Keatings loses appeal for diving

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

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

The panel requires a majority verdict to overturn a decision:

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

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

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

[JimBHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

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

The panel requires a majority verdict to overturn a decision:

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

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

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

[JimBHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

Seems the wrong people are untouchable.

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

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

Why? So we have someone to blame ?

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BoomtownHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why? So we have someone to blame ?

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BoomtownHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

[JimBHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why? So we have someone to blame ?

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

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

[Rumble de Thump]

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

[Eyrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

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

[lord bunberry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

That’s exactly how I see it. This is a made up story to try and take the heat out of the situation. They didn’t expect the huge backlash that’s resulted from the original decision and have reacted with this nonsense of a statement to try and save face. Yet another shambles of their own making.

[JimBHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Definitely should be accountable to joe public imo.

[JimBHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

Agree

[CockneyRebel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

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

I won't hold my breath.

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

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

[greenlex]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

I’m not certain but I’m sure it was released pre game time.

[oldbutdim]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

[brog]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

[skyhibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

What makes you say that? From what I've seen most appeals seem to have the correct outcome.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why? So we have someone to blame ?

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

Any idea how big the pool of panellists is?

[Ozyhibby]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk