SFA to hold summit over refereeing

[loyalfollower 1,543]

14 hours ago, McEwan's Lager said:

I guess the difference in rugby is that it’s a general convention that only captains speak to the referee and players largely accept decisions without dissent.

Perhaps in football referees feel they have to compete with the histrionics of the players?

Yeah the captains do the talking but also there just seems to be a whole new level of competence in that game with the refs.  We should have var in every top division game installed.  Again the rugby lot use it to a tee whereas we’ve seen the idiots in football make an arse of it.

looking at referees behaviour and 1 that stands out is that bastard collum. Very rarely gives a foul without an agressive hand/arm gesture and the look on his face seems to be pure anger.  I still look at the sponsor that is spec savers and it couldn’t be any more ironic/laughable if they tried.  It’s like the sfa take the piss out of everyone by using specsavers!  Also the fact referees very rarely admit to getting it wrong. John Beaton, Bobby madden and collum have had real howlers not just in our games either but we never see an apology or reason for penalties outside the box or our attackers being booked for a defenders obstruction.

and lets not even start with the compliance officer!

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

2 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

It’s onky your opinion that we are no where as dirty as other teams - one thing I have enjoyed about our team this season is that we are more combative, more physical in our approach and do seem to go in harder. 

One thing I have not enjoyed about our treat is the number of stupid bookings we have picked up for dissent - perhaps that comes with being more combative, we counter more. 

Oh and also on the end of some stupid refereeing - like Collum - but for me that stat does not point to or prove an agenda. 

😂😂 straight from the SNP rulebook, if it doesn’t fit the narrative then it’s just to be ignored. 

[stfu 596]

12 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

At least calling folk paranoid stays on topic - folk bring up my politics - age - and other external shite to validate their argument - it’s funny, and predictable. 

Also I have been provided with NO ( that is ZERO) FACTS  that prove there is an agenda against us - there ate many interpretation and opinions of incidents, and rationale behind this or that decisions but not one fact! And interpretation is always in the eye of the beholder. Hence why I always state my opinion is just that - an opinion - but facts - would love you to give me a FACT that proves agenamda or bias. 

Fact, Rangers hit with five SFA charges following their criticism of referee Willie Collum.

Fact no other team has been charged by SFA for criticising referees. 

Here are the charges in full.

Notice of Complaint | Rangers FC

Wednesday 28 November 2018

Alleged Party in Breach: Rangers FC

Date: Between 8 and 16 November 2018

Disciplinary Rules allegedly breached:

Charge 1:

No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA, shall in an interview, a ‘blog’ on the internet, on a social networking or microblogging site, or in any other manner calculated or likely to lead to publicity (i) criticise the Decision(s) and/or performance(s) of any or all match official(s) in such a way as to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official; or (ii) make remarks about such match official(s) which impinge on his character. For the avoidance of doubt this Rule applies (i) whether reported to the Scottish FA by a match official for Misconduct or otherwise, and (ii) where remarks are brought to the Scottish FA’s attention, or of which the Scottish FA becomes aware, by whatever manner or means. There shall be a presumption that any material published in such manner was published in the name of and/or with the authority of the person or body bearing to have published the material.

Or alternatively:

A club or recognised football body which publishes, distributes, issues, sells or authorises a third party to publish, distribute, issue or sell a match programme or any other publication or audio/visual material of any description in any media now existing or hereinafter invented, including but not limited to the Internet, social networking or micro-blogging sites, shall ensure that any such publications or audio/visual material does not contain any criticism of any match official calculated to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official or to impinge upon his character. There shall be a presumption that any material issued, published, distributed and/or sold in such manner was issued, published, distributed and/ or sold in the name of and/or with the authority of the body bearing to have issued, published, distributed and/or sold the material.

Charge 2:

No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, match official, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.

Charge 3:

A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football. Furthermore such person or body shall not act in any manner which is improper or use any one, or a combination of, violent Conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.

Charge 4:

All members shall:

(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play; (b) be subject to and shall comply with: (i) the Articles; (ii) this Protocol; (iii) the Cup Competition Rules; (iv) the Registration Procedures;

(v) the International Match Calendar; (vi) Club Licensing Procedures; and (vii) any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, Decisions promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport; (c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport as specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA Statutes; (d) respect the Laws of the Game; (e) refrain from engaging in any activity, practice or conduct which would constitute an offence under sections 1, 2 or 6 of the Bribery Act 2010; (f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.

Charge 5:

Each member shall procure that its officials, its Team Officials and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.

Or alternatively:

Each member shall use its best endeavours to procure that its Team Staff its employees and its Team Scout(s) (other than its officials, Team Officials or players) act in accordance with Rule 1.

Or alternatively:

All Parties must keep confidential any information or documentation relating to Proceedings arising under this Protocol which is not in the public domain (including but not limited to the identities of the Panel Members), save where disclosure is allowed under the Protocol and/or required by law.

Principal hearing date: Wednesday 19 December 2018

Response date: Tuesday 4 December 2018

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

8 hours ago, Courtyard Bear said:

😂😂 straight from the SNP rulebook, if it doesn’t fit the narrative then it’s just to be ignored. 

... and yet I didn’t ignore it - go figure! 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

54 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

... and yet I didn’t ignore it - go figure! 

Thats exactly what you do. 

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

5 hours ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Thats exactly what you do. 

I’m ignorong that! 

[Malvern 11,329]

15 hours ago, stfu said:

Fact, Rangers hit with five SFA charges following their criticism of referee Willie Collum.

Fact no other team has been charged by SFA for criticising referees. 

Here are the charges in full.

Notice of Complaint | Rangers FC

Wednesday 28 November 2018

Alleged Party in Breach: Rangers FC

Date: Between 8 and 16 November 2018

Disciplinary Rules allegedly breached:

Charge 1:

No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA, shall in an interview, a ‘blog’ on the internet, on a social networking or microblogging site, or in any other manner calculated or likely to lead to publicity (i) criticise the Decision(s) and/or performance(s) of any or all match official(s) in such a way as to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official; or (ii) make remarks about such match official(s) which impinge on his character. For the avoidance of doubt this Rule applies (i) whether reported to the Scottish FA by a match official for Misconduct or otherwise, and (ii) where remarks are brought to the Scottish FA’s attention, or of which the Scottish FA becomes aware, by whatever manner or means. There shall be a presumption that any material published in such manner was published in the name of and/or with the authority of the person or body bearing to have published the material.

Or alternatively:

A club or recognised football body which publishes, distributes, issues, sells or authorises a third party to publish, distribute, issue or sell a match programme or any other publication or audio/visual material of any description in any media now existing or hereinafter invented, including but not limited to the Internet, social networking or micro-blogging sites, shall ensure that any such publications or audio/visual material does not contain any criticism of any match official calculated to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official or to impinge upon his character. There shall be a presumption that any material issued, published, distributed and/or sold in such manner was issued, published, distributed and/ or sold in the name of and/or with the authority of the body bearing to have issued, published, distributed and/or sold the material.

Charge 2:

No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, match official, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.

Charge 3:

A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football. Furthermore such person or body shall not act in any manner which is improper or use any one, or a combination of, violent Conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.

Charge 4:

All members shall:

(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play; (b) be subject to and shall comply with: (i) the Articles; (ii) this Protocol; (iii) the Cup Competition Rules; (iv) the Registration Procedures;

(v) the International Match Calendar; (vi) Club Licensing Procedures; and (vii) any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, Decisions promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport; (c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport as specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA Statutes; (d) respect the Laws of the Game; (e) refrain from engaging in any activity, practice or conduct which would constitute an offence under sections 1, 2 or 6 of the Bribery Act 2010; (f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.

Charge 5:

Each member shall procure that its officials, its Team Officials and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.

Or alternatively:

Each member shall use its best endeavours to procure that its Team Staff its employees and its Team Scout(s) (other than its officials, Team Officials or players) act in accordance with Rule 1.

Or alternatively:

All Parties must keep confidential any information or documentation relating to Proceedings arising under this Protocol which is not in the public domain (including but not limited to the identities of the Panel Members), save where disclosure is allowed under the Protocol and/or required by law.

Principal hearing date: Wednesday 19 December 2018

Response date: Tuesday 4 December 2018

Reads like May's Brexit deal as it is just now.

[BlueKnight87 17,286]

On 08/12/2018 at 21:59, 1690tamRFC said:

3 days as was the sanctions from st mirren. 

That's Levein finally been charged for post match comments

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,722]

1 hour ago, BlueKnight87 said:

That's Levein finally been charged for post match comments

Better late than never.

[bluechip 359]

18 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

I’m ignorong that! 

Thought that was quite funny to be fair. 🤣🤣

[Straight-Edge-Loyal 6,686]

On 11/12/2018 at 09:24, stfu said:

Fact, Rangers hit with five SFA charges following their criticism of referee Willie Collum.

Fact no other team has been charged by SFA for criticising referees. 

Here are the charges in full.

Notice of Complaint | Rangers FC

Wednesday 28 November 2018

Alleged Party in Breach: Rangers FC

Date: Between 8 and 16 November 2018

Disciplinary Rules allegedly breached:

Charge 1:

No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA, shall in an interview, a ‘blog’ on the internet, on a social networking or microblogging site, or in any other manner calculated or likely to lead to publicity (i) criticise the Decision(s) and/or performance(s) of any or all match official(s) in such a way as to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official; or (ii) make remarks about such match official(s) which impinge on his character. For the avoidance of doubt this Rule applies (i) whether reported to the Scottish FA by a match official for Misconduct or otherwise, and (ii) where remarks are brought to the Scottish FA’s attention, or of which the Scottish FA becomes aware, by whatever manner or means. There shall be a presumption that any material published in such manner was published in the name of and/or with the authority of the person or body bearing to have published the material.

