious corruption to Sevco to Hearts getting a 2 point penalty to keep them in a tournament ironically at the expense of ICT.

Any professional ref with a modicum of integrity would have reviewed the decision from the tv angles and then admitted they were wrong. The fact he appears to be saying from his angle he thought it was a dive and sticking by that decision without reviewing his decision is corrupt.

I have no idea what the panel are doing but sounds like they are covering the refs ass in the hope Inverness would accept the decision meekly. Kudos on that club for not going quietly. The ref should never ref a game again and the panel (who should be named) should have no further involvement in Scottish football at any level.

The involvement of a Rangers team in the game and that decision meant they were playing against 10 men for 30 mins is another dimension of course.

[Sir David Gray]

I don't see how incompetence is a factor here.

The footage is obvious. Clear as day and those on the panel will likely be people who have played or refereed so it's not like they won't have a basic football knowledge. My gran would see that's not a dive and she's been dead 10 years.

This decision defies logic so blatantly that I can't see anything other than an agenda being at play.

The ref making the original call is incompetence. The panel decision is so outrageous it goes beyond that.


I agree, there’s no way that anyone could watch that video and say it’s a dive. Some are suggesting the decision was made because of the comments made by wee Robbo after the game. As you say it looks like there’s an agenda at play here.


why not? Scottish football has shown itself to be corrupt from an Sfa president being allowed to agree a non disclosure agreement to cover up obvious corruption to Sevco to Hearts getting a 2 point penalty to keep them in a tournament ironically at the expense of ICT.

Any professional ref with a modicum of integrity would have reviewed the decision from the tv angles and then admitted they were wrong. The fact he appears to be saying from his angle he thought it was a dive and sticking by that decision without reviewing his decision is corrupt.

I have no idea what the panel are doing but sounds like they are covering the refs ass in the hope Inverness would accept the decision meekly. Kudos on that club for not going quietly. The ref should never ref a game again and the panel (who should be named) should have no further involvement in Scottish football at any level.

Who's the agenda against and why would there be corruption against Inverness CT?

I just don't understand why it necessarily needs to be anyone being corrupt and if it was indeed corruption then you're talking about multiple people being involved.

[JimBHibees]

Who's the agenda against and why would there be corruption against Inverness CT?

I just don't understand why it necessarily needs to be anyone being corrupt and if it was indeed corruption then you're talking about multiple people being involved.

The SFA president I spoke about was found to be corrupt in favour of Rangers. This decision was about favouring Rangers. Sevco debacle including collusion of clubs was about favouring Rangers.

[givescotlandfreedom]

Who's the agenda against and why would there be corruption against Inverness CT?

I just don't understand why it necessarily needs to be anyone being corrupt and if it was indeed corruption then you're talking about multiple people being involved.
Look who they were playing against.

[McSwanky]

Look who they were playing against.But TRFC don't stand to gain anything here whether Keatings is suspended or not. The result stands and their young team is out.

Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

Who's the agenda against and why would there be corruption against Inverness CT?

I just don't understand why it necessarily needs to be anyone being corrupt and if it was indeed corruption then you're talking about multiple people being involved.
This would be a valid point if it wasn’t so blatantly obvious that it wasn’t a dive. No one is that incompetent.

[danhibees1875]

But TRFC don't stand to gain anything here whether Keatings is suspended or not. The result stands and their young team is out.

Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalk

:agree:

I don't see how it's cheating/a conspiracy either. It helps Raith, and that's it.

[grunt]

Leeann having her say.

https://twitter.com/leeanndempster/status/1230390965346631681?s=21

[BILLYHIBS]

Red card sounds harsh

I wonder if the powers that be wanted the Wee Huns to win?

Free kick for ICT all day long

[JimBHibees]

:agree:

I don't see how it's cheating/a conspiracy either. It helps Raith, and that's it.

You may be right but it helped Rangers on Saturday as in a one off cup tie to be playing against 10 men thanks to a ludicrous decision. No idea what the appeal panel were watching however may be they were trying to cover the referees ass.

[theonlywayisup]

The SFA must be embarrassed by this decision. It would be great if Sky Sports News or Football Focus made a big thing of this decision - if this was an English Championship player it would be talked about for days.

[JimBHibees]

Leeann having her say.

https://twitter.com/leeanndempster/status/1230390965346631681?s=21

Her comment about Members association is an interesting one.

The guy Alan Burrows is the Motherwell CEO I think, good that they are supporting Inverness position.

[JimBHibees]

The SFA must be embarrassed by this decision. It would be great if Sky Sports News or Football Focus made a big thing of this decision - if this was an English Championship player it would be talked about for days.

It would be great and should be discussed at length.

[BILLYHIBS]

Showed the clip to my Mrs who knows nothing about football and she said “ Penalty the guy bumped into him.”

She was astounded to hear of all the furore this has caused and the fact that the victim was dismissed

[CentreLine]

Leeann having her say.

https://twitter.com/leeanndempster/status/1230390965346631681?s=21

Now that is an wonderful statement from Leeann Dempster. Strong and very telling. I think the SFA may find this is not going away and the clubs are about to fight back. If they wanted to discipline anyone that is now Inverness, Hibs and Motherwell they are going to have to pull in. There will be others before the day is out, I’m sure.
And it wouldn’t be like The The Rangers not to release a statement.
There will be an SFA “summit meeting” with all the clubs to try and brush it under the carpet, is my guess.

[Peevemor]

Now that is an wonderful statement from Leeann Dempster. Strong and very telling. I think the SFA may find this is not going away and the clubs are about to fight back. If they wanted to discipline anyone that is now Inverness, Hibs and Motherwell they are going to have to pull in. There will be others before the day is out, I’m sure.
And it wouldn’t be like The The Rangers not to release a statement.
There will be an SFA “summit meeting” with all the clubs to try and brush it under the carpet, is my guess.

I wonder if Leeann is still holding hands with Rod Petrie?

Is the "member's association" comment a sign of frustration about something Petrie & Hibs were up against or is he part of the problem and Leeann can only speak out now that he's not her boss?

I hope it's the former.

[Sir David Gray]

The SFA president I spoke about was found to be corrupt in favour of Rangers. This decision was about favouring Rangers. Sevco debacle including collusion of clubs was about favouring Rangers.


Look who they were playing against.


This would be a valid point if it wasn’t so blatantly obvious that it wasn’t a dive. No one is that incompetent.

If there are so many people corrupt within the SFA, surely one "good egg" would have come out as a whistleblower by now. Having so many people corrupt in a high profile organisation like the SFA would be almost impossible to keep quiet about.

[BoomtownHibees]

I can’t believe anybody would think this is a dive. The ref, seeing it once at full speed, can have some sort of excuse (even though he was looking straight at it) however the 3 man panel and the 1 poster on here who thinks it’s a dive after watching it multiple times and in slow motion is beyond belief

[GreenCastle]

The SFA is a joke and until they disband it and start again Scottish Football has really poor credibility.

The lack of transparency at times is staggering. Why is the panel secret ??

This decision is simply wrong and it shouldn’t even need an appeal. Can’t imagine how Keatings is feeling personally.

Clubs should just strike and see what the SFA do.

[Andy74]

I can’t believe anybody would think this is a dive. The ref, seeing it once at full speed, can have some sort of excuse (even though he was looking straight at it) however the 3 man panel and the 1 poster on here who thinks it’s a dive after watching it multiple times and in slow motion is beyond belief

I'm not saying it is a full on dive with no contact. He obviously takes a hit in there.

The panel has to be very sure the ref was wrong - and this was just a yellow offence.

There's enough in there that suggests the referee could have been right in his view that the player tried to make the most of it and deceive the referee by making more of it than there was and getting himself further into the box in the process.

[Kato]

I'm not saying it is a full on dive with no contact. He obviously takes a hit in there.

The panel has to be very sure the ref was wrong - and this was just a yellow offence.

There's enough in there that suggests the referee could have been right in his view that the player tried to make the most of it and deceive the referee by making more of it than there was and getting himself further into the box in the process.Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. There is no attempted "deception" there, give up.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Alex Trager]

Leeann having her say.

https://twitter.com/leeanndempster/status/1230390965346631681?s=21

That Daryl Broadfoot says that ALL the time on sportsound.

What exactly is meant by that? The members vote on decisions taken?

[hibbyfraelibby]

...and all the time we discuss this deflects us away from the announcement yesterday that The Thes had just been fined £15000 for their failure to exercise control after the fracas at ER and Parkhead.

Just a coincidence mind...

[green day]

The SFA is a joke and until they disband it and start again Scottish Football has really poor credibility.

The lack of transparency at times is staggering. Why is the panel secret ??

This decision is simply wrong and it shouldn’t even need an appeal. Can’t imagine how Keatings is feeling personally.

Clubs should just strike and see what the SFA do.

Because Rangers and Celtic fans have access to bricks

[HappyAsHellas]

I'm not saying it is a full on dive with no contact. He obviously takes a hit in there.

The panel has to be very sure the ref was wrong - and this was just a yellow offence.

There's enough in there that suggests the referee could have been right in his view that the player tried to make the most of it and deceive the referee by making more of it than there was and getting himself further into the box in the process.

Step away from the shovel......

[SouthMoroccoStu]

Showed the clip to my Mrs who knows nothing about football and she said “ Penalty the guy bumped into him.”

She was astounded to hear of all the furore this has caused and the fact that the victim was dismissed

Lol

I did the exact same thing with my mrs

Same (correct) decision and reaction

[Ozyhibby]

https://ictfc.com/club-statement-9

Good statement by Inverness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

https://ictfc.com/club-statement-9

Good statement by Inverness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Keep up...

[ronaldo7]

I'm not saying it is a full on dive with no contact. He obviously takes a hit in there.

The panel has to be very sure the ref was wrong - and this was just a yellow offence.

There's enough in there that suggests the referee could have been right in his view that the player tried to make the most of it and deceive the referee by making more of it than there was and getting himself further into the box in the process.

So when he took a hit in there,(your words) someone fouled him right?

[BoomtownHibees]

I'm not saying it is a full on dive with no contact. He obviously takes a hit in there.

The panel has to be very sure the ref was wrong - and this was just a yellow offence.

There's enough in there that suggests the referee could have been right in his view that the player tried to make the most of it and deceive the referee by making more of it than there was and getting himself further into the box in the process.

So it’s not a dive, he takes a hit and there’s contact but you can see why it wasn’t overturned? Jeez

[KingPat4]

You would think the Hun that fouled him would just come out and say so, in support of a fellow professional.

:rolleyes:

[Ozyhibby]

Keep up...

[emoji23]I just realised that I was late to the party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Leeann having her say.

https://twitter.com/leeanndempster/status/1230390965346631681?s=21

About time she started piping up about the way the game is run. One of the most frustrating things about Hibs and Scottish football in general is the way clubs just accept an SFA which is corruptly working to the benefit of one club over all others. I’m hoping all the new foreign owners will change that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy74]

So it’s not a dive, he takes a hit and there’s contact but you can see why it wasn’t overturned? Jeez

I'd imagine the rule doesn't refer to 'diving'.

[Kato]

I'd imagine the rule doesn't refer to 'diving'.As evidenced on this thread you have a broad imagination.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[superfurryhibby]

About time she started piping up about the way the game is run. One of the most frustrating things about Hibs and Scottish football in general is the way clubs just accept an SFA which is corruptly working to the benefit of one club over all others. I’m hoping all the new foreign owners will change that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Two clubs surely?

Problem is that the clubs themselves have had the opportunity to challenge the status quo and bottled it, us included.

[BoomtownHibees]

I'd imagine the rule doesn't refer to 'diving'.

No, it’s about deceiving the referee. If there’s “contact” and he “takes a hit” (your words), there is no deceit. It’s a foul, no doubt about it.

I reckon you haven’t actually watched the footage or you are deliberately trying to be different to absolutely everyone else I have seen comment on this subject across a number of different platforms

[Ozyhibby]

Two clubs surely?

Problem is that the clubs themselves have had the opportunity to challenge the status quo and bottled it, us included.

You think the SFA was working to the benefit of Celtic when they deliberately held up Jorge Cadette’s registration so that he could not play against Rangers and ultimately send another title to Ibrox?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

What would be the point in VAR if it's the same corrupt monkeys that are making the decisions?

[Andy74]

No, it’s about deceiving the referee. If there’s “contact” and he “takes a hit” (your words), there is no deceit. It’s a foul, no doubt about it.

I reckon you haven’t actually watched the footage or you are deliberately trying to be different to absolutely everyone else I have seen comment on this subject across a number of different platforms

I'm sure you can handle one person prepared to take a different view eh?

The ref and 3 panel members, who are all more aware of the rules and why the referee took the action he did have all taken the same view.

I don't particularly care or have a very strong view either way, just trying to see what they have seen.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'd imagine the rule doesn't refer to 'simulation'.

I imagine it does :greengrin

[blackpoolhibs]

I'm sure you can handle one person prepared to take a different view eh?

The ref and 3 panel members, who are all more aware of the rules and why the referee took the action he did have all taken the same view.

I don't particularly care or have a very strong view either way, just trying to see what they have seen.

I'm glad you are back Andy. :thumbsup:

[BoomtownHibees]

I'm sure you can handle one person prepared to take a different view eh?

The ref and 3 panel members, who are all more aware of the rules and why the referee took the action he did have all taken the same view.

I don't particularly care or have a very strong view either way, just trying to see what they have seen.

Fair enough, you, the ref and his 3 cronies were spot on. Forget about what every other man and his dug can see, it was a dive. Referees and these ‘panels’ have never been known to get it wrong, they know the rules so must be right

What exactly do you think they’ve seen?

[calumhibee1]

I'm sure you can handle one person prepared to take a different view eh?

The ref and 3 panel members, who are all more aware of the rules and why the referee took the action he did have all taken the same view.

I don't particularly care or have a very strong view either way, just trying to see what they have seen.

Do they know why the ref took that action? I’d like to think that it wouldn’t have been discussed and they’d make the decision without any sort of influence like that.

[sleeping giant]

No idea how you come to that conclusion. I can only think you are being contrary for the sake of it.

Andy being Deliberately contrary ?
Never :greengrin:

[Carheenlea]

I'm sure you can handle one person prepared to take a different view eh?

The ref and 3 panel members, who are all more aware of the rules and why the referee took the action he did have all taken the same view.

I don't particularly care or have a very strong view either way, just trying to see what they have seen.

I’m trying very hard to see what they have seen, but just can’t see anything at all to suggest Keatings dived.
Often multiple watches can have you start seeing little things here and there that can make you think, but in this instance it’s the complete opposite and looks more a foul with every viewing.

[basehibby]

Theres no two ways about it - clear evidence that the review panel are bent as a nine bob note. I simply cannot accept this is mere incompetence - a 5 year old could not fail to see that there was no dive.

[malcolm]

Think you are all missing the point of what the review panel was doing. It is clearly not ‘was this a simulation or not?’ but rather ‘was the decision the ref made an error in what he could see?’ It is the only explanation that fits. The ‘trained judicial panel members’ are surely referees or ex refs and safely in their secret squirrel meeting, looked out for one of their own and decided that he did not make an error regardless of whether there was any simulation. The only simulation some might say was of course that of simulating any kind of fairness and integrity.

Given that ‘where you come from’ apparently is the most important factor in advancement for Scottish referees, such self interest in a west coast centric refs organisation would be no surprise. There was also a stink of the additional leg up of nepotism in the fast advancement of one recent ref who, despite who Dad was, IIRC crashed and burned in Europe outside of the safety of the west coast referee coven. :wink: That is all not to say that it is bias not ineptitude that drives decisions but something is not right in an essential part of the game.

We can see the same self interest in the broadcast media where for example in the BBC it is BBC glasgow that runs the show up here and for example, going back a while, they successfully dug their heels in to prevent a new HQ at the top of leith walk. This concentration in one place is of course the opposite of what happens in the rest of UK where for example there was a decentralised move away from London. If you look at the recent Tranmere - Man Utd game, in addition to the televised coverage and radio 5 commentary, you could listen to both local Merseyside and Manchester BBC coverage. We miss out from any genuine local sport and news coverage and are poorer for it.

Of course all of the above could maybe be the result of the SFA and BBC not matching up to my own unconscious and conscious bias :greengrin

[Carheenlea]

Theres no two ways about it - clear evidence that the review panel are bent as a nine bob note. I simply cannot accept this is mere incompetence - a 5 year old could not fail to see that there was no dive.

What would there be to gain though, and who would do so if indeed that was the case? Whole episode is bizarre.

[IWasThere2016]

Think you are all missing the point of what the review panel was doing. It is clearly not ‘was this a simulation or not?’ but rather ‘was the decision the ref made an error in what he could see?’ It is the only explanation that fits. The ‘trained judicial panel members’ are surely referees or ex refs and safely in their secret squirrel meeting, looked out for one of their own and decided that he did not make an error regardless of whether there was any simulation. The only simulation some might say was of course that of simulating any kind of fairness and integrity.

Given that ‘where you come from’ apparently is the most important factor in advancement for Scottish referees, such self interest in a west coast centric refs organisation would be no surprise. There was also a stink of the additional leg up of nepotism in the fast advancement of one recent ref who, despite who Dad was, IIRC crashed and burned in Europe outside of the safety of the west coast referee coven. :wink: That is all not to say that it is bias not ineptitude that drives decisions but something is not right in an essential part of the game.

We can see the same self interest in the broadcast media where for example in the BBC it is BBC glasgow that runs the show up here and for example, going back a while, they successfully dug their heels in to prevent a new HQ at the top of leith walk. This concentration in one place is of course the opposite of what happens in the rest of UK where for example there was a decentralised move away from London. If you look at the recent Tranmere - Man Utd game, in addition to the televised coverage and radio 5 commentary, you could listen to both local Merseyside and Manchester BBC coverage. We miss out from any genuine local sport and news coverage and are poorer for it.

Of course all of the above could maybe be the result of the SFA and BBC not matching up to my own unconscious and conscious bias :greengrin

:agree: BBC coverage in the NW is excellent - usually each evening all senior teams' games are mentioned and in equal-ish measure. It truly is refreshing.

[CockneyRebel]

Fair enough, you, the ref and his 3 cronies were spot on. Forget about what every other man and his dug can see, it was a dive. Referees and these ‘panels’ have never been known to get it wrong, they know the rules so must be right

What exactly do you think they’ve seen?




First input to this thread as I had not seen a clip of the incident until a few minutes ago. I can't for the life of me see why the ref did not give the foul against Keatings. The barge into him was obvious from whatever angle you see it from and I could see no attempt by Keatings to "make a meal of it". So for me the ref is just as culpable as the panel of jokers who turned down the appeal. If you can't appeal against an appeal then some other action is needed, maybe a joint statement from all clubs would help?

[BoomtownHibees]

First input to this thread as I had not seen a clip of the incident until a few minutes ago. I can't for the life of me see why the ref did not give the foul against Keatings. The barge into him was obvious from whatever angle you see it from and I could see no attempt by Keatings to "make a meal of it". So for me the ref is just as culpable as the panel of jokers who turned down the appeal. If you can't appeal against an appeal then some other action is needed, maybe a joint statement from all clubs would help?

Agreed the ref is as culpable. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt in that he had only seen it once at full speed however the “panel” got to see it from all angles and in slow motion but still came to the same conclusion. Baffling

[SquashedFrogg]

What would there be to gain though, and who would do so if indeed that was the case? Whole episode is bizarre.

Who were ICT playing?

[CockneyRebel]

Think you are all missing the point of what the review panel was doing. It is clearly not ‘was this a simulation or not?’ but rather ‘was the decision the ref made an error in what he could see?’ It is the only explanation that fits. The ‘trained judicial panel members’ are surely referees or ex refs and safely in their secret squirrel meeting, looked out for one of their own and decided that he did not make an error regardless of whether there was any simulation. The only simulation some might say was of course that of simulating any kind of fairness and integrity.

Given that ‘where you come from’ apparently is the most important factor in advancement for Scottish referees, such self interest in a west coast centric refs organisation would be no surprise. There was also a stink of the additional leg up of nepotism in the fast advancement of one recent ref who, despite who Dad was, IIRC crashed and burned in Europe outside of the safety of the west coast referee coven. :wink: That is all not to say that it is bias not ineptitude that drives decisions but something is not right in an essential part of the game.

We can see the same self interest in the broadcast media where for example in the BBC it is BBC glasgow that runs the show up here and for example, going back a while, they successfully dug their heels in to prevent a new HQ at the top of leith walk. This concentration in one place is of course the opposite of what happens in the rest of UK where for example there was a decentralised move away from London. If you look at the recent Tranmere - Man Utd game, in addition to the televised coverage and radio 5 commentary, you could listen to both local Merseyside and Manchester BBC coverage. We miss out from any genuine local sport and news coverage and are poorer for it.

Of course all of the above could maybe be the result of the SFA and BBC not matching up to my own unconscious and conscious bias :greengrin


It definitely stinks. The fact is that the clips show a foul (no shoulder charge just a blatant thrust of the hips to knock him over) and no simulation so the panel should have overturned the booking for simulation. End of.

[Moulin Yarns]

The amount of support for ICT and Keatings is amazing.

https://twitter.com/Inver_Utd/status/1230426255150977024?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcam p%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet


If the SFA do not explain their decision it shows how out of touch they really are.

[staunchhibby]

Would be interesting if this was taken to court and what that decision would be.Do not think they would take long to give a verdict when they see the incident.Not guilty all the way

[Andy74]

The amount of support for ICT and Keatings is amazing.

https://twitter.com/Inver_Utd/status/1230426255150977024?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcam p%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet


If the SFA do not explain their decision it shows how out of touch they really are.

It would certainly help if there was an explanation - agree with that.

[Hibbyradge]

Would be interesting if this was taken to court and what that decision would be.Do not think they would take long to give a verdict when they see the incident.Not guilty all the way

I very much doubt that the court would decide whether it was a foul or simulation.

The only thing it could decide upon would be whether the proper, agreed procedures had been followed.

[mjhibby]

Just watched the incident and words fail me. It's so clearly a foul it's untrue. Surely the ref must admit to his mistake. Has he been asked his views. Sorry I've not read the whole thread. Had that been an old firm player we all know what would have happened. I don't think it's the system that's the problem. It's like VAR. Folk are seeing things that aren't there and interpreting things off there own back. It's clearly a mistake by the ref so its the panel who for whatever reason have dismissed the appeal. I'd be raging if I was caley. An utterly embarrassing day for Scottish football and yet another low for officials.

[alhibby]

Really shocking decision but what also annoys me is the Sevco player who fouls Keatings, applauding the booking, :confused:

[Carheenlea]

Just watched the incident and words fail me. It's so clearly a foul it's untrue. Surely the ref must admit to his mistake. Has he been asked his views. Sorry I've not read the whole thread. Had that been an old firm player we all know what would have happened. I don't think it's the system that's the problem. It's like VAR. Folk are seeing things that aren't there and interpreting things off there own back. It's clearly a mistake by the ref so its the panel who for whatever reason have dismissed the appeal. I'd be raging if I was caley. An utterly embarrassing day for Scottish football and yet another low for officials.

The ref should really be coming forward to admit his error despite the appeal ruling in his favour. He would earn a bit of respect for doing so.

[green with envy]

I'm not saying it is a full on dive with no contact. He obviously takes a hit in there.

The panel has to be very sure the ref was wrong - and this was just a yellow offence.

There's enough in there that suggests the referee could have been right in his view that the player tried to make the most of it and deceive the referee by making more of it than there was and getting himself further into the box in the process.

The panel is there to overturn the refs awful decision and they didn't. The rest is just nonsense.

[Biggie]

The ref should really be coming forward to admit his error despite the appeal ruling in his favour. He would earn a bit of respect for doing so.
yeah but he'd be blackballed by the refereeing fraternity.....forever

[CockneyRebel]

The ref should really be coming forward to admit his error despite the appeal ruling in his favour. He would earn a bit of respect for doing so.



Yeah, he must have seen the replays and know he got it wrong. Also the culprit who committed the foul actually goes up to the ref and applauds his decision. He is obviously playing for the right team.

[hibbyfraelibby]

Would be interesting if this was taken to court and what that decision would be.Do not think they would take long to give a verdict when they see the incident.Not guilty all the way

The SFA, UEFA and FIFA rules makes it a breach of the rules to take legal action to enforce the rules, challenge the rules or get "natural justice" .

Take them to court and they will use the rules to throw you out.

[Skol]

I still struggle with the claims of corruption which is defined as dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.

While you could argue the outcome is dishonest I don’t see why it would be fraudulent and I am not clear who had bribed the panel

Personally I don’t think dishonest alone amounts to corruption

This appears to me to be just rank bad decision making. By the panel.

The refs position in that he gave the decision in good faith you can understand to an extent and could be accepted as an honest mistake.

The panel have made an error and the only mitigation I can see is that they have decided the ref made a decision based on what he thought he saw and so it stands rather than look at the evidence of what he missed.

[mcohibs]

I still struggle with the claims of corruption which is defined as dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.

While you could argue the outcome is dishonest I don’t see why it would be fraudulent and I am not clear who had bribed the panel

Personally I don’t think dishonest alone amounts to corruption

This appears to me to be just rank bad decision making. By the panel.

The refs position in that he gave the decision in good faith you can understand to an extent and could be accepted as an honest mistake.

The panel have made an error and the only mitigation I can see is that they have decided the ref made a decision based on what he thought he saw and so it stands rather than look at the evidence of what he missed.

The whole point of a panel review must be to review the actual correctness of the decision itself? Rather than whether the ref has made the call on what he's seen - of course he's made the call on what he's seen. What is the point in having a panel review if it doesn't review the correctness of the decision?

The fact that THREE people have sat down, looked at that video evidence at all speeds and angles and unanimously came to the decision that Keatings...
(A.) Wasn't fouled and
(B.) Dived
is utterly appaling. There is genuinely no explanation for it and I can entirely understand why it leads some people to claim corruption. There is bad decision making and then there is complete blindness.

[allezsauzee]

Worst appeal decision since Ryan Jack got a red card for headbutting Anthony Stokes rescinded...... based on tv coverage of Ryan Jack headbutting Anthony Stokes.

[basehibby]

What would there be to gain though, and who would do so if indeed that was the case? Whole episode is bizarre.
Very good question which however does not alter one iota that this panel of supposed experts with all the benefits of technology and the luxury of time on their side have got this decision 100% wrong and inarguably so.
If an administrational error has been committed then surely they will come out and say so. If not then the whole lot of them need sacking for gross incompetence.

[delbert]

Think you are all missing the point of what the review panel was doing. It is clearly not ‘was this a simulation or not?’ but rather ‘was the decision the ref made an error in what he could see?’ It is the only explanation that fits. The ‘trained judicial panel members’ are surely referees or ex refs and safely in their secret squirrel meeting, looked out for one of their own and decided that he did not make an error regardless of whether there was any simulation. The only simulation some might say was of course that of simulating any kind of fairness and integrity.

Given that ‘where you come from’ apparently is the most important factor in advancement for Scottish referees, such self interest in a west coast centric refs organisation would be no surprise. There was also a stink of the additional leg up of nepotism in the fast advancement of one recent ref who, despite who Dad was, IIRC crashed and burned in Europe outside of the safety of the west coast referee coven. :wink: That is all not to say that it is bias not ineptitude that drives decisions but something is not right in an essential part of the game.

We can see the same self interest in the broadcast media where for example in the BBC it is BBC glasgow that runs the show up here and for example, going back a while, they successfully dug their heels in to prevent a new HQ at the top of leith walk. This concentration in one place is of course the opposite of what happens in the rest of UK where for example there was a decentralised move away from London. If you look at the recent Tranmere - Man Utd game, in addition to the televised coverage and radio 5 commentary, you could listen to both local Merseyside and Manchester BBC coverage. We miss out from any genuine local sport and news coverage and are poorer for it.

