Keatings loses appeal for diving

[al1875]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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?

[Ozyhibby]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

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

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

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]

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

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


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]

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

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

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]

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

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

[HoboHarry]

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

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

[Northernhibee]

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

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

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

[bigwheel]

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

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

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Northernhibee]

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

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

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

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

[bigwheel]

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

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

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

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

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

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

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

[bigwheel]

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

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

Was it the guide dog that made that call?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

The timing of this is also clearly deliberate.

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

[Caversham Green]

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

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

[HoboHarry]

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

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

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

This calls into question the validity of every decision these panels have made.

[Moulin Yarns]

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

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

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

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

[Oscar T Grouch]

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

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

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

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

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

[hibby rae]

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

[Deansy]

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

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


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


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

[cabbageandribs1875]

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

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

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

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

[Rumble de Thump]

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

[BoomtownHibees]

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

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

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

[Keith_M]

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

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

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

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

[PaulSmith]

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

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

[Michael]

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

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

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

The panel requires a majority verdict to overturn a decision:

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

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