Or alternatively:

A club or recognised football body which publishes, distributes, issues, sells or authorises a third party to publish, distribute, issue or sell a match programme or any other publication or audio/visual material of any description in any media now existing or hereinafter invented, including but not limited to the Internet, social networking or micro-blogging sites, shall ensure that any such publications or audio/visual material does not contain any criticism of any match official calculated to indicate bias or incompetence on the part of such match official or to impinge upon his character. There shall be a presumption that any material issued, published, distributed and/or sold in such manner was issued, published, distributed and/ or sold in the name of and/or with the authority of the body bearing to have issued, published, distributed and/or sold the material.

Charge 2:

No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, match official, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.

Charge 3:

A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football. Furthermore such person or body shall not act in any manner which is improper or use any one, or a combination of, violent Conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.

Charge 4:

All members shall:

(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play; (b) be subject to and shall comply with: (i) the Articles; (ii) this Protocol; (iii) the Cup Competition Rules; (iv) the Registration Procedures;

(v) the International Match Calendar; (vi) Club Licensing Procedures; and (vii) any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, Decisions promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport; (c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport as specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA Statutes; (d) respect the Laws of the Game; (e) refrain from engaging in any activity, practice or conduct which would constitute an offence under sections 1, 2 or 6 of the Bribery Act 2010; (f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.

Charge 5:

Each member shall procure that its officials, its Team Officials and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.

Or alternatively:

Each member shall use its best endeavours to procure that its Team Staff its employees and its Team Scout(s) (other than its officials, Team Officials or players) act in accordance with Rule 1.

Or alternatively:

All Parties must keep confidential any information or documentation relating to Proceedings arising under this Protocol which is not in the public domain (including but not limited to the identities of the Panel Members), save where disclosure is allowed under the Protocol and/or required by law.

Principal hearing date: Wednesday 19 December 2018

Response date: Tuesday 4 December 2018

Didn't Steve Clarke get banned for having a go at a ref?

[Bears 792]

On 10/12/2018 at 21:37, Bluepeter9 said:

At least calling folk paranoid stays on topic - folk bring up my politics - age - and other external shite to validate their argument - it’s funny, and predictable. 

Also I have been provided with NO ( that is ZERO) FACTS  that prove there is an agenda against us - there ate many interpretation and opinions of incidents, and rationale behind this or that decisions but not one fact! And interpretation is always in the eye of the beholder. Hence why I always state my opinion is just that - an opinion - but facts - would love you to give me a FACT that proves agenamda or bias. 

The problem is that you get to decide if something is a fact or not. And there's a strong probability that whatever is (and has been) offered to you will (and has been) rejected immediately by you. Basically because it doesn't fit your own agenda. Is there any proof or evidence you would accept?

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

2 hours ago, Bears said:

The problem is that you get to decide if something is a fact or not. And there's a strong probability that whatever is (and has been) offered to you will (and has been) rejected immediately by you. Basically because it doesn't fit your own agenda. Is there any proof or evidence you would accept?

Sorry but a fact is not open to interpretation - a fact is measurable, repeatedly measurable. ‘I wear specs’ is  a fact - ‘i look better in specs’ is an opinion. 

I know my explaination is kinda simple but your post above demonstrated to me I would need to keep it simple.  Orvyou to keep up. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

33 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

Sorry but a fact is not open to interpretation - a fact is measurable, repeatedly measurable. ‘I wear specs’ is  a fact - ‘i look better in specs’ is an opinion. 

I know my explaination is kinda simple but your post above demonstrated to me I would need to keep it simple.  Orvyou to keep up. 

Rangers players get booked after less tackles than any other team in the League. 

Thats a FACT for you to ignore. 

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

58 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Rangers players get booked after less tackles than any other team in the League. 

Thats a FACT for you to ignore. 

I’ve already answered that point - and yes it is a fact! Good lad. But any interpretation of that FACT, like is shows bias - is an opinion - my opinion is a few posts back. 

[A.T.G 10,773]

On 10/12/2018 at 16:25, Ivybank said:

Knowing a retired professional referee, there are a couple of refs that despise us , but the rest are in his words incompetent

 

On 10/12/2018 at 16:46, BridgeIsBlue said:

So who are they? 

Answer the man

[Dickie 12,905]

2 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

I’ve already answered that point - and yes it is a fact! Good lad. But any interpretation of that FACT, like is shows bias - is an opinion - my opinion is a few posts back. 

So you are saying a fact is not open to interpretation but then give your interpretation of a fact. Sorry but you’ve lost me. 

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

4 hours ago, Dickie said:

So you are saying a fact is not open to interpretation but then give your interpretation of a fact. Sorry but you’ve lost me. 

Try learning to read before trying to have a pop. 

The moment you interpret a fact - you provide an opinion. Facts are indisputable - measurable. 

 Know many folks on here have very high opinions of themselves and State their opinions as fact and want their opinions treated like fact but the fact is they are only opinions. 

[NamibianBear 1,851]

8 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

Try learning to read before trying to have a pop. 

The moment you interpret a fact - you provide an opinion. Facts are indisputable - measurable. 

 Know many folks on here have very high opinions of themselves and State their opinions as fact and want their opinions treated like fact but the fact is they are only opinions. 

It seems to be they make more 'mistakes" against us than other teams. so it is my opinion that the refs in Scotland are shite and that they do show more bias against us than other teams.  It also appears that punishments are heavier towards us than other teams.

Is that fair?

[Dickie 12,905]

1 hour ago, Bluepeter9 said:

Try learning to read before trying to have a pop. 

The moment you interpret a fact - you provide an opinion. Facts are indisputable - measurable. 

 Know many folks on here have very high opinions of themselves and State their opinions as fact and want their opinions treated like fact but the fact is they are only opinions. 

There is no cunt on here has a higher opinion of themselves than you. You continually talk down to people “try learning to read” or  “good lad “ to CB. Because someone is perhaps better educated than others does not mean they are smarter(maybe not a fact but it’s my opinion). I know you come on here for some perverse reason just to argue with people and most of the time it’s just for attention but all your effort to make yourself different only makes you out to be an obnoxious prick.

 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

9 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

I’ve already answered that point - and yes it is a fact! Good lad. But any interpretation of that FACT, like is shows bias - is an opinion - my opinion is a few posts back. 

Oh so you think we are the dirtiest team in the league then, that’s good to know. 

As for the “good lad” dig, I’ve learned to accept condescending bullshit from Yes voting republican muppets like yourself. For some weird reason all you idiots think because you voted Yes you are somehow superior to anyone that didn’t, not unsurprisingly though that is just more bullshit. 

[Bears 792]

14 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

Sorry but a fact is not open to interpretation - a fact is measurable, repeatedly measurable. ‘I wear specs’ is  a fact - ‘i look better in specs’ is an opinion. 

I know my explaination is kinda simple but your post above demonstrated to me I would need to keep it simple.  Orvyou to keep up. 

And what facts could be offered in this situation be offered in this matter that you also could consider as acceptable? Think of it like a Venn diagram - anything in the middle? One other issue... what constitutes a fact? Not all facts are of a material nature like your specs. Who gets to decide? You? Me? Online poll? Can I guess that you would like to be the arbiter of all facts/not and that those who disagree will be in the 'paranoid' camp?

[theiconicman 2,991]

Well the point being missed is we don't live our lives only armed with facts. Facts are used to support hypothesis and opinion. An opinion supported by fact is a persuasive argument. 

The fact that we have one of the fewest number of fouls yet the highest number of yellow cards/ red cards would suggest an issue. Also considering that we have few injuries to either us or the oppoisition would also suggest these fouls are not for reckless or violent behaviour.

I would then argue that we're being held to a different standard than other teams and would want that highlighted and addressed by the referees.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

51 minutes ago, Bears said:

And what facts could be offered in this situation be offered in this matter that you also could consider as acceptable? Think of it like a Venn diagram - anything in the middle? One other issue... what constitutes a fact? Not all facts are of a material nature like your specs. Who gets to decide? You? Me? Online poll? Can I guess that you would like to be the arbiter of all facts/not and that those who disagree will be in the 'paranoid' camp?

That’s exactly what he does mate, just like all the rest of the SNP brainless. Anything that fits their agenda is hailed like some religious text, anything that doesn’t fit is cast aside as the work of the febble minded. 

Worst cunts. 

[Bears 792]

16 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

Sorry but a fact is not open to interpretation - a fact is measurable, repeatedly measurable. ‘I wear specs’ is  a fact - ‘i look better in specs’ is an opinion. 

I know my explaination is kinda simple but your post above demonstrated to me I would need to keep it simple.  Orvyou to keep up. 

 

7 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

Try learning to read before trying to have a pop. 

The moment you interpret a fact - you provide an opinion. Facts are indisputable - measurable. 

 Know many folks on here have very high opinions of themselves and State their opinions as fact and want their opinions treated like fact but the fact is they are only opinions. 

Your line 2 of quote 2 completely contradicts line 1 of quote 1. I've even bolded it to make it clear.

Which makes the smartarse jibes about how intelligent you are compared to the rest of us rather entertaining, in a non-schadenfreude manner of course.