Of course all of the above could maybe be the result of the SFA and BBC not matching up to my own unconscious and conscious bias :greengrin

The ‘trained judicial panel members’ usually only comprise one person from the refereeing fraternity and the others can be club officials, club directors or in many cases businessmen of a particular standing who have absolutely no experience of playing and only a tenuous connection to football or indeed, the Laws of the Game. I think if the makeup of many of the panels were made public, the whole system would be scrapped within months, it has little or no credibility as it is, but if clubs, players or fans found out that the decision was partly arrived at by the president of a yacht club (this actually happened), then I think there would be uproar !!

[Moulin Yarns]

I wonder if the SFA would respond to a number of ordinary football supporters asking for justification in the decision made by the panel? :wink:


f you wish to contact the Disciplinary department, please use this email address: disciplinary@scottishfa.co.uk

[DaveF]

I wonder if the SFA would respond to a number of ordinary football supporters asking for justification in the decision made by the panel? :wink:


f you wish to contact the Disciplinary department, please use this email address: disciplinary@scottishfa.co.uk

I've asked. Not expecting anything other than a dry reply, if I get one at all

[lapsedhibee]

I still struggle with the claims of corruption

Out there there are celtc-minded and other forms of 'internet bampot' (copyright J Traynor) counting up how often a decision which goes in favour of the Thes during a match gets overturned on appeal. The higher the count, the more it looks as if refereeing in this country favours the Thes. The lower the count, the harder that is to argue. The panel has done well here, keeping the score down.

[WhileTheChief..]

If there are so many people corrupt within the SFA, surely one "good egg" would have come out as a whistleblower by now. Having so many people corrupt in a high profile organisation like the SFA would be almost impossible to keep quiet about.

Folk only talk about corruption because Rangers are involved.

If this incident had happened when ICT were playing against anyone else it would barely get a mention on here.

[Moulin Yarns]

Looking through their @Judicial Panel Protocol. I notice a few things


13.8.8 The Tribunal shall issue written reasons for their Determination of a Fast Track
Notice of Complaint, ordinarily within 5 working days of the Fast Track Principal
Hearing. The written reasons will be intimated to the Compliance Officer and to
the Alleged Party in Breach and at the discretion of the Scottish FA may be
published upon the Scottish FA website.
13.8.9 Where a breach of Disciplinary Rule 201 is established any caution or sending
off imposed by the Match Official as a consequence of the incorrect decision
and/or error of judgment occasioned by the act of simulation shall be rescinded
by the Scottish FA.
13.8.10 Determinations of a Fast Track Notice of Complaint shall be final and binding.
There shall be no right of appeal.

Look forward to this being made public :rolleyes:


13.9.9.3 Wrongful Caution. A Claim may be competently made where it is
claimed that a Wrongful Caution occurred in respect of a player
cautioned for an act of simulation.
13.10 In any Claim the burden of proof is upon the Claimant making the Claim.
13.10.1 A Claim shall only be upheld at a Fast Track Principal Hearing where
the Tribunal are satisfied by way of evidence and not opinion and upon
the balance of probabilities (see Paragraph 10.10) that an Obvious Refereeing
Error was made such that Mistaken Identity, or Wrongful Dismissal, or Wrongful
Caution occurred.

So what does Para 10.10 say?


10.10 Treatment of evidence
10.10.1 The standard of proof in all questions for Determination by Tribunals shall be proof
on the balance of probabilities.
10.10.2 At all times that means that before it can reach a Determination that a Disciplinary
Rule has been breached a Tribunal must be satisfied that it is more likely than not, in all of the circumstances of the Case, that the Party who is the subject of
the Notice of Complaint or a Fast Track Notice of Complaint committed the Rule
breach alleged.
10.10.3 Where there are competing accounts, before it can reach a Determination that
a Disciplinary Rule has been breached a Tribunal must be satisfied that:
10.10.3.1 The evidential account presented by the Compliance Officer is
the evidential account that is deemed to be the account more likely
to have occurred; and
10.10.3.2 It is more likely than not in all of the circumstances of the Case that
the Party who is the subject of the Notice of Complaint or a Fast Track
Notice of Complaint committed the Rule breach alleged.
10.10.4 At all times in a Claim made by a Claimant in terms of Section 13 of this Protocol
before it can reach a Determination that the Claim should be upheld, a Fast Track
Tribunal must be satisfied that it is more likely than not, in all of the circumstances
of the Case, that an obvious refereeing error has occurred.
10.10.5 Where the Fast Track Tribunal Determining the Claim has been presented
with competing accounts, before it can reach a Determination that a Claim
should be upheld, a Fast Track Tribunal must be satisfied that:
10.10.5.1 The evidential account presented by the Claimant is the evidential
account that is deemed to be the account more likely to have
occurred; and
10.10.5.2 It is more likely than not in all of the circumstances of the Case
that an obvious refereeing error occurred.
10.10.6 The Tribunal shall not be bound by judicial rules governing the admissibility
of evidence. The Tribunal may establish the facts by any means it considers
to be appropriate, including admissions and by its own interpretation of evidential
material, such as electronic recordings.

So their own 'Interpretation' of evidence, is that not the same as opinion??

[DaveF]

Folk only talk about corruption because Rangers are involved.

If this incident had happened when ICT were playing against anyone else it would barely get a mention on here.

Nah, it's such a poor decision it would still.merit the response. For what it's worth I dont buy the corruption stuff or sevco link either. But that still does not make the decision any less baffling.

[Northernhibee]

Gary Lineker backing Keatsy on Twitter.

[SouthMoroccoStu]

Gary Lineker backing Keatsy on Twitter.

Good

The further this goes, the stupider the SFA will look

[Onion]

Good

The further this goes, the stupider the SFA will look

Stupid indeed. Only missing a Trump-like figure from the Panel stand up and call it a perfect call.

They need to backtrack on this or resign their positions. Saying nothing and trying to defend this farce is not tenable.

[HoboHarry]

Gary Lineker backing Keatsy on Twitter.
Can you post a link please? I don't do that Twitterie thingie.....

[JimBHibees]

I'm not saying it is a full on dive with no contact. He obviously takes a hit in there.

The panel has to be very sure the ref was wrong - and this was just a yellow offence.

There's enough in there that suggests the referee could have been right in his view that the player tried to make the most of it and deceive the referee by making more of it than there was and getting himself further into the box in the process.

There is nothing to suggest that.

[JimBHibees]

You think the SFA was working to the benefit of Celtic when they deliberately held up Jorge Cadette’s registration so that he could not play against Rangers and ultimately send another title to Ibrox?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was a cup tie his registration was delayed for, I think.

[superfurryhibby]

You think the SFA was working to the benefit of Celtic when they deliberately held up Jorge Cadette’s registration so that he could not play against Rangers and ultimately send another title to Ibrox?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, but that was 25 years ago so.

The footballing establishment in Scotland largely serves two clubs, to the detriment of all others.

[Skol]

Folk only talk about corruption because Rangers are involved.

If this incident had happened when ICT were playing against anyone else it would barely get a mention on here.

What do rangers gain by this decision?

[CMurdoch]

No, but that was 25 years ago so.

The footballing establishment in Scotland largely serves two clubs, to the detriment of all others.

Just the way of the world. Money and power allows influence.

[Sir David Gray]

Folk only talk about corruption because Rangers are involved.

If this incident had happened when ICT were playing against anyone else it would barely get a mention on here.

I tend to agree.

I honestly can't see how there's corruption going on inside the SFA without someone blowing the whistle.

Extreme incompetence, absolutely.

[Eyrie]

What do rangers gain by this decision?

They gained by playing against 10 men.

The panel vote reassures referees that they can give decisions which favour the Ugly Sisters without being contradicted.

[Kato]

They gained by playing against 10 men.

The panel vote reassures referees that they can give decisions which favour the Ugly Sisters without being contradicted.


:agree:

....add in the the Rangers player getting off the hook and sheer vindictiveness and there you have it.

[Aldo]

What I don’t understand is why the referee doesn’t review the decision and come out and say he makes a mistake. Then rescinds the card. Simple

He would have got a lot more respect


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

They gained by playing against 10 men.

The panel vote reassures referees that they can give decisions which favour the Ugly Sisters without being contradicted.

And they still lost. Why do they gain by the decision not being over turned ?

I just dont see this evidence of corruption that so many others do.

Rank bad decisions yes.....

[brog]

I'm honestly not sure where to start here. I've always favoured the incompetence over corruption angle & given there's no obvious advantage to anyone by this decision then intuitively I stick with this. However, & it's a big however, this decision is so horribly wrong it says to me that something is awry here. I would love to know the instructions given to the panel. Are they, was decision right or wrong? Or are they, only if you're 100% sure that ref called it wrong should the decision be overturned? They're very different things. To sum up, I'm completely perplexed by this decision & I can't see the rationale for corruption. Alternatively, is Scottish football corrupt & rigged in favour of the uglies, 100% yes!

[InchHibby]

I watched it umpteen times from all the angles and there is nothing in anything that Keatings does makes it a dive, he’s in control of the ball, he does lean very fractionally to the right but that is his right as he is in front of the defender, then as we all can see he’s taken out. Even if the ref had to make a split second decision, which in my view, wasn’t even necessary, the members of the panel looking at it should have instantly reversed the refs decision.
This is what’s wrong with Scottish Football, one rule for them and forty for the rest of us.

[lapsedhibee]

Why do they gain by the decision not being over turned ?


They gain in the future:



The panel vote reassures referees that they can give decisions which favour the Ugly Sisters without being contradicted.

[Prof. Shaggy]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51577908

[SouthMoroccoStu]

What do rangers gain by this decision?

Petty revenge

Ala 2016 celebration inquest

“It didn’t go our way, we must have been cheated, let’s screw them over, 1690, no surrender, rule Britannia, WATP”

The blazer lodge at the sfa has proven once again they are inept and corrupt

A previous poster highlights “would we be talking about corruption if if wasn’t Rangers” (paraphrasing)

I don’t think we would as we wouldn’t need to

A “mistake” was made by the match official and the review had the chance to correct it

Baffling everyone, they’ve stuck to their guns, supporting their fellow brother

This is not a mistake or incompetent- plain and simple it’s cheating

[Scouse Hibee]

I wonder what one of the VAR refs would have made of it. In fact I don’t, as ridiculous as some of their calls have been even they could never call it simulation.

Absolutely horrendous decision from the panel.

[Caversham Green]

The ‘trained judicial panel members’ usually only comprise one person from the refereeing fraternity and the others can be club officials, club directors or in many cases businessmen of a particular standing who have absolutely no experience of playing and only a tenuous connection to football or indeed, the Laws of the Game. I think if the makeup of many of the panels were made public, the whole system would be scrapped within months, it has little or no credibility as it is, but if clubs, players or fans found out that the decision was partly arrived at by the president of a yacht club (this actually happened), then I think there would be uproar !!

The thing is, in-depth knowledge of the laws isn't particularly necessary here. The appeal is not for a free kick or penalty so the law regarding fouls is irrelevant.

It then becomes a question of whether Keatings instigated contact or threw himself to the ground with no contact being made - the two are pretty much mutually exclusive. According to ICT's statement the referee took the view that no contact was made therefore the first possibility doesn't apply. Fair enough, the ref only gets one look at the incident and it's quite possible that he just made a mistake, but if he thought Keatings changed direction to instigate contact he would have said so. Therefore the panel's decision should simply be whether the referee's opinion that no contact was made is right or wrong.

How any reasonable person could look at that footage and decide that the ref was right is beyond me.

[007]

The worst bit for me is the ref's reply to the appeal. He said from his angle he said it looked like there was no contact, which is kind of fair enough but to then not go on to say upon reviewing the footage he can see there was, is criminal.

[Onion]

Still think this was an occasion for the Sevco player to come out publicly and admit that there was contact. It will cost him and Sevco nothing to do so. By staying silent, and leaving this injustice hanging is disrespectful to a fellow pro who is going to miss a national cup final.

The SFA might normally think about charging the Sevco player for bringing the game into disrepute, if he did speak out, but the SFA themselves look ludicrous as it stands.

[Jim44]

The decision of the panel is so biased and dishonestly wrong that I think there is a case for all Scottish clubs to unite and collectively challenge the SFA or whoever the panel belongs to. We all know of course that there’s no chance of this happening so incidents like this will continue.

[Phil MaGlass]

The decision of the panel is so biased and dishonestly wrong that I think there is a case for all Scottish clubs to unite and collectively challenge the SFA or whoever the panel belongs to. We all know of course that there’s no chance of this happening so incidents like this will continue.

Its already started:
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/hibs-chief-leeann-dempster-launches-scathing-attack-sfa-disciplinary-process-she-calls-urgent-change-1884794

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/celtic/what-scottish-football-clubs-have-said-about-sfa-disciplinary-process-tensions-rise-1884843

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/celtic/what-scottish-football-clubs-have-said-about-the-sfa-disciplinary-process-as-tensions-rise-1-5093179

[Jim44]

Its already started:
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/hibs-chief-leeann-dempster-launches-scathing-attack-sfa-disciplinary-process-she-calls-urgent-change-1884794

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/celtic/what-scottish-football-clubs-have-said-about-sfa-disciplinary-process-tensions-rise-1884843

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/celtic/what-scottish-football-clubs-have-said-about-the-sfa-disciplinary-process-as-tensions-rise-1-5093179

Hallelujah. I haven’t kept up to speed with this incident but this is reassuring.

[NadeAteMyLunch!]

Still think this was an occasion for the Sevco player to come out publicly and admit that there was contact. It will cost him and Sevco nothing to do so. By staying silent, and leaving this injustice hanging is disrespectful to a fellow pro who is going to miss a national cup final.

The SFA might normally think about charging the Sevco player for bringing the game into disrepute, if he did speak out, but the SFA themselves look ludicrous as it stands.

The problem there is that the wee Sevco gremlin was applauding the refs decision so he won’t come out and admit now that he made contact. Knowing that you made contact yet smuggly applauding a fellow pro getting sent off is brutal patter.

[delbert]

Excellent statement from ITC, calling it as they see it and not hiding behind politically correct language.

“If the individuals involved in the tribunal can watch the footage and call this simulation, there can be no other conclusion other than they do not understand football," read a club statement.

It’s a poor call by the referee, but how can a panel (of 3 ex refs?) with the benefit of slow-mo and various angles call that simulation beggars belief.

I would love to see this judgement being analysed by Sky on their ‘Ref Watch’ programme.

It’s never 3 ex refs, the one person from the referee fraternity is always outnumbered by the other two non referee persons on the panel

[Diclonius]

Its already started:
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/hibs-chief-leeann-dempster-launches-scathing-attack-sfa-disciplinary-process-she-calls-urgent-change-1884794

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/celtic/what-scottish-football-clubs-have-said-about-sfa-disciplinary-process-tensions-rise-1884843

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/celtic/what-scottish-football-clubs-have-said-about-the-sfa-disciplinary-process-as-tensions-rise-1-5093179

I'm amazed that Rangers have actually said something.

[Andy74]

Still think this was an occasion for the Sevco player to come out publicly and admit that there was contact. It will cost him and Sevco nothing to do so. By staying silent, and leaving this injustice hanging is disrespectful to a fellow pro who is going to miss a national cup final.

The SFA might normally think about charging the Sevco player for bringing the game into disrepute, if he did speak out, but the SFA themselves look ludicrous as it stands.

Contact might have nothing to do with it though. It’s possible to have contact but for the ref still to feel that overall the player had tried to con the ref.

An explanation would be good so folk knew the point they were arguing about!

[Diclonius]

A boycott of the final by Inverness might be interesting.

[blackpoolhibs]

Contact might have nothing to do with it though. It’s possible to have contact but for the ref still to feel that overall the player had tried to con the ref.

An explanation would be good so folk knew the point they were arguing about!

That is true Andy, but we've now had a committee of 3 men (i think) look at this incident from all angles, and they have come to the same conclusion of the ref. :confused:

Yet virtually everyone else to a man has the opposite opinion, surely to god we are all not wrong here?

And to be perfectly honest, it makes no difference either way for us Hibs fans, other than it being a total injustice in our eyes.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm amazed that Rangers have actually said something.

Rangers comments are because of the fines they received for the dugout rammies at Easter Road and Celtic, not about the Keatings incident

[Hibbyradge]

I'm amazed that Rangers have actually said something.

They weren't refering to the Keatings incident.

[Caversham Green]

Contact might have nothing to do with it though. It’s possible to have contact but for the ref still to feel that overall the player had tried to con the ref.

An explanation would be good so folk knew the point they were arguing about!

From the ICT statement:



The referee also submitted his reply to the appeal and within that, he states that from his angle, he believed there had been no contact made by the defender on James and this led him to believe that James had thrown himself to the ground in an attempt to deceive him, therefore he deemed it to be an act of simulation, hence the decision.


So either ICT are not telling the whole truth or the ref gave the caution because he believed there was no contact.

As an afterthought, I wonder if this is the ref hinting to the panel that he got it wrong without admitting it. Depends on the procedure and his instructions I suppose.

Edit: According to someone on Keechbag (I know!) the refs have been instructed not to give an opinion on whether they made a mistake when they give their statement.

[JimBHibees]

The worst bit for me is the ref's reply to the appeal. He said from his angle he said it looked like there was no contact, which is kind of fair enough but to then not go on to say upon reviewing the footage he can see there was, is criminal.

Totally agree. Refs will have an idea on the reaction of players whether they may have made a mistake IMO. For the ref to either not then watch coverage of the game (covered on Alba so not difficult) or watch it and decide he was right is frankly unbelievable. Maybe he took the huff with some of the Inverness comments after the game and decided to stick it to them or he put a lot of money on Gers colts and lost a wad. :greengrin

[silverhibee]

Has Ian Maxwell done anything good for Scottish football since getting the top job in the SFA, as a ex player he must have had a look at this and seen what everyone else is seeing and should be having a word with the panel as this won't go away and someone from the SFA will have to explain this bizarre decision by non football people who sit on the panel.

And The Rangers have a cheek having a go at the panel for the fine they got for players and management team not being able to control themselves on and of the pitch, guilty as charged, why have the 2 players not been banned for several games for the gestures they made in the Celtc game.

[Argylehibby]

And they still lost. Why do they gain by the decision not being over turned ?

I just dont see this evidence of corruption that so many others do.

Rank bad decisions yes.....

Often hear or read people in the media especially saying they don't see corruption in the SFA or referees but when has anyone really looked for evidence? We point fingers at other countries and say it would never happen here but why wouldn't it, what makes us whiter than white? For what it's worth I agree it's difficult to see how there is any in the Keatings debacle but it's equally difficult to see how at least 2 out of 3 people could possibly think it was a dive. How can at least 2 so called experts view that evidence and come to the conclusion that it was a dive? It is so blatant it cannot simply be a bad decision so what lies behind it? Getting the ref off the hook for his bad decision for some reason, betting on Raith to win the final now ICT are weakened I don't know but whatever the reason is it cant be less plausible as "genuine mistake".

[Chorley Hibee]

Has Ian Maxwell done anything good for Scottish football since getting the top job in the SFA, as a ex player he must have had a look at this and seen what everyone else is seeing and should be having a word with the panel as this won't go away and someone from the SFA will have to explain this bizarre decision by non football people who sit on the panel.

And The Rangers have a cheek having a go at the panel for the fine they got for players and management team not being able to control themselves on and of the pitch, guilty as charged, why have the 2 players not been banned for several games for the gestures they made in the Celtc game.

Still awaiting comment from the authorities on Gerrard's lambasting of the referee at the weekend.

I won't hold by breath though.

I just hope every other club remembers this when their own staff are hauled up on charges.

[Andy74]

From the ICT statement:



So either ICT are not telling the whole truth or the ref gave the caution because he believed there was no contact.

As an afterthought, I wonder if this is the ref hinting to the panel that he got it wrong without admitting it. Depends on the procedure and his instructions I suppose.

Edit: According to someone on Keechbag (I know!) the refs have been instructed not to give an opinion on whether they made a mistake when they give their statement.

In that case, if the ref was saying he didn't see contact at all then I'm as confused as anyone else on this.

[lord bunberry]

It’s obvious that the decision was made through spite after Robertson lambasted the referee after the game. That’s not incompetence it’s cheating. There’s absolutely no way anyone could look at the video evidence and say it was a dive. The referee said he thought there wasn’t any contact which was obviously wrong. The panel have to decide if the referee got it right, they have decided the referee was right and there was no contact. We can call it whatever we want, but the integrity of the people that made the decision or were instructed to make the decision needs to called into question. This shouldn’t just be swept under the carpet.

[Oscar T Grouch]

I was listening to Sportsound last night while the huns game was on, they were piling in on the SFA and saying there has to be action taken to overturn the decision so JK can play in the final. It has to be the only time I have agreed with everything said on that show!! I think there will be a lot of questions asked by the press about this and Maxwell will need to come out and state his opinion at the very least. I think I read that Keatings has never been booked for simulation in his career and had never been sent off either, if that is true then it is an even bigger travesty that it is at the moment. I would like Maxwell to be asked by the media what he thinks of the situation.

[JimBHibees]

It’s obvious that the decision was made through spite after Robertson lambasted the referee after the game. That’s not incompetence it’s cheating. There’s absolutely no way anyone could look at the video evidence and say it was a dive. The referee said he thought there wasn’t any contact which was obviously wrong. The panel have to decide if the referee got it right, they have decided the referee was right and there was no contact. We can call it whatever we want, but the integrity of the people that made the decision or were instructed to make the decision needs to called into question. This shouldn’t just be swept under the carpet.

I don't know how anyone can argue with any of that.

[PaulSmith]

I don't know how anyone can argue with any of that.

The panel is usually made up of an ex referee, ex player and some like a league/club secretary.

I can see a case for the ex-referee but not one for the ex player/administrator.

This one decision shouldn’t mean that the you throw the baby out with the bath water. It’s a ludicrous decision but over the last 12 months the system has generally worked OK.

[JimBHibees]

The panel is usually made up of an ex referee, ex player and some like a league/club secretary.

I can see a case for the ex-referee but not one for the ex player/administrator.

This one decision shouldn’t mean that the you throw the baby out with the bath water. It’s a ludicrous decision but over the last 12 months the system has generally worked OK.

I would say it is imperative someone with playing experience should be part of that panel as to me it is as clear as the nose on your face that many referees simply do not understand the game in things like intent in tackles, gamesmanship etc. Collum would be one of them but not the only one sometimes you think it is clear he just doesn't understand the game.

I don't think it has worked well at all given the completely random nature of why some players are pulled up and others aren't many in identical situations. The sportscene presenters even make jokes about it when reviewing contentious decisions. I can remember Leigh Griffiths got a number of games ban due to pretty stupid but imo minor things usually involved signs to the crowd yet Morelos can walk off at the end of an Old firm game and make a throat slitting gesture and next to no punishment. The fact the SFA think it is ok to say absolutely nothing publically about the Keatings affair says all you need to know about the arrogance that the refereeing fraternity seem to have for players, clubs and fans alike.

[BoomtownHibees]

The panel is usually made up of an ex referee, ex player and some like a league/club secretary.

I can see a case for the ex-referee but not one for the ex player/administrator.

This one decision shouldn’t mean that the you throw the baby out with the bath water. It’s a ludicrous decision but over the last 12 months the system has generally worked OK.

Does it not only need to be 1 out of the 3 that agrees with the original decision for it to be upheld?

Not 100% but sure I read it somewhere when folk were talking about this elsewhere

[PaulSmith]

Does it not only need to be 1 out of the 3 that agrees with the original decision for it to be upheld?

Not 100% but sure I read it somewhere when folk were talking about this elsewhere

Decision needs to be a majority.

[PaulSmith]

Oh and Greg Aitken is actually 4th official at the game today. You’d think that they take him out the firing line for a week or two...

[Aldo]

I understand that the ref has to make a split second decision at the time and in this case he believed there is no contact on JK and he thinks he dives!

We are then led to believe he has put this in his post match report. This is all fine!

However surely when reviewing the footage later that evening or the next day he realised he makes a mistake. He will see there is contact and he has got his decision wrong. He must then inform the powers that be that he was incorrect in booking JK and it should be rescinded!

I wonder if he has been told not to comment on it further by his bosses and that the panel will deal with it.

Now after this decision the integrity of the ref could possibly be in question and he has to live with this day to day. He’ll be getting ripped by his mates for this but maybe whilst he wants to clear things up he’s been told to ‘keep it shut’.

I am still baffled at this decision


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scouse Hibee]

A new panel has been appointed to review the decision. The backlash has had an affect it seems.

[cabbageandribs1875]

off the ball has forced the SFA to check the keatings incident again :)

shouldn't have needed checking again anyway

[Keith_M]

A new panel has been appointed to review the decision. The backlash has had an affect it seems.


Good. The first ruling was ridiculous.

[Oscar T Grouch]

The panel member didn’t look at the evidence 😳

[BoomtownHibees]

Wish I could say this is unbelievable:

“Specifically, 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”

[cabbageandribs1875]

The panel member didn’t look at the evidence 😳

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

[Kaff]

Wish I could say this is unbelievable:

“Specifically, 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”

Going by what is said above then that's 1 (the ex ref) agreed to overturn the refs decision, 1 not reviewed all the available evidence but that still leaves 1 who apparently reviewed all the evidence and still upheld the referees decision.
It's a mess for sure

[SteveHFC]

Big news just in is that the decision to reject Inverness Caledonian Thistle striker James Keatings' appeal against a yellow card for simulation is to be reconsidered by the Scottish FA.Former England striker Gary Lineker is among more than one million people who have signing a petition asking for the decision to be reconsidered.

[Moulin Yarns]

Common sense at last


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51599241

[al1875]

Still think this was an occasion for the Sevco player to come out publicly and admit that there was contact. It will cost him and Sevco nothing to do so. By staying silent, and leaving this injustice hanging is disrespectful to a fellow pro who is going to miss a national cup final.

The SFA might normally think about charging the Sevco player for bringing the game into disrepute, if he did speak out, but the SFA themselves look ludicrous as it stands.


who was the no. 8 ?

[neil7908]

A new panel has been appointed to review the decision. The backlash has had an affect it seems.

That can't be the end of it though. This has only happened after huge pressure from clubs and scrutiny.

How did this frankly ludicrous decision take place? Why did no one at the SFA question it at the time or in the days after?
What is to stop it happening again? It's clearly a broken system so what is the fix?

[lapsedhibee]

The panel member didn’t look at the evidence ��

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

[Ozyhibby]

Yet another SFA failures playing out like a slow motion car crash. We now know they don’t even look at the evidence. [emoji849]Although we knew that from the Lord Nimmo Smith enquiry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

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

I'm not sure if corruption can be proved but it can certainly be said there are clearly no systems in place that include oversight or accountability. Shocking way for a major organisation to carry on.

[BoomtownHibees]

Yet another SFA failures playing out like a slow motion car crash. We now know they don’t even look at the evidence. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could open up a can of worms if other clubs now take them on knowing the fact that the evidence hasn’t been looked at

[neil7908]

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

Yup. Presumably as it was against Sevco they felt evidence wasn't necessary.

No chance in hell this would have happened if it was a OF player.

[bigwheel]

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

[malcolm]

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

Yes an anonymous (fictitious?) member has been good enough to fall on their anonymous sword. Job done but only due to to weight of pressure and avoidance of more ridicule .

[heid the baw]

The only positive thing for the SFA (and Tunnocks) is that they have generated interest in an otherwise pointless final. Suddenly it has become a story and lots of people will be interested in how Keatings does in the game if the decision is overturned